As we enter this exciting new year, here are the trends that I feel are going to define the future of pre-employment assessment.

Hot!

The dawn of big data, business intelligence, and analytics. This is by far the most important thing going on in assessment today. It is not just assessment that is being impacted by the increasing power of big data as a decision-making tool. All areas of society are benefiting from our increased ability to use data to identify trends and make predictions to increase efficiency and effectiveness. One of the biggest obstacles for assessment has been the difficulty experienced in proving its value proposition in real terms.

This past decade has been marked by the movement of testing online. The product of this investment has been a significant amount of data and a much more complete understanding of what content predicts specific outcomes. We are now entering a decade in which new advances will be marked less by radical new types of content and more by the ability to view assessment from a business-intelligence mindset in which data supports hiring as a business process.

As I reported in a recent article, this movement is being led by the leading vendors in the assessment world who have begun to create a new generation of tools to help their customers understand complex relationships in their data as well as the relationship between their local data and more general, bigger picture data. While it may take some time to really gain traction, increased analytics will make it much easier to clearly demonstrate the bottom-line impact of assessment on all kinds of valued outcomes. The inability to clearly link assessment to results has been holding us back for decades. As this blockage continues to erode, the use of assessment will continue to grow.

Assessment and matchmaking. The use of assessment to match people with jobs to which they are best suited is proliferating. To understand the basic model for the matching I am talking about, think online dating site. In this model two parties are searching for a match based on a profile-creation process in which the same key pieces of data are collected and sophisticated algorithms are used to identify potential matches based on compatibility in the data. While these sites are far from perfect in their matching abilities, the model works much better than a blind search in which the matching parameters are not clearly defined or consistent.

When it comes to matching people with jobs, understand the value that a scientifically based assessment can provide. Assessment is essential to this process because it provides a standardized, objective way to reliably and accurately measure human traits in a manner that is not possible with simple fill-in-the-blank questions. So, adding assessment to the matching parameters can offer serious value.

This concept is not new. These sites have also exploded because of a continued lack of ability for big job boards to deliver results; the increase in analytic ability (see trend #1); and an increased ability to understand how to measure human traits accurately and reliably.

Expect even more of these companies. Effective matching is an excellent way to highlight those who have more of what is desired and thus help provide better odds of making a good hire using the “official” hiring process.

There are many different takes on this basic model. Explaining them all is beyond the scope of this article (stay tuned though: my next article will be devoted to categorizing the various companies offering assessment-related matching). No matter what the model, the most important thing impacting the success of these sites will be directly related to their ability to build a database that will have value to both parties involved. The best matching process in the world has no value if the database of candidates to match to is empty. The best candidates in the world will not waste their time using a site that has no legitimate openings to offer.

Expect to see many try to jockey for dominance in this area. The winners in this arena will be those that are able to engage both candidates and companies and compel them to give their time and effort to provide the data required for effective matching. The winners will also be the ones who can make joining their sites a viral proposition (Hello LinkedIn and Facebook … are you listening?).

Warm

Assessment as a key part of talent management. Talent management is all the rage, and rightfully so. For decades there has been a need for a more strategic focus on how organizations use their people to have maximum impact.

While talent management is a concept that covers the entire lifecycle of the employee and is designed to support development and management of people, pre-employment assessment still seems to be something that few talent management vendors are including in their products and models for success. Talent management is an opportunity to truly impact results via its ability to define what is important for success, and then help ensure that companies are hiring, developing, and promoting people in ways that have a direct impact. Until the talent management concept includes pre-employment assessment, it is incomplete. Vendors will come around to this viewpoint, but they are doing so more slowly then I expected. As pre-employment assessment continues to prove its value and get more traction, expect to see it added to the talent-management equation.

Continued (but slow) movement from test to experience. Those who read my articles regularly and know and have worked with me are well aware of my passion for simulations and engaging assessments that provide an experience rather then a boring and frustrating testing session. These types of assessments are the future. I am not backing down from this stance; however, this is not happening as fast as I had expected. While we have seen some cool new simulations and branded experiences over the past few years, we have yet to see the technology needed to really move this area to the next level. This will come with time.

For now it is exciting to see new products and solutions that represent a step in the right direction. I am encouraged to see vendors continuing to invest in making their assessments more engaging, but the bulk of assessments are the same as they always have been in terms of their content. We are still living in an age where most pre-employment tests are simply web-enabled versions of their former paper-and-pencil selves. Luckily we have been able to make the testing experience much shorter while also making it more accurate. The next steps forward are happening, but the revolution in this area will take time.

As the years go by I am continually encouraged by the new and creative solutions that I am seeing. My workshop at the ERE Expo last spring provided me with enough examples of engaging assessments to fill up several hours of time. I encourage those who are creating assessment products to continue to place themselves in the candidates’ shoes and to understand the value-add to your brand from a branded experience or simulation.

Increased access to assessments for SMBs. The manner in which assessments are adopted remains a bit curious. My research shows that companies of all sizes tend to use assessments. While enterprise is likely the area where the most companies are using assessments, we all know that small and medium businesses actually have more total employees because there are so many of these companies out there. Most vendors are very focused on the big fish, enjoying the prestige of landing Fortune 500 companies who have the resources to do cool and interesting things with their hiring process. Bigger companies also provide healthy numbers that are conducive to validation work and program evaluation.

Small to mid size companies do have options. Many vendors do have the ability to serve these companies with the same types of products as the enterprise. However, smaller companies often don’t even have a dedicated staffing person and it is hard for them to think strategically. In most cases smaller businesses must rely more on guesswork when implementing assessments, as best practices used by enterprise are often beyond their means and understanding.

Vendors are realizing the opportunity to offer the SMB market something better. I am seeing new vendors who are creating solutions that are focused on helping SMBs. Many of these involve other trends I have already discussed in this article. Namely, we have so much data on hand now that we are able to understand the truth about what items are predictive in many general situations (such as customer service), and companies are creating new matching tools to make this knowledge accessible within software-based systems. So, SMBs are gaining access to the more accurate off-the-shelf assessments for a lower cost.

Expect slow but continued movement by vendors to serve the SMB space over the next few years.

Cold

Clarity around legal standards. New models for assessment that are continually being developed are subject to a set of legal standards (the EEOC’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures) that were developed in 1978. The core idea of these Guidelines — that to be legally compliant a test must be job related — is without question and will be relevant forever. However, for many reasons that I won’t go into in this venue, the Guidelines are sorely out of date.

Assessment has changed a good deal since 1978 and it would be nice if the legal standards for their use could directly relate to these changes.

The legal ins and outs of assessment are one of the more challenging aspects of selecting and implementing assessment programs. I continue to fall back on the silver lining here, that the prime directive of the Guidelines is that we must demonstrate that all assessments are job related. The good news is that job-relatedness is also the driving factor in determining ROI. So, doing it right provides both legal CYA and money in the bank.

Still, it continues to be frustrating to see so many new and exciting ways that assessment is being used to do good with no Kosher stamp provided by the powers that be. At the end of the day, the threat of investigation by the Feds is pretty low given the resources they have available, so most companies continue to play the odds rather then invest the time and money in ensuring compliance.

Sadly, I do not predict that there will be any changes to this in the coming year. It troubles me that there is silence around how the new sophisticated data modeling tools and matching products meet government standards. These tools are the future and as they evolve and proliferate, the gap between assessment models and the rulebook will continue to widen.

We have a lot to be excited about in 2012. Organizations of all sizes should take advantage of the many opportunities to make hiring a strategic asset.

What a difference a year makes! After this year’s show I am smiling from ear to ear as I was able to clearly tap into a great vibe of interest in assessment tools. I am still a bit disappointed that the majority of talent management vendors do not include assessment as a core part of their product offering. However, there were many talent management vendors who have begun to take steps down the right path. There were more vendors than ever offering a variety of interesting and unique products that demonstrate a continued deeper integration of assessment products designed to do more than just sling tests at job applicants.

What is the reason for the difference between this year and last? There are several, including:

• The economy is getting better
• There is a continued search for more value from hiring via quality of hire
• The talent management mindset is driving a competency-based vision of the employee lifecycle that requires continual measurement to determine competency levels
• Technology has made it increasingly easier to integrate assessment into other, related products

But the real reason lies beyond all of these factors (although it actually incorporates all of them). This reason is a newfound ability to clearly demonstrate value for programs of all sorts via rapidly increasing capabilities for data analytics and business intelligence.

