skill and personality tests for management

[BH]

Hello,

I have a question for those of you in the know as far as the Psychology discipline goes. I work for a shoe,purse, and clothing retailer who makes all of its managerial applicants take various written tests to detect skills and ethical values. My question is that if these tests are so reliable why does it seem I have to run off so many of my assistants and supervisors for theft and why do so many of them have trouble with basic reading?

Of course I can't say who I work for and the policy states these tests have to be administered and the district manager fills these spots, but I honestly feel like I could fill these spots better on my own.

Am I right on track, am I totally wrong, or is something going on I have not considered yet?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Since you have noted the system has failed in your direct experience, you seem to have your answer. Apparently the powers that be in your company have adopted these tests for reasons other than the fact they work. These sorts of things have indeed been a sort of fads for management for years now, lots of companies have touted their systems which may not be so useful. I have a sister that worked in Japan for a few years and the Japanese are big on such things, often based on ludicrous concepts.

To put this in perspective...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a6yabfOtf4

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) They're far more a fad than serious science.

2) Think people can't game the tests to cover up things the test is looking for?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

There used to be a saying among computer systems designers, "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM". And so nobody ever got fired for hiring a reputable firm to help with hiring decisions. Screening prospective employees this way is easy and one can always say, "We did the best we knew how".

 

[BH]

I agree with what all of you have said. Thank you for your replies to this thread I have started.

In my personal opinion, I think a lot of what is considered "qualified" is really in a lot of cases just a matter of opinion. These tests are used to give the front of objectivity to it. They are going to hire whoever they want, and the tests can be used as a reason to decline them if they wish to use them for such.

 

[BH]

1) They're far more a fad than serious science.

2) Think people can't game the tests to cover up things the test is looking for?

Yes.

I know a former regional manager for a phone company that told me that she had no problem having HR change the test results to give the desired results for whoever she wanted to get a position. Her HR managers were close friends of hers.

I've also had a postmaster admit pretty much the same thing about civil service exams. Their managers higher up tell them who they will hire, or at least what they will look for. I tried to get a job at the post office once and the postmaster went to my church at the time. He took me aside and said he was very sorry but he could not hire me because his higher ups told him the only people he can hire right now were women and minorities. He did not want me to be mad at him and told me he was sure I would have done a good job if he could have hired me.

I'm not trying to pick on women and minorites but what he said is what he said.

 

[Bronzeage]

Hiring personnel is the single most stressful part of management. It is always a gamble and it puts your judgment on display for the world to see. Anything which removes the smallest part of the burden is welcome. Education requirements are the first filter. You'll only talk to high school grads for cashier work, when the math is 6th grade level. You'll only talk to college grads when it's basically a clerical job.

I've seen everything from lie detector tests to handwriting analysis used to filter out applicants. Your company has these tests not because they work, but only because it narrows the field of applicants. Even though you say you could fill these spots better on your own, do you really have that much time?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) They're far more a fad than serious science.

2) Think people can't game the tests to cover up things the test is looking for?

Yes.

I know a former regional manager for a phone company that told me that she had no problem having HR change the test results to give the desired results for whoever she wanted to get a position. Her HR managers were close friends of hers.

I've also had a postmaster admit pretty much the same thing about civil service exams. Their managers higher up tell them who they will hire, or at least what they will look for. I tried to get a job at the post office once and the postmaster went to my church at the time. He took me aside and said he was very sorry but he could not hire me because his higher ups told him the only people he can hire right now were women and minorities. He did not want me to be mad at him and told me he was sure I would have done a good job if he could have hired me.

I'm not trying to pick on women and minorites but what he said is what he said.

I don't see that this is picking on women and minorities, but rather a clear case of reverse discrimination.

 

[DBT]

Many of the questions in personality tests define the elements that are considered desirable. Rather than give honest answers the participant, for whatever reason, can tick the questions that gives the best result.

 

[bilby]

There is a massive industry based on this kind of testing for employees; and like many other pseudoscientific industries, the popularity of the tests has no relationship to their effectiveness.

Wherever there's money, there will be parasitic pseudoscience.

 

[BH]

Yes.

I know a former regional manager for a phone company that told me that she had no problem having HR change the test results to give the desired results for whoever she wanted to get a position. Her HR managers were close friends of hers.

I've also had a postmaster admit pretty much the same thing about civil service exams. Their managers higher up tell them who they will hire, or at least what they will look for. I tried to get a job at the post office once and the postmaster went to my church at the time. He took me aside and said he was very sorry but he could not hire me because his higher ups told him the only people he can hire right now were women and minorities. He did not want me to be mad at him and told me he was sure I would have done a good job if he could have hired me.

I'm not trying to pick on women and minorites but what he said is what he said.

I don't see that this is picking on women and minorities, but rather a clear case of reverse discrimination.

I agree to some degree but understand why there is a need for Affirmative Action. Case in point. When younger I had an uncle who owned a small business who made no secret he hated blacks and among family said he would never hire them. He owned a small shop that only employed maybe 5 people at most so he was pretty much under the radar and got away with it.

It isn't fair to me what happened at the Post Office but how do you protect the black people from folks like my uncle and others?

 

[BH]

Hiring personnel is the single most stressful part of management. It is always a gamble and it puts your judgment on display for the world to see. Anything which removes the smallest part of the burden is welcome. Education requirements are the first filter. You'll only talk to high school grads for cashier work, when the math is 6th grade level. You'll only talk to college grads when it's basically a clerical job.

