Receive daily articles & headlines each day in your inbox with your free ERE Daily Subscription.

Not logged in. [log in or register]

These 5 Trends Are Shaping the Future of Pre-hire Assessments

by
Dr. Charles Handler
Feb 21, 2013, 5:36 am ET

2013 is going to present the start of a major tipping point in the way people find and are evaluated for jobs (and vice versa), and a blend of technology and assessment content will play a big role in these ongoing changes.

This opinion is not founded on trends within the pre-hire assessment industry, but rather on the bigger picture of emerging trends in internet technology. I’m talking about major changes in the way humans use information and connectivity to support business and social interactions.

The following are key technology trends that are bigger than any individual industry but are already impacting products being offered in the pre-hire assessment market.  I know about many of these companies because I’ve worked with many of them over the past year. In many cases their products are still not fully completed (and some have even asked not to be mentioned due to this), but 2013 will be a year that sees a ton of new companies live and open for business.

Social Connectivity

While this is nothing new, the progress toward increasingly intelligent and deep levels of connectivity cannot be understated. The ability of data to drive useful connections with others who share the same interests and the ability to share information across relationships is rapidly gaining teeth. It is now possible to use personal preferences, connections, and interests to provide meaningful insights into almost everything (like Facebook social graph search). While far from perfect, the insights offered via social technology have a ton to offer when it comes to helping people efficiently and effectively find relevant jobs (and vice versa).

Immediate relevance to hiring and assessments: In terms of hiring, connectivity continues to make sourcing (and job searching) easier … no more needles in haystacks. We are about to see a number of new B-to-C focused companies in which assessments will be part of the matching intelligence powering the system.

These technologies are different in that they bring a B-to-C focus that is all about empowering the job seeker. The need to make more intelligent matches has led to a large number of new approaches (even eHarmony is getting into the job matching game). In each case the goal is to stock the pond with job seekers so that employers will pay to fish in the pond. While this is no different then the model job boards were founded on, matches are more precise because they are based on meaningful data (such as assessments) and artificial intelligence.

While there are many who will attempt to work out the matching equation via purely AI-based approaches, the winners will be the firms that add insight via reliable and valid measures of key traits/competencies critical for success at a job or organization. The market is about to be flooded with new companies who are taking this approach in order to offer something more than the lackluster matching currently available from the brand-name job boards. Many of these plug into existing venues such as LinkedIn in order to provide an additional layer of insight. Examples include: Company X (did not want to be mentioned yet); Clearfit; Hireology, Matchpoint Careers, Willbehired, and Findly.

Collective Intelligence

The emerging Internet has introduced many sites and businesses who offer the ability to collect input from multiple persons, aggregate the data, and report on it such that one overall opinion creates an accurate representation of the views of many. When combined with increases in connectivity, we gain the ability to collect insight about a person, product, or service that may not be exactly in line with what is outwardly represented. This provides entirely new levels of insight into the reality behind all kinds of things, and helps everyone to become a much more savvy consumer.

A facet of this is crowdsourcing, described by Wikipedia as “The practice of obtaining needed services, ideas, or content by soliciting contributions from a large group of people and especially from the online community rather than from traditional employees or suppliers.”

Crowdsourcing will be a real game-changer when it comes to generation of ideas, opinions, and information to help persons find job opportunities for which they are well suited (and vice versa).

Immediate relevance to hiring and assessments: There are a number of new (and soon-to-be-emerging) companies on the market that are using ratings from references (or current co-workers) to help further an understanding of an applicant’s abilities relative to a specific job opportunity. Determining the effectiveness of pre-hire assessments has been difficult, due to challenges with collecting post-hire performance data. Collective-intelligence-based systems are providing the ability to look at performance via aggregated ratings collected from sources who have worked (or are working with) an individual in order to gain a reality-based picture of what they bring to the table relative to a specific opportunity. Firms in this area include: RightHire, Chequed.com, Checkster, and Skillsurvey.