In fact, powerful and easy-to-use data analytics have ushered in the dawn of an entirely new age of evolution for testing. The past decade saw the rise of test content being offered online. This created tremendous efficiencies for the use of testing, allowing it go mainstream. We spent a decade working out new and better ways to deliver tests and to use the millions of data points captured from candidates to make tests shorter and more powerful. This information also allowed us to really get to the truth when it comes to understanding how to predict performance at a variety of job types and levels.

We are now emerging from this intense period of growth and new understanding. The combination of clarity around human performance and new technology has led us to the doorstep of an era that I predict will see huge increases in the adoption of pre-employment assessment. What I saw at HR Tech really crystallized this vision for me. Here’s why.

We I/O psychologists have been operating with a business intelligence mindset for more than 60 years. We have continually tried to demonstrate the value of testing programs via validation studies looking at the relationship between test scores and job performance. I wrote an article for ERE on this very issue seven years ago explaining the basics of a business-intelligence-driven mindset and how it can clearly show the value of various HR practices, including assessment.

What I saw at HR tech this year was the prediction I made in my 2004 article come to life! Fast forward to 2011 and the major players in assessment have created a whole new way to demonstrate the value of assessments (as well as other related HR processes). I believe this mindset and the technology to support it and make it accessible will allow them to quickly show their clients the money. Once a firm is able to have this level of insight there will be no looking back for assessment tools.

Here are some of the things I saw that have led me feel so optimistic:

SHL is dedicated to “people intelligence” and supports this mindset with a brand new analytics dashboard tool that will allow its clients to model and understand many aspects of their hiring process all the way to how applicants are sourced and how their hiring processes stack up to a variety of reference points, including industry, geographic location, etc. This tool is essentially a wide-open data mining tool that allows a deep level of insight and analysis about the relationship between data yielded by the hiring process and organizational outcomes.

DDI has created a new platform that allows for the ability to track and evaluate data from individuals across the entire employee lifecycle. Data is capture in pre-employment mode and is managed longitudinally so that growth and potential can be tracked and evaluated.

Taleo has begun to focus on the concept of “talent intelligence” and has data available for its clients across the entire hiring process, allowing for deep levels of insight around the hiring process.

Kenexa has also created an impressive dashboard that allows for analytics across the entire hiring process, providing an easy way to examine talent pipelines all the way back to source of hire. Kenexa’s system also learns and allows for changes in the workflow process to adapt to various situations based on real-time data.

What I saw from the major players servicing the assessment market is a collective drive to help their clients clearly understand the value that any number of services can provide in actual outcomes that either represent, or can easily be paired with, actual dollars. In the past when we I/O psychologists were asked how we know assessments work, we would respond by saying “trust me.” While I know that we are sound in our understanding of value, it is hard to close the deal based simply on trust; thus, the adoption of assessment has been slow. Firms who are selling pre-employment prediction are now equipping themselves with powerful tools to break out of this quicksand and clearly model value propositions for those firms willing to listen.

Within 10 years, the collective value shown via the new breed of business analytics tools just now being offered in the HR space will lead the business of assessment to a whole new level of integration and adoption.

We still have our work cut out for us in convincing companies how important it is to take a business intelligence mindset within HR. It is high time that all companies serious about making their people a profit center should have a dedicated data analytics team within HR. The role of this team will be to work with various analytics tools, syncing them with internal data feeds and monitoring dashboards to answer questions and support business decisions, based on real live data. Prediction in the hiring process will be one core part of this, but it will go well beyond this. Early adoption of this mindset and the infastructure to support it will be a serious competitive advantage and soon those who don’t buy it will see their businesses losing ground rapidly to those who do.

In 2004 I wrote about the things I saw at HR tech this year in the hypothetical realm. In 2011 these fantasies are reality that is here for the taking.

Williams’ paper is basically an analysis of the data provided by the Bureau of National Affairs, a private company that publishes information and analysis for business and government. Believe it or not, the BNA offers paid access to a database called Employment Discrimination Verdicts and Settlements that can be searched to identify each and every employment discrimination case filed with the EEOC and OFCCP. This database is a literal gold mine for anyone who wants to know why companies are being sued for their hiring practices. It represents the reality behind all of the conjecture around what will get you strung up by the feds when it comes to hiring practices, and it’s data should serve as a good way for companies to gauge their level of risk.

What Was Analyzed

Williams’ paper analyzed the nature and outcome of legal proceedings involving the EEOC and OFCCP, including all cases related to external hiring (not promotions) that were settled both in and out of court during the time period between 1998 and 2010. The findings reported cover two key areas:

1. Issues with a particular type of selection measure or test including: unstructured interviews, structured interviews, biodata measures, cognitive ability tests, psychomotor tests, and “other tests.”
2. Issues with the way the selection tools were used within the hiring process, including the following key issues: lack of documentation, inconsistent process, quota for affirmative action programs, recruiting source violations, violations of the 4/5th rule, and “other” process issues.

Findings

I don’t have room to present a detailed review of the findings from Williams’ study in this article. Those interested in a full list of the findings should obtain a copy of the article itself (email her at mailto:kate.zaner.williams@gmail.com). However, a brief run through of the highlights still provides a ton of useful information and presents an excellent picture of what not to do when building a hiring process.

A total of 224 complaints were identified. Within this total 109 were settled out of court (73 by the EEOC and 36 by the OFCCP). Of the 224 total complaints, only 78 of these actually went to trial. Note that when examined over the 12 years covered by the study, the total of 224 cases breaks out to about 19 per year. The total number of cases that end up facing legal challenges is very small when one considers the massive number of hires made each year in the U.S.

Issues with Selection Measures

Of the 52 complaints about a selection instrument, a bit over half (52%) were settled before trial.

Issues with selection measures almost exclusively involved either interviews or cognitive and psychomotor testing.

Interviews

No cases involving complaints about interviews were settled out of court. In all cases employers decided to take their chances in court and prevailed more often with structured rather than unstructured interviews.

Of the cases that went to trial involving interviews, structured interviews held up better than unstructured, with only 13% of the structured type being ruled discriminatory and 50% of the unstructured ones being ruled as such.

The bottom line here is that if you get challenged on your interviewing process, you are likely going to court, and if you follow best practices and take the time to develop a structured interview process, you are more likely to prevail. If not, it is going to cost you big time. This makes sense given the fact that structured interviews create consistency across interviewers and usually provide excellent documentation of the rationale behind the interview scores that contribute to hiring decisions.

If you are not using a structured interview process, you have a problem. You should make every effort to move out of the stone age and adopt this easy and painless upgrade to your hiring process.

Testing

Two types of tests (cognitive ability and psychomotor tests) ended up accounting for almost all of the challenges related to testing. This makes sense given the fact that these tests consistently demonstrate adverse impact while also having some of the highest levels of validity (i.e., ROI). Welcome to the crazy, mixed up world of testing, where the most effective tests can land you in the most trouble!

Completely opposite of the results for interviews, all of the challenges related to cognitive ability tests and two-thirds of those related to psychomotor tests were settled out of court. This is likely due to the fact that if a test cannot be shown to be job related by the plaintiff, there is no possible way they can win a challenge. Cases that are settled for the plaintiff almost always relate to a failure to demonstrate the job relatedness of a test that demonstrates adverse impact.

For example, in EEOC vs NationsBank of Tennessee (2001) a cognitive ability test discriminated against Hispanic employees by requiring English proficiency, a competency that was not required on the job.

Cases related to psychomotor tests that were settled also showed serious issues with job-relatedness. For example, in EEOC vs. American Airlines (2002), the company used a pre-employment test for meter readers and janitors that had adverse impact against females and measured skills that were not required on the job.

The issue of job relatedness and adverse impact can be a bit complex, but the bottom line is that failure to demonstrate the job relatedness of any sort of test can land you in big trouble. Doing so with cognitive or psychomotor tests will significantly increase your risk factor because these tests are most likely to cause issues with minority score patterns.

Process Issues

While selection devices are a common source of litigation, this study shows that the legality of the selection process is a much more important factor. Cases that went to trial around selection devices were decided for the plaintiff only 28% of the time, vs 68% for those related to the selection process, meaning that process issues are more likely to land an employer in hot water.

