Sure. But quite often people can talk a very good story - without having the skills/experience/training to back that talk up.
Yeah. But standardized tests require less effort for busy busy interviewers. And they also provide ... a standard. And a paper trail. Not that these are good, but you can see how the decisions were made.
In today's corporate world where everything is geared to immediate short term profits, I can't see them functioning without a safety net.
Like I said - not the best idea ever introduced in MBA curricula. See how far we've come from a "happier" and "more productive" placement?
Well, you check everything you can before considering him. A psych test is just one part of the puzzle.
The thing about those tests imo is that they really only highlight a sliver of our core personalities. Under actual deadline pressure, for example, you might respond differently than how you answered the question on the test. Sort of follows suit with how many people are terrible interviewees, but kill it in the workplace. Others are awesome interviewees, but basically fabricated their experience and skill set, and end up doing very poorly at their jobs. Those tests really won't guarantee that someone is fit or not fit for a particular job.
But they're good at eliminating the best candidates. In my experience, well qualified, confident people don't submit to testing. It's intrusive, it's demeaning and it's almost wholly meaningless.
It is annoying, indeed. But for me, it was simply part of the hiring process. They liked my resume, the first interview went well, and before you escalate to the final interview, you simply had to “submit” to the test. No choice, everyone has been required to take it during the hiring process. Would you refuse to take it, even though you thought the position and company would be ideal for you?
As for a job interview, it falls in the same category as peeing in a jar. One of those annoying rituals.
There is a choice: you can say, "No thanks" and if they insist, you can either walk out then and there, or take the test and refuse the job. That's a contradiction in terms. A company with that policy could not be ideal for me; I'd expect them to have other policies, like overtime without pay, obligatory 'team-building exercises' and employee appreciation barbeques where you're allowed one hot dog or hamburger and one slice of melon. (I'm not making this one up - it was in the parking lot of IBM.) Some even intrude so far as to require drug testing. Thing is, it's a buyer's market: the bosses know they can get away with this shit, because good jobs are hard to find.
It is in certain companies. Nintendo, you take a urinalysis, for example. For certain industries that have high turnover rate...you are more likely to have aptitude tests. No one likes them but if the most qualified truly were refusing and leaving, the tests wouldn't be continued. They aren't supposed to be guarantees, nothing in life is.
Corporate America does require a certain skill set. I'm not condoning all aspects of it but it does require a certain skill set to be successful. Most policies do have logic and results behind them. The same people (most people) posting here that "we" are smarter and know more than "they" do are basically the "they" being referred to. Meaning that there is not an "us" the smart ones and "them" the idiots. Most of "us" have worked in corporate America. We just don't like a lot of the policies (me included) but there are reasons for those policies and frequently good ones.
How would they know? The ones who refuse don't get past the office of the recruiter who lost them, who doesn't want the blame for losing a good prospect and doesn't put that on the form as "reason for rejection". Remember - everybody lies. Corporate America runs on deceit. Oh, and debt: they know they can make you jump through hoops because you have student loans and mortgages and car payments.
I worked in a manufacturing company once, in the Engineering Dept. I had a good friend who was a good engineer but she wasn't good at dealing with the other engineers who were mainly guys. None of them were "bullies". They were demanding where necessary, results oriented and she wasn't. She was too concerned with how they talked to her (they talked to her like they talked to everyone else). She would ignore a meeting with someone who rubbed her the wrong way or go to her boss and complain. As I said she was, and is, one of my best friends. I'm on her side in most every situation but I had to admit (only to myself) that she wasn't very effective in her job. If a personality test had weeded her out (in part) for this job then it would actually have done her a service. Corporate America does require a certain toughness and results orientation generally.