Collective intelligence also provides a way for pre-hire assessment systems to capture the performance data that is needed to determine their effectiveness. This is a big deal because the inability to collect useful performance data has held personnel selection science back for decades. Companies such as FurstPerson and Logi-Serve are leading the market when it comes to creating “closed loop validation systems.” These systems have software that captures performance data streams and use this information to better understand the financial impact of assessments and to optimize scoring algorithms to ensure the systems are delivering maximum ROI.

Crowdsourcing is also starting to generate new and interesting developments in talent acquisition. For instance, one new company is using collective intelligence/crowdsourcing to develop and maintain skills testing item pools. This allows the test developer to tap into the collective wisdom of experts in an area to create and monitor tests.

Another interesting facet of collective intelligence is the ability for distributed groups of individuals to provide collective opinions about aspects of a company that may be relevant in the job search.

Glassdoor is already providing a quantum leap in this area. In the near future, expect to see companies that provide insight into even more specific aspects of companies (such as culture or the fit with a specific boss) via collectively sourced ratings. This information will be used to drive job searches and will bypass official input from a company about their culture, in favor of the opinion of those who have experience working there. It’s truly revolutionary stuff. ManageUp is an example of a firm working on this kind of matching process.

Gamification

Attention spans are getting shorter as we interact with a growing number of devices via touching screens, swiping, and using easy-to-access apps.

Business are developing ways to make accomplishing things such as learning and research more fun and are having a good deal of success. Many of the major trends in gamification are relevant for the staffing industry. This trend cannot be ignored.  Those entering the workforce in the near future will expect to be entertained and engaged at a meaningful level. Failure to meet these expectations will not do your employment brand any favors.

Immediate relevance to hiring and assessments: Even an advocate for pre-hire testing such as myself can admit that most tests are no fun at all. Few people like slogging through hundreds of radio buttons and being asked questions that don’t necessarily make sense. Recruitment branding is one area where there has been some great examples of games that can engage applicants while helping them understand what a company is all about. While some companies are starting to get it, when it comes to recruitment branding and engagement, the typical experience is still pretty mundane. This is especially true as one moves from sourcing candidates to their actual evaluation as a job applicant.

Gamification (and increased levels of interactivity) has yet to really penetrate into the actual evaluation of candidate fit for a job. The reason for this, and the major challenge to be overcome, lies with the analytics and data interpretation related to game play. While games make it easy to collect a ton of data, using this data to gain insight into specific job-related competencies is much harder. This type of measurement takes a ton of data and requires major research efforts, and without it there is no way to ensure that games can reliably or accurately predict meaningful outcomes.

We are just now seeing the first companies who are attempting to breach the chasm. What I have seen is very encouraging, and perhaps in a few years’ time we will see games that can be used as predictive tools. This area will be huge in the decades to come. Companies currently making headway in this area include: Knack.it and Selleration Games.

Credentialing

The Internet is about learning, and it providing a ton of non-traditional pathways to gaining useable knowledge. We are just at the start of a movement to help those learning on their own to have a way to demonstrate their mastery of a subject area.  There are both open source credentialing movements such as the Mozilla open badges initiative as well as more proprietary credentialing systems. The resume is morphing to an online profile that provides the ability to add evidence of certifications gained via online learning venues. This is another trend that cannot be ignored.

Immediate relevance to hiring and assessments: One of the major challenges with credentials is ensuring that they will be seen as credible. Some controls will be needed to ensure sure that the badge provided has really been earned and represents a meaningful level of mastery. Skills testing companies (and other assessment companies) will have a big role in providing a reliable and accurate way to measure and certify subject area mastery.

At present this area is still wide open but success will require the ability to buy into the measurement process driving certifications. This creates a significant opportunity for companies who specialize in proper measurement to fill this need. This trend to take a bit longer to unfold to the point where it will be accessible, but the wheels are definitely in motion now. Companies currently working in this area include: Smarterer and jobFig.