This table (click to enlarge) summarizes the reason for legal challenges related to discriminatory selection processes.

The data clearly demonstrates that the most common reason for process cases is inconsistency in the hiring process. Cases related to inconsistent process accounted for the largest percentage of all process related cases and over half of these were settled prior to court. A whopping 91% of all inconsistent process cases were found to be discriminatory.

Some examples of process related cases that were lost by the plaintiff include:

In Dennis v Columbia Colleton Medical Center (2002), the U.S. Court of Appeals described the hospital’s selection process as “a peculiarly informal process” because their explanations for not hiring the plaintiff were different from the written job description, giving the decision “a flavor of post-hoc rationalizations.”

In Dunlap v Tennessee Valley Authority (2008), the court determined the company’s hiring process was discriminatory because they found 70 counts of manipulating test scores and changing interview and test scores in candidate rankings.

ERE readers should know that issues related to the selection process include the source of candidates and the way positions are advertised. In Allen v Tobacco Superstore (2007), the company relied on word of mouth to publicize open positions and had no consistent procedures for advancement; employees simply asked a supervisor to be considered. The court found the word-of-mouth hiring and promotion process — which resulted in a company-wide dearth of Black store managers despite operating in communities with large Black populations — was discriminatory.

Hiring processes must be standardized in terms of the information that is used to make employment decisions. Informal practices or doing an end-around and ignoring the documented process can lead to a heap of trouble. Those who think this is just a silly little nuisance should be sure to read on.

Costs of Legal Complaints

Settling out of court resulted in average fees per case of $590,266 for EEOC cases and $668,785 for OFCCP cases.

Cases that were settled by individual plaintiffs rather then a government body averaged $12,292,492. In comparison, cases that went to trial and were found in favor of the plaintiff cost organizations an average of $13,306,346.

Settling out of court is a much cheaper way to go when faced with a challenge to a selection process or tool. Complaints about selection processes can be very expensive and greatly outweigh the costs of taking the time to do things correctly.

Concluding Remarks

The most interesting thing I gleaned from Williams’ article is how much employers’ thinking about hiring practices reminds me of the Ford Pinto. Most of us are old enough to remember Ford’s exploding car bomb and the fact that Ford’s bean counters knew about the risks related to using faulty components in its fuel system, but decided that the estimated cost of litigation was less than the cost of fixing the defective parts.

Like the Pinto, while employment litigation or challenges can be expensive, the numbers show that it is highly unlikely that an employer will have to pay the price, making this an issue of risk tolerance. The odds are in the employers’ favor that they will get away with poor practices and as such the threat of legal action is not enough incentive to force them to action.

The good news is that there are two wonderful reasons to use job-related tests within a consistent and standardized process. The first is that companies have a moral and ethical obligation to do the right thing and treat all applicants fairly. The second is that the two key issues here — job relatedness and standardized process — are directly related to ROI. That’s right, folks: doing the right thing is also a direct path to profits!! We I/O psychologists have decades of data to support this fact, and almost every vendor out there can produce dozens of case studies to support this fact.

So it’s time to flip the risk equation and realize that doing the right thing can also lead to excellent profits. Use your hiring practice to build a Prius, not a Pinto!

I received the e-mail below from a frustrated job applicant who must have found my website when searching for some straight talk about her pre-employment assessment experience.

Hello, My name is #####, and I am an insurance and financial services professional in (city, state). I work for a good company, but just this week I was contacted by large national competitor who was interested in hiring me. After speaking with a recruiter with that company, I was asked to complete a few questionnaires, sign and fax agreements to let this company research my credit and other very private information, and then was sent an email last night to complete an online assessment. I followed the directions, took the 139-question assessment (which took me about an hour) and was emailed this morning saying that I am not able to interview for the position.

I was blown away with surprise, as my credentials are outstanding and I have a clean, strong professional history. I asked for the results of the assessment, and I was denied any information as to why I was dismissed. The questionnaire asked me a few different times about my age, sex, and ethnicity, which I answered completely and honestly. My industry is typically dominated by white male professionals, but I haven’t had any problems with discrimination in the past. I am not assuming that this is discrimination, however, don’t I have a right to know what the results of my professional assessment is? How am I to know what the company views as weak or inadequate professional characteristics without answers or explanation? I want to be as professional and kind as possible with this matter, but I am not sure what to do. Any advice?

Thank you,

######

Here is my response:

Dear ######,

I am sorry you had this experience.

It is the norm that companies don’t share test results with applicants.

They get concerned about this because they think applicants may sue them.

I don’t know enough about this situation to say if the profile for the job is a good match or not to your skills.

I can say this: if you don’t fit the profile they have developed and you answered honestly, you may not be a good fit for that company and their culture even if you can do the job. This may be a good thing in the long run as no one likes to work for a company culture where they don’t fit in.

What can you do to learn more about why you were rejected in this situation? Unfortunately not much.

I would suggest you call the recruiter directly and ask them to share result with you. If they say they can’t, you do have a right to ask HOW the test results are used and what kind of test it is. You have a right to know about the process they use and then you can see maybe what happened due to your testing scores. However, I seriously doubt if any information at all will be shared with you.

In terms of the questions about sex and race, these should never be required. The EEOC has an optional form that they may have provided but if they required this info from you and if you had no chance opt out then they are not playing by the rules. If you feel discrimination is at hand here contact your local EEOC office or an employment lawyer and they can tell you if you have a case.

I hate to say that the kind of thing you experienced is common, but it is. It is the result of several things, including the fact that companies don’t have enough time to discuss information with rejected applicants, companies are worried about being sued, and companies often do stupid things because they don’t know any better.

In today’s economy you are very lucky to have a good job that you like. When it does come time to apply for another job, do your best to ask about the process that will be used to evaluate your suitability for the job.

Regards,

Charles Handler

I am willing to bet that the scenario experienced by #### is a common one. This is highly unfortunate. With high-volume automated processes, for entry-level positions the norm is that no candidate feedback be given. In this situation the recruiter was going after a passive candidate for a professional level position and a relatively deep dialogue unfolded.

We I/O psychologists talk a lot about ROI from assessment via predictive accuracy of assessments. This is definitely important but it is also important not to lose sight of the big picture when it comes to assessments and hiring. Value from the hiring process is much more than just a chance to crawl around an applicant with a microscope. It is also a chance to provide someone with a positive experience and build your company’s brand image.

The company that tried to poach #### certainly does not share this perspective. It left the applicant asking:

Do you value my time? An hour is a pretty long time to ask of a candidate. Assessments taking this long are more common for professional level jobs in which the dialogue with the recruiter has progressed down the funnel. Still it was enough that the candidate noted the exact length of the assessment.

Are you being fair to me? The candidate did not say if the race and sex info request was optional or not. I think that candidates often miss the fact that the EEOC form added to all assessments is actually optional, as this is sometimes not very clear. There is definitely a chance that it was not made optional. Users of assessment tools should review this kind of thing from the candidate perspective and make sure that everything is crystal-clear. You can see what happens when this is not the case. When there is a job applicant who has even the faintest thought of legal action swimming around in her head, bad things are afoot. This is a scenario to be avoided at all costs!

What kind of jerks are you all anyway? Most of all this experience smacks of a company that does not understand the impact of its employment brand on applicants. The web and social media are making brand erosion due to poor experiences a serious reality. Treating candidates poorly is something that is going to be tolerated less and less. Each candidate interaction gives a company a chance to show how much it values applicants and how well it treats its employees. Creating a positive, engaging candidate experience should be a prime directive for all hiring processes. Why not create an interactive online application that serves as a two-way street, engaging applicants while informing them about the job and company and collecting relevant predictive data? This is the future for best-practices-based hiring. Get with it!

What’s wrong with me? While we can’t know for sure if the assessment was the stake through this candidate’s heart, it seems likely. While this may or may not have been appropriate, no one deserves to be treated as poorly as ### was, especially after sharing so much about herself. While it is often the case that assessment results are not shared, companies can still provide rejected applicants with some information that allows them to understand why they were rejected. It is amazing how easily we forget the golden rule. In this case silence is not an effective solution. Sweeping problems under the rug may work in the short run, but in the long run it can lead to some really smelly situations!

If enough applicants ask the questions above based on their experience in the hiring process, eventually this kind of thing is going to cost the company customers, good employees, and revenue!

