The role of HR departments is too big nowadays – people admin, payroll, compliance, “DEI”, “ESG”, recruiting, firing and what not. HR has become a cost center that is often not treated seriously. It is tasked with internal admin and policing, and on top of it ensuring a steady influx of skilled and competent talent while avoiding both false positives and negatives in recruiting. HR lacks the respect to impact the organization, while tasked with liasing between candidates and hiring managers. This isn’t an easy task by any stretch and HR is overburdened, as HR teams need to be diligent, tactical, and leverage the right tools – ATS, payroll systems and testing – eg. traditional assessments – software and HRtech solutions.
Unfortunately, on the topic of assessments, due to the nature of the test providers’ business model, assessments are used as an insurance policy effectively to “cover your base” in HR, and by hiring managers. The way assessments function they’ve all too often become a rubber stamp of approval for HR and/or hiring managers to not get the blame for making a false positive hiring decision, namely, hiring a candidate that doesn’t fit. This doesn’t necessarily have to do with internal recruitment processes, but the test providers’ business model of charging per test and/or per candidate tested.
So, why does a hiring funnel brimming with good candidates often result in sub-optimal use of assessments? Can we mitigate the pitfalls of paying per candidate or per test, while reducing bias and facilitating a more objective hiring process? Let’s dive into this.
The Pervasive Problem of False Positives and Negatives in Recruiting
False positives in recruiting occur where a candidate appears to be the right fit but underperforms post-hire. False positives not only can cripple an organization’s productivity, but are a major cost on any organization. The estimates of a ‘bad hire’ vary __ABC____
False negatives in recruiting, where a potentially great hire is overlooked, cause missed opportunities and hamper long-term growth.
Both false positives (bad hires) and false negatives (ignoring or dismissing top applicants in your recruitment process) are two sides of the same coin: biases and heuristics merged with inefficient recruiting practices and processes. Both of these scenarios represent a considerable cost and are symptomatic of a flawed hiring process.
Reasons for this vary from CV screening bias, to dumb ATS keyword parsing HRtech, to unstructured interview bias. ___DATA ON POOR HIRES____ Given that recruiting is so inefficient and tangled up with internal politics and a desire by hiring managers and organizations to ‘spread out’ accountability for potential bad hires, insurance would come in handy wouldn’t it? And there is such ‘insurance’.
Traditional assessments, particularly psychometric tests, offer an insurance policy of sorts. On the one hand, by providing comprehensive insight into a candidate’s abilities and potential, these tools help HR professionals make informed, objective decisions, reduce the incidence of false positives and negatives. However, this is only if such tests are applied very early, or in the beginning, of the hiring funnel – so all candidates can be assessed. The problem is that such tests – above all due to their price – are often deployed late or at the very end of recruitment processes.
The Hiring Funnel and The Sub-Optimal Use of Assessments
A well-structured hiring funnel and offering is key to a successful recruitment process. However, a common error is the sub-optimal use of assessments within this funnel. While it may seem intuitive to save time and resources by using assessments only for shortlisted and final round candidates, this approach can overlook promising talent and it certainly fosters bias. Especially if HR uses ATS-like ‘keyword’ screening tools.
The optimal use of assessments involves administering them at an earlier stage – ideally, at the beginning of the hiring funnel. It allows recruiters to objectively screen a broader pool of candidates, improving overall hiring quality and reducing the risk of bias that can creep into human-led processes. Or, even better, what if candidates could carry their recruitment assessment profile just like a card in their wallet? Given today’s state of technology that is absolutely possible.
The Pay-per-Candidate and Pay-per-Test Problem
Paying per candidate or per test has been a traditional method employed by test providers to charge for their tests. While seemingly cost-effective, this approach can limit the effective use of assessments. Moreover, it is perverse – it discourages HR, recruiters and companies from using assessments. Wonder why only corporates use psychometric assessments? Because they are so expensive in terms of price, and time needed to administer them.
When you’re paying per candidate, there’s an inherent pressure to limit the number of candidates assessed. Similarly, paying per test may discourage comprehensive evaluations, leading to insufficient data and potentially flawed hiring decisions. An investment in a more flexible, unlimited testing policy could prove more beneficial in the long run, allowing a broader and more accurate assessment of the talent pool.
Assessments as an Insurance Policy
Assessments, rooted in scientific methods or simply skills testing, provide a robust tool for understanding a candidate’s abilities, behavioral tendencies, personality traits and technical skills. As an insurance policy, these assessments mitigate the risk of false positives and negatives, fostering a more reliable and efficient hiring process.
However, it’s essential to use these assessments judiciously. Over-reliance on them can exclude candidates with unconventional skill sets or experiences. Thus, these tests should complement other assessment methods, such as interviews and work samples, to build a comprehensive candidate profile.
Minimizing Bias with Traditional Assessments
One of the most significant challenges in recruitment is mitigating bias, both conscious and unconscious. Traditional assessments offer a degree of objectivity that can help combat this issue. By employing scientifically validated tools, recruiters can base their decisions on quantifiable data, reducing the risk of bias and fostering a more diverse and inclusive workforce.
However, even traditional assessments can unintentionally perpetuate bias if not properly validated for diverse populations. Therefore, it’s crucial to continuously monitor and refine these tools to ensure they remain fair and reliable.
Conclusion
Like an insurance policy, traditional assessments can help safeguard against the costly mistakes and pitfalls associated with the hiring process. They provide a more objective, data-driven approach to evaluating a large pool of candidates, mitigating the risks of false positives and negatives, and reducing bias.