Entrepenurial Culture

These are exciting times when it comes to the ability for just about anyone to build a company around a vision or idea. Increased visibility, easier access to resources, the ability to build on existing platforms via APIs, and the ability to source funding via kickstarters and other incubators has led to a huge increase in new companies.  This is definitely true when it comes to recruiting and talent acquisition. Just take a stroll through the tradeshow at the HR Technology Expo or the ERE Recruiting Conference and Expo, or read Todd’s columns and you will be amazed at the number of new companies emerging in our area.

Immediate relevance to hiring and assessments: Pre-hire screening and assessments are just as hot when it comes to new companies. I have seen a ton of really interesting stuff lately. While existing pre-hire assessment firms are doing great things, true innovation in the pre-hire assessment space will not come from within, but rather from new businesses. The biggest issue I see is ensuring these new companies respect the basic truths of test development and validation enough that they do not cut corners on the science side. Managing the interplay between pure AI and scientifically based and proven measurement will be the key to building effective products that will truly provide meaningful prediction.

So get ready to be amazed in 2013. It will be a year that will definitely provide some excitement when it comes to technology-based hiring tools.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to offer specific legal advice. You should consult your legal counsel regarding any threatened or pending litigation.

  1. Martin Snyder

    Charles another excellent piece- I enjoy your writing greatly.

    Interesting to see you acknowledge that “determining the effectiveness of pre-hire assessments has been difficult”.
    That’s a pretty important thing to say. But does it really follow that the main cause is “challenges with collecting post-hire performance data”?

    I think that could be part of it, but not the driver.

    For 15 years I have been sawing away at the notion that the problem with pre-hire assessment is that it is too focused on individuals, not groups. It seems that high impact work is nearly always done in team settings, making team performance the driver of outcomes more than individual performance.

    When a result is greater than the sum of its parts, the term used is “emergence”, and emergent phenomena are very, very hard to predict (although they can be reasonably bounded).

    When you assess an individual, and then expose them to your organization for awhile, the person you assessed no longer exists. The breakthrough will be in learning to predict what THAT person will be like, and how they will affect the team members you have exposed to them.

    In sports they call it “chemistry”, and Vegas bettors (and battlefield generals) know just how critical that can be….

  2. Roelf Woldring

    I really enjoyed this. It got lots of energy flowing, seeing what is happening out there. Then I started to think. We have known for a long time (that is the we who periodically reviews the academic research literature), that predicting a person on-the-job performance is really a multi step process:

    1. identify some true “high performers” who are currently doing the job.

    2. profile them in a way that actually identifies some thing about that that they all share – whether it is a personality trait or a competency – whatever

    3. make sure that what you have identified has two characteristics – a) it is something that is truly unique about them not something that they happen to share with other people and b) understand / explain in an understandable way the causal connection between their unique thing (or things) and their high performance on the job

    4. If all of that holds together, find or design or build a tool (a test, a simulation, a role play etc) which reliably identifies presence of this “thing” in candidates

    Do all of this and you have a reasonable chance (it is a probability game after all) of predicting that this person MAY perform well on the job – you still have to worry about things like motivation etc but ….

    So why do most of the companies in this great article

    a) not talk about how they do this
    b) promise they can predict on the job performance based on their “tests”

    and so on

    It all feels a bit like an well-intentioned con game to me

    1. We know recruiting is not easy.
    2. We know most hiring managers really don’t have anything other than a “guess insight” into what differentiates the strong performers in their direct reports from the average or weaker performers
    3. We know that few performance appraisal systems are based on metrics rather than other more subjective factors

    so consistently recruiting high performers remains a really hard thing to do
    but everyone what to believe they do it
    so that makes them vulnerable to the well intentioned con

    we can help you do this (the promise that people what to hear in the con) and you know what we make it easy (appealing to the “greed” factor that is needed for a con to work)

    I really hope that I am wrong.
    Because I want to be excited as I was in the beginning.