For those of us who are working to move our field forward. it is often easy to lose the forest for the trees, as our daily efforts to implement assessment often keep us focused on the issues that still hold us back. So in reflecting on the past decade as a thought leader for the assessment world, I have worked hard to refocus on the big picture. When I took time to change my perspective a bit, I realized that zooming out to the treetops has presented a view that is extremely positive and encouraging. This vantage point has reminded me that, while we still face all kinds of crazy challenges in the moment, we have seen some quantum leaps in the testing game that have made the use of pre-employment screening and assessment an even bigger value add then ever.

Here is a quick review of my thoughts on the big picture when it comes to innovation and progress in our industry over the past decade.

Test usage has crossed a major plateau: Ten years ago the testing industry was in total plateau mode. Uptake was at the same level as it had been for decades, with a handful of firms, mostly test publishers and consulting firms, offering administratively heavy tests that tended to lack even the slightest bit of sizzle. The choices were few. Ten years ago one could either buy a test off the shelf and drop it in place, sometimes doing validation work to support its use or sometimes not; or one could hire a consulting firm to do an expensive local validation study using their own content. These options and the universal truth that testing required a good deal of resources to administer and manage, cost a butt load of money, and provided a cold war-ish icky feel to those taking the tests served to keep testing down.

The good news is that we are way past all this now! Test uptake and the available revenue from selling tests has skyrocketed based solely on our friend, technology. The influence of technology is the #1 big-picture trend in assessment over the past decade. It has taken us from a virtual flat line to an exciting new life full of great possibilities. This global technology driven shift has been facilitated by several specific facets of technology that are definitely worth noting (discussed below).

Data shows us the truth. Ease of administration and increased uptake have allowed us to capture millions of data points. This information has greatly accelerated our understanding of what job performance is and how to accurately measure it. We really do know how to accurately measure the traits that drive important work outcomes such as customer service and how to predict which applicants are most likely to achieve these outcomes. This knowledge serves as the basis for increasing speed and accuracy in testing while also making tests much shorter and more manageable for applicants. The confluence of technology and data has also served to drive the price of testing down. A good testing program can be had for a fraction of the price tag that one would find for such things a decade ago.

Methods of demonstrating validity are changing. I am not saying that the concept of validity itself is changing. We have increasingly powerful tools to help us configure job relevant assessment content for local situations (thanks to Trend #2-above). Most vendors have begun to bake a good deal of flexibility into the process and tools used to configure assessment content, building on the data they have harvested and then allowing end users to lightly customize their specific measurement model. In a way this is the holy grail for validity as we begin to see multiple validation strategies converge to show us what content is correct for a given situation and to help test users with a bit of CYA.

Remote, unproctored testing is here to stay. Like it or not, there is no way to beat the convenience of remote testing. I have served on more panels then I can remember on this topic over the past decade and all have reached the same conclusion: we do not have any strong evidence that remote testing is a problem. This does not mean we don’t need to be vigilant. Again, technology is our friend as we enter the age of IRT-driven adaptive testing and increasing security tools such as biometrics. The interesting thing in the decade to come will be the acceptance for remote testing via smart phones. The jury is still out on this one.

Candidate experience is becoming a key driver. A decade ago it was still common to see 200- and 300-item-long tests that asked questions with no perceptible link to the job performance domain. This is no longer the case as we begin to explore ways to increase simulations and games that make the assessment experience transparent and can easily be woven into branding. This will be one of the most significant trends over the next decade as we begin to put the radio buttons of decades old personality tests in the rear view mirror. If nothing else, the next generation of job applicants will begin to demand this type of treatment, and this population is going to begin the redefinition of terms like “job” and “career,” forcing us to adapt our hiring and assessment processes.

Assessment is becoming an integral part of the employee lifecycle. We continue to see progress (albeit slow) toward a more unified vision of what talent is and how it fits within the organization. Assessment has long been used as a tool for succession planning and development. But there has been no continuity with the information collected during the hiring process. Most of this time this info is basically industrial waste, going down the drain and taking value with it. The rise of a talent management mindset has started to help promote a more strategic focus that covers the entire employee lifecycle.

All of the trends above have combined to open the door for increasing levels of value from assessment based on new levels of efficiency and effectiveness. I encourage our readers to take a moment to reflect on just how far we have come and to think about how far we can reach from here. Almost daily I am seeing testing firms use cool new technologies to help meet the end goal of providing realistic, accurate, and efficient ways to predict applicant performance.

In the next decade we are likely to have tons more innovations we can’t even conceive of right now, so prepare to have your mind blown wide open. The strong forward march of technology is going to make all aspects of our lives extremely interesting (and maybe a bit scary?).

Assessment can be complex: There is no one magic bullet and the choices to be navigated make constructing good testing programs a blend of both art and science.

Assessment is often oversold or mis-sold: Vendors often fit round pegs into square holes because they only sell the round pegs and their motive is to hammer as many pegs in as possible.

Testing is not fun: Let’s be honest. Most applicants don’t really enjoy doing complicated math problems or answering questions about how outgoing they are at parties. It is not hard to see why many firms would want to spare applicants from these forms of mild torture!

Where’s the beef?: Many companies totally ignore the value proposition for assessment because they don’t make a game plan for testing that directly allows them to see the ROI it can deliver. How can you have any pudding if you don’t eat your meat? You can’t have any pudding if you don’t eat your meat!

Consumers do not follow best practices: When the consumer is not aware of the steps required to ensure success with assessment, they make it harder to achieve success. Failures often represent the end of the line when it comes to testing programs.

The reasons go on, but all of the above issues can be overcome more easily than you think. I don’t want to downplay the complexities of assessment — they are real and they are many. However, I do feel that if you use the following four steps as your mantra, you will come out on the good side when it comes to assessment.

Above all, the key ingredients to making these steps work for you are:

1. Make sure you complete each of the four steps together as part of a process that has sponsorship from the top of the organization.
2. Partner with an expert. Be it a vendor, a consultant, or an internal resource. You need to be sure that you have someone in your corner who knows each of the four steps and who can shepherd the organization through them.

So without further adieu, here are my four simple steps for successful assessment programs.

Step 1: Understand what you are looking for

Before you even begin working on an assessment solution, understand the problem at hand. Take this investigation as high as you can, reaching toward the key strategic drivers for the organization.

Make sure you know the goals for the coming years and how talent provides the raw material for meeting them. Once you have checked in with the big picture, get down into the details. Create a solid blueprint of what performance looks like at a given job or group of jobs. Don’t just go off a job description either! Clearly outline the knowledge, skills, abilities, values, behaviors, competencies, etc. that drive success. If you don’t have the full picture of what value is, how the heck can you know what to look for in a candidate? You can guess if you want to, but the payoff is not going to make you a hero with the boss.

Don’t get too hung up on vendors who suggest you use their test to set a profile benchmark either. While these solutions do have some value, letting the test drive your performance profile is a classic example of putting the cart before the horse. When you build a house, you usually approach the contractor with a full set of blueprints in hand. Assessment programs are no different!

Step 2: Choose assessments that measure the things you value

Nothing more, nothing less. Questions and content that cannot be tied directly back to the things you define in Step 1 of your process can be considered nothing but waste.

What is the value of an irrelevant question? It is only noise, and this noise can obstruct the truth. The classic best practice for choosing assessments is to create a test plan that grids out all the key things that you defined in Step 1 and identifies test or assessment content that measures each of them as part of a hiring process.

This step is fraught with peril. Vendors do not always make sure you create as little waste as possible during this step. They have a set of pegs and they are going to sell them even if some of them just don’t fit.

So the key to this step is finding a vendor or partner that can provide thorough coverage of your value model with little waste. Listing all the vendor selection guidelines to be aware of is a whole different article. At a minimum I suggest the following:

• Don’t hire a testing vendor with no I/O psychologists on staff
• Demand technical validation reports
• Check references from industries that are similar to yours, ask for stories of ROI and value
• Take any and all tests recommended by a vendor, and view the results from the perspective of the candidate. How would the test make you feel if you were an applicant?
• Don’t focus on tests that leave huge spaces for inferences between test questions and job performance. Why not simplify things and use assessments that look like the job and feel like the job? Math tests and personality tests do work but they are so far removed from what is being asked of employees behaviorally while on the job that they introduce room for noise, error, and ill-will among applicants.