I've seen everything from lie detector tests to handwriting analysis used to filter out applicants. Your company has these tests not because they work, but only because it narrows the field of applicants. Even though you say you could fill these spots better on your own, do you really have that much time?

MY store is rather small, maybe at most I will have eight to ten people working for me. It is easy for me to get to know them one on one, what their gifts are and what their weaknesses are.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't see that this is picking on women and minorities, but rather a clear case of reverse discrimination.

I agree to some degree but understand why there is a need for Affirmative Action. Case in point. When younger I had an uncle who owned a small business who made no secret he hated blacks and among family said he would never hire them. He owned a small shop that only employed maybe 5 people at most so he was pretty much under the radar and got away with it.

It isn't fair to me what happened at the Post Office but how do you protect the black people from folks like my uncle and others?

As you say, 5 people--I don't think people like your uncle are big enough to be an issue of importance.

The post office, though--what you are describing is just as wrong as your uncle except on a much larger scale.

 

[skepticalbip]

I agree to some degree but understand why there is a need for Affirmative Action. Case in point. When younger I had an uncle who owned a small business who made no secret he hated blacks and among family said he would never hire them. He owned a small shop that only employed maybe 5 people at most so he was pretty much under the radar and got away with it.

It isn't fair to me what happened at the Post Office but how do you protect the black people from folks like my uncle and others?

As you say, 5 people--I don't think people like your uncle are big enough to be an issue of importance.

The post office, though--what you are describing is just as wrong as your uncle except on a much larger scale.

I would say it is worse since it is the government mandating it rather than the act of a lone bigot.

 

[fromderinside]

There is a massive industry based on this kind of testing for employees; and like many other pseudoscientific industries, the popularity of the tests has no relationship to their effectiveness.

Wherever there's money, there will be parasitic pseudoscience.

Amazing how adding or admitting irrelevant variables always end up looking like the Rings of Saturn.

 

[ronburgundy]

There is a great deal of snake oil being sold under the banner of applied psychology, especially when its for profit and done within the context of large corporations. In my experience, the people that wind up going into corporate "consulting" are usually those who barely got their degree and lack the competence to compete in academics.

The majority of academic researchers within the discipline do not endorse or accept the scientific validity of many of these practices, much like they do not accept the validity of much of what is done by private therapists, especially neo-freudians. As a general rule, if it sounds like wacka-doodle woo, then it probably is and is viewed as such by most psychologist that actually conduct empirical research in academic settings.

As an example, I went to conference of corporate consultants in the area of team-building and decision-making. They openly prided themselves on not having control groups and not applying most of the basic principles of research that allow for any causal inferences from the data. Most of the time, they get called into a company that is having serious problems enough to pay for these costly consulting services. The consultants come in and do something, and on average that problem is not as bad a few months later.
That is called regression to the mean. Odds are that any problem bad enough to call these consultant in for is close to its worst point when they arrive, so it has nowhere to go but to get better. They could come in a swing dead chickens over their heads and see improvements most of the time.

That said, I cannot speak to your specific tests without knowing what they are. However, I can tell you that it is in principle very doubtful that any ethical test can be constructed that people cannot "game" or misrepresent their true ethics. As for actual skills, its important to remember that even the best most valid skills test only measure how well they are capable of doing it when they try their hardest, and usually under ideal conditions in a sterile environment with nothing competing for their attention. How well a person does something on a regular basis in less controlled conditions will be as much about their internal motivations for continually putting in their best efforts, along with cognitive factors related to how well they can maintain focus in more noisy, uncontrolled, distracting environments (something that can also be tested for, but separately from testing for specific job skills).

There is plenty of valid and useful research being done in psychology departments, so don't equate this kind of stuff with psychology in general any more than you would equate the often fraudulent and dangerous pharmaceutical industry with biological science in general.

 

[fromderinside]

Uh, validity and reliability can be calculated. Professional opinions are on the outside looking in. As for there being valid research that is a temporary term useful until results are overturned or augmented by further research which then becomes the new valid research.

I grant that if you want to find out something that is in fact measurable, then you should be able to develop some sort of test that will give you the onjective answer concerning the facts you wish to find.

But we are not dealing with a situation where the objective truth can be found, or if it is, is simply ignored.

In Texas these tests are nothing but a showpiece. The employer is not legally bound to hire the who does the best on them. And, as I and others pointed out, the game can be rigged by the person giving the test, or by the person taking it doing research and simply learning what answers are desired.

 

[Malintent]

I agree with what all of you have said. Thank you for your replies to this thread I have started.

In my personal opinion, I think a lot of what is considered "qualified" is really in a lot of cases just a matter of opinion. These tests are used to give the front of objectivity to it. They are going to hire whoever they want, and the tests can be used as a reason to decline them if they wish to use them for such.

Sounds about right.

 

[fromderinside]

I agree with what all of you have said. Thank you for your replies to this thread I have started.

In my personal opinion, I think a lot of what is considered "qualified" is really in a lot of cases just a matter of opinion. These tests are used to give the front of objectivity to it. They are going to hire whoever they want, and the tests can be used as a reason to decline them if they wish to use them for such.

Sounds about right.

So you are saying objectivity's validity is in doubt?

 

[BH]

Are you asking me or malintent?