    In the meantime, I will continue work with hiring managers building performance profiles against which to recruit, even though that is often hard, frustrating and even unappreciated work.

    Roelf

  3. Josh Tolan

    This is a very interesting and very thorough post about how new technology is shaping the hiring process. But I think you might have forgotten one thing: online video. In today’s technology environment, the visual is becoming increasingly important. We can see that in the rise of visual social networks like the rapidly growing Pinterest and even Tumblr. People are watching more online video and even watching it on their phones. So it makes sense to tap into this trend and start using online video in the hiring process. A candidate submitting a video resume can show you more of their personality, organizational fit, and communication skills then you can discover from a traditional paper resume.

  4. Stephen A. Karel

    I am sure that the information that Charles has put into his article is only the tip of the iceberg. I am only sorry that I will not here around for another fifty yrs, what is looming out there is what syfy is made of? On the other hand, as of today I am willing to bet that our (Karel&Company) methods of pre hire assessments, due diligence, background checks, testing, personality/charcter/temperment, behavioral interviews, industry knowledge & expertises, etc, etc. The bet is, our standard of pre hire assessment is far superior than any software that is out there now – dinner at Daniel’s NYC.

    Stephen

  5. Lou Adler

    Dr. C and I have discussed this topic for the past 15 years, and I’m going to be the sole naysayer here. I’ve listened to many of the videos of the assessments Charles suggest is the future. I see it as the past. The idea of getting better at weeding out the weak is missing the forest for the trees. It’s based on a fundamentally flawed talent strategy with the idea that there is a surplus of talent available and those leftover at the end will surely be the shining stars.

    How many fully-employed top people do you know who are willing to apply and endure these assessments for other than entry-level jobs? A scarcity of talent strategy designed to attract the best, not weed out the weak, is a better option.

    While these assessments are useful confirming indicators of success they are not great predictors of it. They also eliminate cultural diversity, eliminate high potential candidates who are light on the skills, eliminate high potential candidates who have a different mix of style, personality and experience, and eliminate every person who is not willing to endure the assessment process, which is about 80% of the fully-employed workforce over 25 years old. Why would anyone contend missing this group is a good thing. It perpetuates the idea that the 20% of people who are looking will always be looking, and everyone else will get promoted or assigned better jobs through internal moves.

    Let’s have a real honest discussion about the value assessments at the strategy level. If the future is about better assessments, in my mind, it’s a very dark future.

  6. Chris LaFontaine

    I’m going to have to agree with Lou here.

    While it is great to see so many tools, they are all fundamentally addressing a similar thing – parsing down the applicants to get to more of the candidates – at least the ones found online.

    And therein lies the real problem.

    The scarcity of talent is the real problem and this exists because 70% of potential candidates do not put their professional information online and make it accessible. Therefore, you still have a lot of manual networking and discovery going on 18 years after online recruiting surfaced.

    In my opinion, these tools may help parse some of the “noise” today, but they are not going to expand the candidate pool much beyond what it is today. And that is what recruiters really need to increase their effectiveness and job placement.