Step 3: Evaluate applicants via a consistent process that relies on multiple types of user-friendly data

Some of the biggest issues limiting the impact of assessment come in their use as decision-making tools. Assessment info is just one of many data streams that support hiring experts in making consistent and accurate decisions. The key to using assessment data effectively is to be consistent and to know both its limitations and its value-adds.

I see over- and under-reliance on assessment results happening in the decision-making process. End users either feel that the assessment can help remove any indecision they have, or on the other end of the spectrum, simply round-file the assessment results in favor of their own opinions.

As with most things in life, the sweet-spot lies somewhere in the middle. Implementing assessment requires some change management and some investment in an understanding of its value proposition as a decision-support tool. To the value an assessment program can deliver:

• Equip end users with user-friendly reporting tools. Many tests come from a clinical tradition that involves tons of narrative and obtuse nomenclature. Whenever you are considering an assessment vendor, look at its reports and make sure they make sense and are as simple as they can be for getting the job done.
• Ensure that key decision points are synced with your process.  For high applicant volumes, there’s no problem using an auto screening tool at the top of the funnel. For low volume, high-touch hiring, this is not as effective an approach. The key is to provide decision makers with the info they need, when they need it. Process and assessment should be tightly linked or waste will surely occur.
• Train end users on the value proposition for using the assessments you provide in a consistent manner. Empower them to use the info to support their expertise. Assessment is an excellent way to confirm hunches or trends that an expert can see unfolding throughout the hiring process.

Step 4: Close the loop and evaluate

This is perhaps the step that is most often excluded from the game plan. It can be hard to collect the data required to show value from assessment. However, where there is a will there is a way. Nothing sells assessments like results. How do we show results? By making sure that there is a plan for “closing the loop” and evaluating the impact of an implementation on outcomes that are seen as important. Think about Six Sigma. Think about business intelligence. You will surely arrive at some examples from your own travels that clearly show the power of these tools for identifying waste and understanding the cause of trends in data.

Assessment has been offering business intelligence and process improvement opportunities for over 50 years, but many companies are not paying any attention.

As assessment becomes more of a strategic partner to organizations, it is doing so based on the success stories that it is providing via case studies and other tales of ROI. The companies that are paying attention are the ones that are telling the stories that the C-suite wants to hear!

It can be hard to track value because job performance measures are abstract or more qualitative in nature. However, if it is one thing that our present state of technology is providing, it is data. Billions and billions of data points are captured on a daily basis. Surely there is something we can work with here!

If you have followed the first three steps and leave the fourth one out, you are still leaving most of the value from assessment on the table. Here are some tips to help you avoid this unfortunate situation:

• Plan for proving ROI from Day 1. When selling assessment, go back to the organization’s strategic drivers and work to clarify what outcomes will have value to the bottom line.
• Plan for a data feed that will allow you to see the impact of hiring decisions on these valued outcomes.
• Don’t fully rely on your testing vendor to do the above for you. Many vendors have their own agenda, and statistics are easily massaged to feed an agenda. Use your internal resources or hire an independent third party to ensure you get the real story.
• Start small. Run a Proof of Concept or pilot study first to manage the process in a controlled fashion. Use the results as ammo to up the ante and gain leverage with the powers that be.
• Be creative. Don’t be afraid to think about things differently and to demand that your organization takes control and looks for new sources of value. You may be surprised at the interesting solutions you develop.

Assessment is not a risk as long as you use it properly. As with any power tool it is important to exercise caution, follow the instructions, use the right tool for the job, and wear the proper protective gear. Do these things and you are in the zone!

It is a jungle out there when it comes to choosing vendors but you will make things much easier on yourself if you educate yourself and see past the B.S. Simply do the work required to see if you are offered coverage for all four steps presented here.

If a vendor does not support all four of these phases, you are leaving money on the table. Many solutions you will find may skip steps in the name of speed and ease. This is not necessarily bad or evil; just don’t expect the same level of value. The more time you spend optimizing at each step, the more value is likely to return.

Happy hunting!!!

When it comes to helping clients understand and use pre-employment assessment, my goal is to keep it real. By this I mean taking a practical, no-nonsense approach that views assessment for what it is: just another of the many pieces of data used to support informed decision-making (hiring) by experts (recruiters and hiring managers). My time at the latest ERE Expo fully supported this viewpoint and explains both why assessment is valuable and why it is often overlooked as a viable component in the hiring process.

To be honest, my overall take is that most folks in the hiring game really don’t care about assessment and don’t trust that it works. There are so many other things to attend to: branding, sourcing and managing candidates, candidate engagement and communication, and compliance, just to name a few. Why add another thing, especially when using it seems to involve a lot of hocus-pocus and can be a pain in the you know what? I don’t think I am being overly negative when I present the following observations:

Assessment is rarely included as a strategic part of the hiring process. It is most often used tactically — to fight fires, not to support bigger-picture business strategy. In most companies recruitment does not even give us assessment folks a seat at the table, leading to a lack of integration and focus within the hiring process.

Assessment is not viewed as a quality source of useful information. Many don’t fully understand what assessment is and how it works, leading to skepticism that results are not effective in helping them make good decisions.

Assessment is viewed as more trouble then it is worth. Many feel that assessment information just makes their job more complicated and can present extra expense while increasing legal risks.

Information provided by assessments is hard to understand and can be misleading. Many view assessment reports as tedious and not really in line with the language used by the business.

Assessment is not used to help with employment branding or candidate engagement. Assessment is not seen as a tool to help increase interactivity or provide differentiation for the company via a strong recruitment brand.

Assessment vendors are not well represented within the recruitment vendor community. There are a ton of other products and services that are required to support a hiring process and thus are more mainstream than assessment, (you can’t make hires if you can’t find any candidates).

I fully understand and respect these viewpoints. ERE Expos continually raise my awareness that hiring is no easy task and managing a recruiting function can be a real bear, but I’m here to tell you why the above observations are not always true, why you should care about assessment, and why the act of caring is easier than it has ever been.

Information is power. No, adding assessment will not allow you to be 100% effective in your decision-making. Anyone who claims it can work with even 50 or 60% levels of accuracy is full of it. BUT, assessment can add tremendous value to the decision-making process and can, when combined with other data and the judgment of experienced experts, help ensure consistent quality hiring decisions. Get over it: assessment is just one more tool in the toolbox (but it’s a power tool!). The good news is that we have 50 years of evidence supporting the fact that good assessment tools do work when used properly!

Technology is making it easier than ever. Yes, assessment is getting easier and easier to use, thanks to advances in technology and measurement science amongst the vendor community. This includes implementation and reporting. Both of these factors were once barriers to the use of assessment, as expensive and time-consuming local validation studies were required and reports were confusing. Most vendors now have unprecedented levels of flexibility for aligning content in painless fashion and have reams of data to support the effectiveness of these products. It’s a whole new ballgame these days when it comes to selection science and technology.

Strategy wins the day. Yes, using assessment strategically is a best practice that can help differentiate companies via their ability to hire applicants who fit with their company culture and who possess the traits required to fulfill strategic objectives. Of course tactical use has value, too, but those companies that are breaking down walls between functions can really begin to see the long term value it can provide.

Interactivity and assessment can be friends. Yes, assessment is an excellent way to help anchor branded experiences that are part of the application process, providing job seekers with a level of feedback that is beyond that of the current process. Brand gaming, realistic job previews, and other interactive tools for job seekers are the new frontier, helping the value of assessments take a quantum leap forward. While these things can be costly, they are a great way to break down walls between recruiting and other HR functions (see above).

Sleep well at night. No, assessment does not increase your risk of legal problems provided you use a good tool that has been implemented following best practices (such as those found in the Uniform Guidelines for Employee Selection Procedures). In fact, not using assessment at all places you at much greater risk due to increases in subjectivity of decisions and a lack of ability to link hiring process to job performance requirements.

There’s room on the tradeshow floor. Assessment vendors have a hard row to hoe, proving their value and helping potential clients to understand how their products work. There is tremendous value in what they have to offer and vendors need to step up and continue to invest in promoting awareness and creating exposure. There are lots of dollars to be had, despite the recent downturn. Those of us who do this for a living know that the scenario of many applicants for few slots is where assessment returns the most value because it allows users to be choosy.