Remember, though, that these assessments are not a panacea. They should be used in combination with other evaluation methods, and regularly scrutinized and refined to maintain their validity and fairness. By doing so, HR departments can strike the perfect balance between efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and quality in their recruitment process, truly covering all bases in the volatile landscape of talent acquisition.
In the realm of HR, as in life, a comprehensive insurance policy is always a good idea. Traditional assessments offer just that, but with a clear focus on ROI, fair practices, and a forward-thinking strategy, you can convert these tools from mere insurance to strategic weapons in the war for talent.
The Rubber Stamp of Approval and Expensive Tests: A Costly Affair
In many organizations, traditional assessments have become a mere ‘rubber stamp of approval’ in the recruitment process. Their use often signifies the validation of a hiring decision more than an attempt to objectively gauge a candidate’s suitability for the role. This approach can lead to a dangerous reliance on expensive tests that provide little added value.
More than a costly investment, these assessments can obfuscate the true value of other, less expensive evaluation methods. It is crucial, then, to scrutinize the purpose of every tool used in the hiring process, asking whether it adds substantial value or simply serves as an expensive rubber stamp.
Office Politics and Diffusing Accountability in Recruitment
Office politics can significantly impact the recruitment process, leading to a diffusion of accountability. This phenomenon often occurs when multiple parties – hiring managers, teams, and recruiters – are involved in hiring decisions, leading to a division of responsibility that can mask bias and perpetuate unfair practices.
A lack of accountability can even become an implicit goal of an organization, serving as a mechanism to avoid blame for poor hiring decisions. This culture not only undermines the effectiveness of the recruitment process but can also foster a toxic work environment.
The Role of Hiring Managers, Teams, and Recruiters in the Distribution of Risk
When it comes to hiring, the division of responsibility among hiring managers, teams, and recruiters can be both a strength and a weakness. On one hand, it allows for the distribution of risk among individuals involved in the hiring process, mitigating the impact of a single poor decision. On the other hand, it can lead to a diffusion of accountability, making it difficult to pinpoint where and how a hiring process fails when it does.
Effective risk distribution involves striking a balance. There should be clear delineation and understanding of each party’s responsibilities, ensuring everyone involved in the hiring process is accountable for their part. Regular check-ins and feedback sessions can help maintain this balance, promoting transparency and continuous improvement in recruitment practices.
Navigating the Maze of Accountability in Recruitment
Avoiding accountability for hiring decisions is a dangerous and counterproductive strategy. It undermines the integrity of the recruitment process and can lead to sub-optimal outcomes, such as hiring unsuitable candidates, perpetuating bias, and damaging the organization’s reputation.
Instead of avoiding accountability, organizations should embrace it. Clear guidelines and expectations for hiring managers, recruiters, and teams can foster a culture of responsibility, where everyone acknowledges their role in the hiring process. Regular training and awareness programs can also help counteract the effects of office politics, promoting a fair and unbiased recruitment process.
In conclusion, the use of traditional assessments should go beyond being a mere insurance policy or a rubber stamp of approval. They should be part of a comprehensive, accountable recruitment process that values objectivity, fairness, and effectiveness. By doing so, organizations can not only mitigate the risks associated with hiring but also build a strong, competent workforce that drives long-term success.
Unveiling the Hidden Motives of the Assessment Industry
In an ideal world, the primary goal of the assessment industry should be to streamline and improve the efficiency of the recruitment process. However, it’s crucial to note that, like any other business, assessment providers are inherently motivated by profit. This can, unfortunately, lead to a paradox where the assessment industry benefits from recruiting inefficiency.
Volume Sales: The Veiled Objective of Assessment Providers
In the commercial world, volume often equates to profit. The assessment industry is no exception. The primary goal of many assessment providers is to sell volumes of tests and associated services, and it’s a goal that doesn’t always align with the needs or interests of recruiters.
Consider this: if a particular psychometric test uncovers a candidate’s suitability with high precision, there will be less demand for repeated or additional assessments. Thus, the efficiency of recruitment can inversely affect the profits of assessment providers, leading to a potential conflict of interest. The industry’s desire to sell high volumes of tests may inadvertently contribute to an inefficient, bloated recruitment process.
The Misalignment of Incentives: Test Providers vs. Recruiters
The misalignment of incentives between test providers and recruiters adds another layer of complexity to the equation. Recruiters aim to streamline the hiring process, identifying suitable candidates swiftly and accurately. In contrast, test providers’ profitability often relies on the sale of extensive testing packages, potentially slowing down the recruitment process and increasing its complexity.
This disconnect can create a situation where the services offered by assessment providers do not necessarily meet the needs of recruiters. For instance, a recruiter might require a simple, focused assessment to gauge a candidate’s specific skill set, while a test provider might promote a comprehensive, multi-faceted test package that evaluates a wide range of competencies, many of which might be irrelevant to the position in question.
Navigating the Assessment Industry: A Call for Transparency and Alignment
In light of these challenges, transparency and alignment of incentives become critical. Recruiters need to be discerning customers, understanding the motivations of assessment providers and selecting services that truly meet their needs. They should demand transparency from providers regarding the necessity and efficacy of their offerings and ensure that the chosen tests genuinely contribute to an efficient and effective recruitment process.
Likewise, test providers must recognize that their long-term success lies in supporting recruiters in their primary goal: to identify and hire the best candidates in the most efficient manner possible. This may mean re-evaluating their business models, focusing on the quality of assessments rather than sheer volume, and aligning their services more closely with the needs of recruiters.
In summary, it’s essential to navigate the complex landscape of the assessment industry with a keen understanding of the different stakeholders’ motivations. By seeking alignment and transparency, recruiters can effectively leverage assessments as valuable tools, rather than unnecessary burdens, in the quest for talent.