  7. mihai calin

    I agree with mostly everything that Dr. Handler wrote in here. Some of the new trends in pre-screening described here I just have to see, before I can pass any judgment on them.
    What got me to post this comment was what Mr. Woldring and Mr. Adler said.
    First I’d like to address Mr. Adler and say that pre-screening INDEED targets the entry-level jobs. It targets those jobs where you get a lot of candidates that apply for them, or to the generic jobs that make up 90% of the work force. Pre-screening is designed not to provide you with the perfect candidate out of 3 that have applied for a top management position, but to weed out 1000 candidates that have applied for 50 tech support positions at the new call center that you plan to open. It’s a feature that will help the HR department save both time and money by not manually sorting through a whole bunch of artificially inflated resumes, but deal with a smaller number of candidates that actually have a chance at getting the job done.
    When looking for top talent, for that one brilliant guy that would turbo charge your team, you go head-hunting, not pre-screening. Plus, the jobs that require true talent to make a difference are a lot less than the ones where you need little more than basic understanding of things, i.e. I have never heard anybody look for a “brilliant” electrician, but heard a lot of times “we’re looking to hire a few good electricians for this job we have now”.
    And now concerning the question of: “why do most of the companies in this great article not talk about how they do this”, I can’t think of a simpler answer to give but, why should they? A patent for a solution that covers any kind of field has a price attached. Why would some company that is trying to make money of a product that is unique, would divulge their secret “ingredient”? It’s their privilege to make profit of something they worked hard to create and put into play.
    And calling it a con before you can see it in action, is not a healthy attitude towards things.

  8. Martin Snyder

    Joe Murphy did me a great service once by educating me (on a cross country flight) about the limits and uses of assessment; the key difference between prediction and description, the effects of scale, and how people misunderstand that probabilistic decision making involves multiple factors, some of which may be self-cancelling in a given decision matrix. We both certainly agreed on the value of simulation as the gold standard for assessment. I don’t think he has come around to the idea of team assessment yet….

    On the dollar value of good assessment, Mihai mentioned that nobody seeks “brilliant” electricians, but that’s quite untrue-ask any foreman and she will tell you that the best electricians are WAY better than their peers- it shows up in their work, their interactions with team members, their lower rates of re-work, etc.

    Lou, people WILL take a winding path to a position if they think there is a worthwhile reward at the other end …in fact, lots of high value sales situations use baby steps of commitment to move people down the track. High value employers like Google can make people jump thru hoops to no end with smiles on their faces…. If you are a lower value employer, the trick may be the sales job, not the strategy per se….

    People are dumb about how computers are smart. Using a computer to make decisions based on emergent properties is the hard way- and you get housing crashes and bad draft picks.

    Using a computer to chunk all of the probabilistic outcomes into an array for trained and experienced humans to make decisions is the smarter way, but markets and buyers will never be dissuaded from the dream of pushing a button to get a result.

  9. Roelf Woldring

    It used to be the case that the publisher of an assessment wrote a technical manual that explained why it did what it did, and addressed the technical issues of reliability and validity. They also explained why their assessment tool was an effective predictor. Seems that is all gone by the board now that the Internet is here. Put up a web site, get enough people to believe and pay, and you are lauded as an Internet success.

    Assessment companies should explain how they do things because they claim to have a level of technical expertise. If they were individual members of the American Psychological Association, they would be professionally bound to do so. Because they are Internet companies they are not? Sorry, don’t accept that.

    I am an Internet enthusiast. I have been actively involved in developing commercial programs and packages that run on it since the mid 1990’s. At one time, I ran an e-commerce software development organization for a large financial institution. The technology is not the issue. The underlying integrity of the vendors is. It would be if their products where on sold on the Internet, but printed on paper. It still is, when their products are sold on the Internet.

    Lou Adler is on to the issue here. Recruiting is hard work. The Internet has made some of the administrative processes easier, expanded our ability to reach out into the marketplace, and given us the ability to make a lot more things available to a lot more people. But it cannot and will not replace experienced judgment. No matter what you think, a piece of software, even a piece of artificial intelligence software, is still a construct that is built up out of a series of inter-related “if then”, not the ability of a person to make complex judgments that are part logic and part pattern recognition and part experience based intuition. Minds (using your head to paraphrase on of the commenter’s here), will, for the foreseeable future, remain more complex judgment making gear than software.

    Human beings do more than make judgments. They also engage in fads, look for silver bullets, seeking ways to do things they have difficulty doing. After a couple of days of visiting most of the websites in the original article, I have to come to the following conclusions.