I totally understand why assessment is not the hot topic or the belle of the ball when it comes to recruitment shows. There’s a lot to compete with and I am in no way advocating that shows like ERE focus solely on assessment. But I do feel there is room for assessment to move out from the shadowy fringe and into the light a bit more. My message to the powers that be in recruitment is, “Hey, give us a chance to help you keep it real! You’ll be glad you did!”

Continued (but slow) movement from test to experience: I have been talking about this trend for a while now. This past year represented the beginning of a significant shift in thinking that assessment should be an engaging experience for the applicant. The concept of a “test” is still the primary notion when it comes to assessment. Still, I saw more interesting virtual worlds, recruitment branded experiences, employment-related games, and interactivity in this past year then ever. It may be 5 or even 10 years but the norm for assessment will see a significant decrease in “tests” in favor of interactive experiences.

Impact! The proof as they say is in the pudding, and those who use assessment correctly — and understand that its use is but another business process to be analyzed — continue to see rewards. The effectiveness of assessment is attenuated when companies do not take the time to choose the right assessment tools. This is still one area in which there is great need for improvement. Many vendors sell their product or system as a panacea that is equally relevant in every situation. The moment you compromise on the relevance of the test to your situation, you must accept diminished returns from the use of that test. Those companies that continue to do their due diligence continue to be rewarded with the sound ROI that comes with a well-planned testing program.

Continued aggregation amongst assessment vendors: This is the trend that keeps on trending year after year. Assessment these days is a combination of two elements: content and technology. Those who are good at one have traditionally not been as good at the other, and as such have needed to use M&A to help ensure they have the package required for success. It is unlikely that this year will see a move any bigger than the merger between PreVisor and SHL. This is one for the ages and truly demonstrates the importance of having both content and technology that can offer a global reach. If you look, back over the past five years, it is clear that there are actually fewer pure assessment houses than there ever were before. Aggregation has led to fewer, bigger assessment companies to choose from. This is not to say that there are no new companies on the scene; rather, the newer entities use assessment as one part of a bigger picture slate of products or services (see trend below for more info).

Assessment is an increasingly vital cog in larger machines: The biggest impact of assessment in the coming year(s) may not actually be directly visible. Instead, assessment is being used to provide functionality related to search and match efficiency and effectiveness. For example, there has been a proliferation of new sites that use assessment to help match individuals with companies and job openings. Assessment is also being integrated into talent management solutions and ATS-type solutions. So, we are continuing to adapt and evolve in a way that sees assessment as one piece of a bigger picture.

Commoditization: I talk about this one every year and I continue to mention it because it is a very significant and strong trend. An increasingly large number of off-the-shelf assessments are becoming available, and vendors are now working toward creating highly effective assessments that are transactional and can be sold at a very low price. This is the result of our ability to quickly deploy more powerful tests. While there is still no substitute for a customized assessment that is mapped onto a specific situation, many companies do not have the time and resources required for such things and are happy to have the applicant data provided by a relevant but somewhat generic test.

There have been two major impacts of commoditization on the assessment market over the past years: a reduction in assessment cost and the availability of assessment to small- and mid-market companies. The price of assessment continues to drop as the effort required to implement it decreases and the options available increase. At the same time, the collective data and technology we have available means that smaller- and mid-market companies can now use a self-service model to purchase and implement tests, opening up a whole new strata of the market to vendors. Of course there is a good deal of merit to the concerns of purists who suggest that without a locally created and validated assessment tool, companies are placing themselves in a position for potential legal issues. Legal issues are an important concern given the next trend discussed below.

Continued government scrutiny: The current Administration has definitely presented a situation in which legal concerns regarding the use of testing have become a legitimate concern. The biggest problem seems to be around the fact that there have been changes in the long-accepted standards for evaluating test fairness to the point where these standards leave almost any test vulnerable to some sort of perceived problem. I have also been hearing that the number of inquiries and audits are also on the rise. While such things often do have merit and there is some need to ensure that tests are being used properly, it can be hard for users of tests to sleep soundly at night these days. This may be especially true given the trend toward faster, easier-to-use testing programs (a trend that I do not see reversing any time soon).

So what to do? Should one let this deter them from the use of assessments? Not hardly!! Following the basic foundations of good testing is a strategy that will provide protection and piece of mind. Beyond this, it is important that users of tests understand that the government looks at the big picture when it comes to testing programs. This means that you should be aware of diversity issues within your workforce and take action to remedy them as part of a compliance program. Using the most valid and fair test possible still does not protect you from the cold hard facts related to the diversity of your workforce compared to that of the local population in which you do business.

Assessment is one small part of the big picture: This one has been a hard one for me to swallow at times because I live and breathe assessment. The reality, however, is that assessment is just one part of a much bigger picture when it comes to the hiring process. As such, it is never going to be the hottest area within hiring and it is likely not going to be leading the trends in how we hire. This is not to say that it does not have an important seat at the table and that its use will not continue to grow. It definitely will. The real challenge is in the continued integration of assessment data into the rest of the information used to make a hiring decision. I personally am really ready to see firms begin to take a bigger-picture, process-oriented approach in which assessment is an integral part of a big picture strategy. Time and again I see companies missing the mark in this regard, simply thinking that grafting an assessment onto their existing process is the way to get it done.

Increased use in emerging markets: The increase in the use of assessments in emerging markets is a white-hot trend that is continuing forward. As we begin to see assessment companies take a global perspective and as emerging markets are continuing to emerge, assessment is becoming an important workforce planning tool outside the borders of the U.S. I don’t see this trend slowing down anytime soon driven by mergers such as that between PreVisor and SHL and by increased distribution and market penetration in places such as India and China where workforce management practices are still in their infancy. I believe that much of the new assessment uptake over the next 5-10 years will arise in these markets.

Increased security: We are entering into an era that is seeing unprecedented levels of security regarding tests and test content. While cheating websites are still arising with too great a frequency for the comfort of the testing world, the available countermeasures are better than ever. The big testing firms are all moving forward with sophisticated tools that leverage Computer Adpative Testing and Item Response Theory to deliver tests that are never the same each time they are given. While cheating is definitely still a matter of concern, I continue to be impressed by the layers of process and technology that are being used to mitigate this problem. All of the research that I have seen clearly demonstrates that the collective impact of cheating is negligible. The real areas where it is of the most concern, high-stakes testing, is the area in which test developers are developing some of the most highly effective countermeasures available.

It has been another great year for testing. The content and technology used to deliver it is getting better than ever and this is freeing us up to begin the challenge of making testing a more engaging and enjoyable experience for those asked to participate. This area is where most of the action will be in the years to come. This will be effort well spent!

A brief discussion of the rights that should be extended to those who are asked to invest their time in completing assessments will help those who use and sell assessments better understand this perspective and use this information to make assessment a more enjoyable and meaningful experience for job applicants.

The following list of rights has been compiled based on the general trends I have seen in the past decade of working with the pre-employment assessment programs used by a wide variety of companies. If companies are actually serious about treating candidates as customers, they need to give serious consideration to extending the following rights to their job applicants.

Right #1: Candidates have the right to a proper introduction to the assessment and why they are being asked to take it.

Often, a link to an assessment simply appears as a candidate passes through the various parts of an online application process. Many times there is little or no introduction offered to the candidate; they simply find themselves on a screen that introduces the assessment and asks them to begin. In many cases the actual assessment content is hosted by a third-party vendor outside of the company to which the candidate is applying. In such cases the transition between the careers site and the assessment site is not a smooth one. This is very noticeable to the candidate and can be off-putting or confusing. Candidates have a right to a smooth transition that is accompanied by a realistic and meaningful introduction to the assessment they are being asked to take, and the reason they are being asked to take it.

Right #2: Candidates have the right to an assessment experience that is of a reasonable length.

We have come a long way in this department but it is still the case that many online assessment experiences are longer then they should be. In the early days of online testing, it was common for assessments to take up to an hour. These days almost every vendor has been able to use data and experience to shorten their tests significantly while increasing their predictive power. Asking a candidate to sit for more than 30 minutes is simply bad PR and a poor experience for the user. As candidates move further along in the application process and the dialogue with the employer develops, it is acceptable for assessments to take longer. So, a second round of testing that occurs onsite as part of the interview process can approach an hour or even more. But initial rounds should be subject to strict time limitations.

Right #3: Candidates have the right to know where the assessment fits within the overall hiring process, and what they can expect next.

