In a world where job seekers are high in supply, finding Mr or Mrs Right should be easy for recruiters. But it isn’t. Deciding which candidate has the edge over another can be a lengthy, time-consuming process. Flawed decisions are expensive and difficult to reverse. And so, to reduce uncertainty, many have turned to science – in the shape of psychometric tests.
These are questionnaires designed to profile an individual on their personality, intelligence and ability to carry out a job. Currently 2,500 psychometric tests are used in the US for recruitment purposes – the most popular being the Myers-Brigg Type Indicator. This, as of 2012, has been deployed by 89 of the Fortune 100 companies.
In recruitment, having more information may not necessarily make it a more accurate process
The real you
Proponents of psychometric tests argue that they help employers to understand how a candidate would actually behave in a role, as opposed to how they say they would. You cannot pass or fail a psychometric test, as they simply give an overview of a person’s strengths and weaknesses. They might tell an employer whether a candidate is extravert or introvert, creative or rigid, conscientious or relaxed. Such information is useful when there are roles that demand certain characteristics such as sociability.
Recruiters like psychometric tests as they are easy to administer, relatively cheap and give them a speedier and – allegedly – more objective method to weed out job applicants. What’s more is that they reduce the chance of judging them on superficial characteristics. Some argue that psychometric tests can be useful for the candidate, ensuring that they do not get recruited into a role which they are unsuited to.
If only it was that simple
In theory, psychometric tests are the perfect solution to the challenge of recruitment. Matchmaking websites such as e-Harmony thrive on the idea that chemistry between people – albeit in a romantic context – can be predicted through compatibility questionnaires. In the workplace, it’s no different. Psychometric profiles give some reassurance to employers that they are putting teams together in the best possible way; in a ‘scientific’ way. But is this method legitimate, and enough?
Critics of psychometric tests argue that they are too reductionist as a form of recruitment, and that gut instinct is often a far more important decider of a candidate’s suitability to a job. In his book Blink, Malcolm Gladwell argues that our brain has a unique ability to make decisions about people using a very narrow set of information. Speaking about this aptitude, he writes “our world requires that decisions be sourced and footnoted, and if we say how we feel, we must also be prepared to elaborate on why we feel that way… We need to respect the fact that it is possible to know without knowing why we know and accept that – sometimes – we’re better off that way.” In recruitment, having more information may not necessarily make it a more accurate process. Instinct alone can be a powerful method of deciphering which candidate is best for a role.
Of course, meeting in person does happen at many firms, allowing recruiters to use their gut instinct. But most of these appointments are for the purpose of checking a candidate’s psychometric tests.
Other critics suggest that it is not possible to test constructs such as personality and intelligence. Indeed, scientists have found it notoriously difficult to agree about what constitutes each, with numerous definitions of personality in existence. One person’s idea of an extravert can differ enormously from another’s. Some also believe that personality has a strong situational component, meaning no one has a fixed set of traits. In fact, many psychologists argue the way we behave depends on the environments and contexts in which we find ourselves. This presents a huge issue for psychometric tests. Some of these include situational elements, but many treat personality as a constant state of being.
What is clear from research into psychometric testing is that it does have some merit. Studies have shown that it is hard to lie on them, so a candidate cannot fake their talents, and that they often predict workplace performance. However, industry experts such as John Rust, Director of the University of Cambridge’s Psychometrics Centre, recommend that they should not be used in isolation, and that recruiters interview candidates to validate their results. And perhaps that’s because, ultimately, there is no comparison to sitting with a person, face-to-face, when it comes to sizing them up.
Measuring people, on a professional and personal level, is never easy. But numbers alone are not enough to build teams of people, or identify who is going to perform better than another. Psychometric tests are still very much in development, and cannot be relied on as the Holy Grail in recruitment. Often hiring people is about a little bit of intuition, and a whole lot of chance.