    1. The sudden growth of these firms says more about their evaluation of the state of the “recruiting marketplace” than they do about the real progress in the state of assessment. These firms believe that there are lots of recruiters out there, both in-house and third party, who will buy these promises of making things easier. They also believe, explicitly or implicitly, that these “buyers” are not very deeply educated about psychometric theory, and not very experienced with the effective use of psychometric tools in recruiting. If this conclusion is correct, then I think it is a sad statement on the professional state of the recruiting profession.

    2. Lou Adler and others are right. Talent is here to find, assess, and persuade to move, especially if it is already well employed. In the face of such difficulty, people look for “silver bullets”.
    3. An often lot of recruiting work gets by with placing “just good enough” candidates. But after the lessons of books like “In Search of Excellence”, why are we surprised that many organizations are content with “good enough”, especially if they are making money or surviving nicely.

    Finally, a prediction. Four to five years from now, most of these promising new firms will not be around. The market is in the long run a harsh weeder out of those who claim and then cannot delivery on their promises. For me, a person who has a background in both the Internet and in work place psychology, that prediction might be the most unsettling result of my initial enthusiasm of several days ago.

  10. Keith Halperin

    @ Roelf: “But it cannot and will not replace experienced judgment.” Unfortunately, studies in Behavioral Economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictably_Irrational)and Cognitive Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow) are showing how bad even thoughtful, considered, experienced judgement can be- as we are all inherently prone to cognitve biases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_biases) which warp our-decision-making. Consequently, unless the person makes hires constantly as part of their job and develops this as a skill like a sr. surgeon, experienced pilot, or master carpenter (so that they have a highly developed, practiced intuition), ISTM that the more objective information that can be decided (within the overall goal of an applicant-friendly hiring process), the better. In other words: leave the judgement to the “likability” question, and maximize objective means to answer the “competence” question…

    Happy Friday,

    Keith

  11. Roelf Woldring

    Well Keith, it is Friday, and though we are moving away from the original topic of this thread, I feel inclined to respond.

    As a junior programmer, I was involved in my first work in implementing AI type software back in the 1980’s. A group that I was working with for a large railway built a train dispatch simulator (software), and then tested it’s capabilities against actual experienced train dispatchers. Here is what they found.

    1. The program outperformed the average train dispatcher, especially under conditions in which there was adequate, non-ambiguous data.

    2. The program did not outperform the best dispatchers, especially when they were fresh and not tired, and provided there was adequate, non-ambiguous data.

    3. The program did not outperform either average or the best dispatchers when data conditions were ambiguous and contradictory.

    Although I have maintained an interest in this topic ever since then, and have been involved in several similar operational projects to build similar smart software systems, I believe that the following is still true. (I admit however that I am not up to date with the latest findings in the academic research literature on this topic.)

    1. Software can outperform human beings in situations where the problem is well structured (e.g. chess), it is possible to search through an extremely large file of established cases to find similar situations (millions plus) in a very short period of time (seconds or parts of seconds). The data defining the specific problem situation is well structured and unambiguous. I believe that the targeting software used in weapons applications, and some of “smart diagnosis” software used in things like equipment maintenance and repair software tools are of this nature.

    2. Software can outperform human beings in situations where pattern recognition is the core of the problem space, and heuristic (fuzzy logic) algorithms allow the rapid searching of many “on-file” patterns until a best probability solution is found. I believe the advances in speech recognition software and search algorithms have some of these characteristics.

    But I don’t see “recruitment”, which involves understanding the particular performance requirement as expressed in words by a particular manager at a point in time in an organization as being this kind of problem. Therefore, I believe that we have a way to go towards having a software solution that will do this.