It is very common for the assessment experience to end with a short thank-you note that simply states, “don’t call us, we’ll call you.” Of course a thank you is very nice, but I think that candidates should be told honestly what to expect next. How long until someone contacts them? Who will contact them? And what they should expect as the next step is an importance pieces of information. Remember, your candidate is a customer, and keeping customers informed is an excellent way to build trust and loyalty.

Right #4: Candidates have the right to a good user experience.

No one enjoys a poorly crafted user interface or experience when using a website. We have come to a point where almost all interfaces and experiences are pleasant ones in which functionality works and the environment is visually appealing. Assessment should be no different. The pages on which assessment content is presented should be of a manageable length and should be easy on the eyes. A page with hundreds of radio buttons is very hard to mange visually and can unduly raise applicant stress levels. Poorly labeled information and confusing instructions can also contribute to poor user experiences. Assessment experiences should be subject to QA and usability testing just as other web-based experiences are. Assessment should support all browsers and operating systems and should not leave those with older technology or those who choose a less common system at any sort of disadvantage.

Right #5: Candidates have the right to technical support, no matter when they are applying.

Most assessment providers do an excellent job of ensuring that good technical support is available at all times, but I still see examples where tech support is only open during certain hours. Remember that applicants may be applying at any hour of the day and that being denied the opportunity to have important questions answered can present a very poor experience for the applicant.

Right #6: Candidates have the right to assessment content that appears job related.

Assessment content that leaves the applicant wondering, “Why are they asking me this?” or “What does this question have to do with the job?” … this is one of the most common issues with assessments. Personality assessments are particularly poor in this department as they often ask questions about personal feelings and emotions that are not presented in work related terms. As a general rule, the more the assessment content looks and feels like the job or uses terms that are job related, the better. From a branding perspective, applicants should be left feeling that the employer is not asking a bunch of BS questions that present them as weird, uncaring, or out of touch. Many companies still struggle with this one and employers who are adopting assessments should be sure to evaluate content recommended by a vendor and push back when questions raise concern.

Right #7: Candidates have the right to an enjoyable assessment experience.

Most of us don’t think of taking tests as entertaining, and most of them are not. But we have an opportunity to make taking tests a more enjoyable experience. Many vendors have been making great progress toward creating more stimulating and engaging assessments that involve either branded experiences or simulated job content. Employers need to begin to draw parallels between branding and every aspect of the application process. Creating customized application experiences are not necessarily viable options for all. But employers should at least explore their options in this area. Candidates have a right to be entertained if possible. We will see tremendous progress in this area over the next five years and that candidate expectations will continue to shift toward increased engagement.

Right #8: Candidates have the right to know what to expect in terms of feedback from the assessment.

This is the biggest issue when it comes to applicants’ complaints about being asked to complete an assessment. Assessment results are almost never shared with applicants. There are good reasons for this. Organizations often do not have the resources to provide adequate levels of feedback to candidates and it is not advisable to present applicants with information that may be perceived as negative. So what are companies to do about this dilemma? In some countries (i.e., the UK) employers have no choice but to make results available due to government mandates. Here in the U.S. most companies handle this issue poorly. Applicants are simply met with no information about the results policy at all. In the best cases, only those applicants who are hired are able to see results, and this is only after the hiring process has concluded. A viable solution to this issue has proven to be elusive to those of us in the testing world, and I feel it is out of line to demand that applicants have the right to see their results in all cases. So what rights do applicants have in this department? At a minimum employers should present information about what applicants can expect in the form of feedback, and why. Simple straightforward honesty is always a good policy.

Beyond this, more engaging application activities can provide different forms of feedback. Giving applicants the opportunity to interact can provide real-time feedback and exercises that are tied to realistic job previews can often provide very subtle feedback that is of value in helping an applicant understand their fit with the job or organization. It is possible to pleasantly present some form of data back to applicants with regard to their performance. Many organizations have been creative enough in this area.

While it may be a surprise to some, there are still a few assessments hanging around out there that contain some pretty strange questions. In some cases tests that are meant for clinical purposes have been used for selection. These tests can include items that ask some pretty personal questions that are simply not related to job performance in most situations. The good news is that situations where applicants do face offensive questions are few and far between these days. Assessment content should be free from anything that could be offensive to applicants.

While many of these rights may be taken to be self evident (that is, they are no-duh statements), it is amazing how many times I have seen some of them ignored by those who sell and use assessments. By identifying and following the basic things that are required to support the conscientious use of assessments, we can all help ensure the accuracy of assessment results while making assessment a more accepted part of the job application process.

After missing last year, I was happy to be able to spend a good part of last week attending this year’s HR Technology conference. As usual between the networking, the tradeshow, and the sessions, it was sensory overload. I made sure to take some time to try and notice the forest from the trees, while still sniffing around for interesting details.

Given my specialty focus on assessment, I want to focus my commentary on my specific thoughts about what the show says about the position of assessment within the bigger picture. However, to frame this commentary, here’s a very short summary of the main overall trends I took away from the show, as follows:

There are many facets to HR technology these days, but hiring and performance/talent management seem to have the lion’s share of the bandwidth. Although assessment is my specialty, I do know a thing or two about these other areas, and this knowledge leads me to the overall conclusion that there is nothing really super-duper new and exciting going on in these areas. We are fully living the ramifications of the dawn of talent management systems and social networking. These big shifts have been going on for a few years now, and it seems that products are all either emerging or refining along the lines of these themes. Still potentially exciting and very useful, but not especially new.

So what about assessment and this year’s HR Technology Conference? My highest-level thought is: “Assessment? What is assessment?”

That is, despite my strong bias as the assessment champion of the world, I still don’t think it’s a stretch to say that assessment is severely under-represented at the HR Tech show. There was only one session with any content related to assessment, and many big names in assessment (and assessment technology) were not represented at the trade show. (I counted nine companies under the “testing” heading in the expo guidebook, some I’ve never heard of; there were a variety of screening companies, but most were things like background checking.) The overall number of assessment companies was a very small fraction of the number of companies in other, apparently more sexy areas, such as ATS, Performance Management, and Learning. Furthermore, assessment does not appear to be a significant part of the product offerings or strategic plans for either vendors of higher-level recruitment products or talent management systems.

Back to my big picture theme: assessment is absent from talent management and social networking. You could hear a pin drop when you ask vendors of these products about their use of or interest in assessment. Heck, I wasn’t even eligible to put my card in the fishbowl for even one chance to win an iPad. Seriously: I wasn’t relevant enough! It’s not like there has been a drop-off from some earlier high-water mark. I guess I have just come to grips with the fact that assessment is just one small piece of the bigger picture when it comes to HR technology.

The optimist in me says the lack of presence means there is room to grow, and this growth is happening. Coming out of the dark years of 2008 and 2009, more firms are turning to assessment as a value-add to the hiring process. My experience and research clearly shows that awareness and working knowledge of assessment is very low amongst its consumer base, and thus it is up to vendors to build, promote, and sell assessment. Assessment vendors are doing a smashing job in this realm, but few vendors of ancillary stuff seem to care.

I do want to stress that I feel the lack of presence of assessment is not due to the fact that it is not an effective tool. We I/O types have decades of experience and data to show that assessment works and works well. Add new technology to the mix and many vendors have products that are more efficient and more effective than ever.

So let’s keep it positive and focus on what I saw from the assessment vendors that were represented at the show. What I did see were some really nice examples of exciting new technology and science within the assessment world. While I have known about these things, HR tech gave me the opportunity to actually play with some of the good stuff. Here is a list of my three favorite assessment-related products from the expo. All of these products are cutting edge and can add tremendous value in ways that have not been possible before.

Please note the vendors of these products are listed in alphabetical order to be sure I am not seen as playing favorites.

Manager Ready – DDI has a really awesome new technology-backed product for managerial selection. This new technology provides the benefits of assessment centers (i.e., highly realistic job content, the ability to measure complex problem-solving, and the use of live assessors) in a short format that is available for a lower price-point then traditional assessment centers. This product is a very nice blend of technology and content and provides a highly valuable way to evaluate managerial performance both pre- and post-hire, allowing for a nice continuum along the employee lifecycle.