    Like Lou Alder, I have found that a disciplined approach that focuses on performance (both what is required and what the candidate has done and can currently do) is the best way to hire top talent. It has always worked for me in the organizations that I have managed. Although I have always been frustrated by the need to continually remind my hiring managers and recruiters that we need to stick to the disciplined performance based recruiting process, and not just go with our “intuitive” likings for people. Reading “Honest Signals” by Alex Pentland of MIT showed me that I will probably always have this frustration as long as I am involved in situations in which people interact with people. Our instinctive abilities have a tendency to take over, especially when we find the disciplined process that we have to follow takes more ability that we have or more energy than we we want to put into it.

    Happy Friday to you,

    Roelf

  12. charles handler

    I never advocate for machines or AI to take over fully. Although the singularity is imminent in my mind (100 years from now?)

    My view is that AI helps humans do their jobs better. In the case of matching people to jobs, its hard to argue that the job board model is a good one. So, what is wrong with software that helps “direct traffic” and get applicants to the right place for a two way dialogue? This is not the same even as a more down the funnel assessment. It is a complimentary piece of the process.

    Within these tools themselves, again its a blended approach. Use AI to help but include real measurements that have been proven to measure the traits they purport to reliably and accurately. Its hard to argue that if a trait is required to perform a job, that some indicator of that trait in the hiring process is not worthwhile. It is NOT the case that these indicator should do all the work. Effectiveness requires expert human judgment. AI and technology support this and add efficiency to the process.

    My two cents

  13. Keith Halperin

    @ Roelf: Thank you, I with you agree in principle- SW/AI is a long time (if ever) being able to deal with ambiguous, ill-defined situations. However, many people (including me) aren’t particularly good at those situations either, so ISTM that the goal is to minimize such situations- “never waste your(trained) intuition when an algorithm works as well as better” and use your trained intuition when it requires it. Using your “gut instinct” to assess things which can be clearly determined with assessments or other means is like paying an agency 20% to find people on the boards, instead of paying a firm $150 for up to 225 board-resumes- you can do it, but it’s wasteful.

    @Dr. Handler: I agree- a blended approach should work best. About the “Singularity” per Ray Kurzweil: I think it won’t be 100 years away, I thin it will be 30 years away, and ALWAYS WILL BE… In a happier vein (as Edward would say), heard a good one:
    Having techies design social networks is like having a Mormon bartend….(No offense ment to techies, social networkers, members of the LDS, or bartenders).

    Happy Friday, ‘Cruitaz!

  14. Five Things You Need to Know This Week… | Fistful of Talent

    [...] These 5 Trends Are Reshaping the Future of Pre-Hire Assessments. Social Connectivity and Collective Intelligence are part of the new blend of technology and [...]

  15. Jim Trainor

    Still waiting for someone to show corroleation between pre-Assessment success and success on the job. The article addresses one half of the equation. For years I have coached my candidates, when taking a pre hire test, to say they love their mother and father but their father a little more

  16. charles handler

    Jim
    I can definitely point to a ton of info that shows the impact of pre-hire assessments. Just check the SHL business outcomes study or Lombardi’s great 2012 Aberdeen report.

    But, tools that are not related to the job and are not used in the right manner can lead to severe limits. Its not just the test, but the mindset of the user and the value they place on the correct implementation and evaluation.

    Also, im the first to admit that employment tests are not perfect, not even close. But even with imperfection, they still have huge ROI.

  17. Lou Adler

    Remember when calculating ROI to also add the negative impact of not hiring a better person. So the ONLY way a pre-assessment test can have a positive ROI is if Quality of Hire is also measured – not just labor related cost savings. In this case if the people being hired are of equal quality to those refusing to take the test than the ROI that Charles mentions is a true statement. But if better candidates opt-out of the test than the ROI is not positive, but a huge loss. Somehow, this obvious impact never gets calculated in these ROI calculations.

  18. How are hiring assessment changing? | Devine Group India

    [...] How are hiring assessment changing? [...]

Post a comment

Please log in to post a comment.

Note: You need to sign up for an account on our new commenting system if you haven't already done so — even if you have an existing ERE account. Find out why »

Login Information