Virtual World Simulation — Hats off to Kenexa for taking the initiative to develop an exciting new concept representing the nexus of virtual world technology and assessment science. Kenexa (whom I am working with on the development of this simulation product) has taken the initiative to develop a wide-open virtual world that provides the opportunity to measure and evaluate almost anything related to job performance. The product is currently a sandbox that is ready to be dialed in to a place where it can add value via assessing complex interpersonal interactions. It is a great venue for the delivery and evaluation of training material and even post-hire development. The platform can fill these rolls and more in a manner that allows for highly customized content. It provides the ability to support branding and high levels of candidate engagement. This is the start of a new direction for assessment!

PreVisor — was true to form as one of the leaders in technology-based assessment by showing a wide range of cool technologies it has been working on for the past year. These include:

• Situational judgment: Motion-capture technology has been used to create a realistic-looking situational judgment simulation product that allows for clients to customize and create new content with relative ease.
• Managerial inbox: This product provides a nice, day-in-the-life type scenario which requires that the assessee deal with all the fun the things that normally roll across a manager’s desk. These include fun stuff like angry customers and employees, business information challenges, office intrusions, and a phone that rings off the hook.

If you haven’t figured it out yet, the theme to be extracted from all of the above highlights is the fact that the newest and brightest technology-backed assessment products all include some form of simulation to make the experience more engaging and realistic for applicants, while also providing a superior ability to predict performance, especially for more complex jobs. This is what you call killing two birds with one stone, and it makes total sense.

Given the focus on simulations and the idea that assessment can be an “experience” rather than a test, I was a bit disappointed to see the lack of attention to the branding aspect that simulations can provide, given their high fun factor. Assessment vendors themselves are well aware of the capabilities here but with the fat stacks of cash being spent by job boards and recruitment branding firms, I am amazed that no one seems to care about the quality factor that adding assessment can provide. I sincerely hope that this represents the next frontier.

When it comes to visibility for the value of assessment, I have to shrug my shoulders and say, “there’s always next year.”

Publisher’s Note: The HR Technology Conference is one of the most influential events in our profession, so ERE.net has devoted significant coverage to it. John Zappe wrote several articles from the floor of the show, and you can read them here, here and here. John Hollon at our sister publication for HR professionals, TLNT.com, wrote a wrap-up of the event. Raghav Singh weighed in with his opinion here.

• Sound methodology: when created correctly, assessments provide an accurate and reliable way to measure constructs important for job performance
• ROI: we have tons of data to show that assessments provide a strong value add to the hiring process
• Variety: there are thousands of tests available, covering almost every job and industry
• Versatility: tests can be used for both pre- and post-hire assessment, helping them offer more value

Despite the advantages listed above, we need to be realists and face the fact that testing is a difficult game to be in. Despite a huge shot in the arm provided by technology, the basic testing paradigm still involves candidates filling in small circles and likely grousing a bit in the process.

On the other side of the fence, many companies view a “test” as isolated element of the hiring process, not an integrated part of the bigger picture. As a result of this paradigm it is not a stretch to say that in their current mainstream state of use:

• Tests are boring — they are not engaging for candidates. In fact, they have the opposite effect.
• Tests build walls — it is very common for a separate function to be in charge of testing and for tests to be an “add on,” creating separation between various parts of the recruitment/staffing functions
• Tests are highly localized — although highly effective as key parts of an employee lifecycle/talent management perspective, tests are most commonly used to fight fires
• Tests offer only a one-way dialogue — pre-employment tests provide no feedback to the applicant and by doing so can function to erode employment branding efforts

The positive and negative factors associated with testing combined with what I call “technology push” (the idea that advances in technology push all businesses and industries upward and forward by providing the infrastructure needed for innovation) are driving a fundamental shift in testing. This shift will carry us away from thinking about “tests” toward an increased focus on the idea of creating an “experience” that adds value for all parties involved in multiple ways.

We can expect this shift in focus to bring an increase in:

• Transparency: tests will become embedded into a more engaging candidate experience until they become transparent to the applicant
• Interactivity: experiences will increase the level of interactivity between organizations and job applicants/employees, as well as interactivity within the applicant population
• Predictive accuracy: technology-backed experiences will help create major shifts in predictive capabilities of assessment-based content based on business intelligence and data analysis that flows from increased engagement and interactivity

Enough preaching. Let’s get practical. Here are some of the ways that assessment will begin to manifest the shift. Expect to see the following either now or in the not-too-distant future:

• Assessment-backed puzzles/games used as part of the recruitment/branding process
• Interactive recruitment processes with assessments cleverly embedded within branded experiences
• Simulations that mimic the key elements of a job
• Full-blown virtual worlds in which candidates can interact and be evaluated
• Living profiles that use assessment to help provide accurate and dynamic replacements for resumes

On a practical note, let’s take a short look at the benefits that the products of the shift will provide. They are too numerous to list in this article, but they begin with the following:

• Assessment can become part of branding of the bigger picture when it comes to sourcing and hiring
• Sourcing targeted groups will become easier
• Assessment can be fun for applicants
• Assessments can do a better job of prediction
• Cognitive assessments can hold less legal risk due to the elimination of key elements shown to be a foundation for adverse impact (differential prediction levels for minority candidates)
• Assessments can easily be integrated into learning and development, helping take a more talent-lifecycle-focused approach

I will be the first to admit that it’s not all unicorns and rainbows here. Coming back to reality, let’s discuss some of the challenges to be faced during the journey. These are numerous and include the fact that:

• Most companies are not yet thinking about branding and assessing together. There is a serious lack of vision when it comes to the strategic use of assessment in general, and the more innovative the ideas get, the less push there is to champion them
• Vendors of assessments will need to shift perspective too. We are still living in a world where the vendors are driving innovation via the tools they create and market
• Technology is still not where it needs to be. We are somewhat forced to watch from the sidelines until new “killer apps” arise to help us make some of the key elements of the shift more accessible by lowering the cost of adoption and the time it takes to implement
• Creating the shift is currently expensive and requires localized work. At the present time, some of the concepts I refer to here are a hard sell because the ROI is not as immediate as it is for situations where assessments can be quickly deployed to fight fires
• The applicant pool for which the products of the shift will be most relevant are not even in the job market yet. The youth of today, the same people who are the employees of tomorrow, look at things very differently, especially when it comes to technology use expectations and what the concept of a “job” is

So how long will it be until we see some of the things that I refer to be key manifestations of the shift? The seeds have been planted. I have seen and worked with examples that I feel are exciting and cutting edge. But these things are hiding out in corners and one has to know where to look to find them.

Within five years things will begin to look different as technology drives innovation, vendors will make more advanced products that are more affordable, and companies will begin to see the benefits.

In 10 years everything about testing will be different except the core fundamental assumptions required to create a good test, (i.e., reliability, validity, and the test-development process).

The best thing about it is that the shift means that the boring idea of testing will be transformed into something that continues to add value while also adding fun.

Many ERE readers know that we at Rocket-Hire have a fanatical interest in the pre-employment assessment industry, and continuously comment about its trends and happenings. This interest in how end-users such as recruitment, HR, and line management actually use online assessment has led us to continue to run our Online Assessment Usage Survey, annually dating all the way back to 2002.

At the end of this article, you’ll find a link to this year’s survey. Please take a few minutes to help us and other members of our community learn more about assessment usage trends by providing us with information about your company’s screening and assessment practices (Don’t worry: all responses are confidential and we will only report aggregate data).

Given the steady increase in interest and the lack of information about this industry, we feel the results will continue to have value for the ERE community. We look forward to reporting our findings right here on ERE sometime this fall.

In order to provide some extra motivation, here’s a quick summary of the key findings from last year.

Summary of 2009 Findings

Last year’s findings were generally consistent with those of our past six years worth of data. Here is a quick summary. Last year, 148 end-users of assessment completed the survey, representing a very small increase over the previous year. Respondents represented a wide range of company sizes. The results confirmed what most of our previous surveys have found:

• Prescreening and assessment are continuing their gradual penetration into the mainstream of recruitment and hiring.
• Personality inventories and skill and technical certifications continue to be the most popular online assessment tools. Assessments of cognitive abilities as well as fit with the company culture have expanded as well.
• Respondents report a lack of understanding, weak budgets, or a general lack of support for online tools as their primary obstacles to adoption or greater use of modern prescreening and assessment technology.
• Those organizations that formally evaluate their hiring practices tend to support the use of prescreening and assessment, but a majority of assessment users are still failing to evaluate the effectiveness of their screening and assessment tools.
• Legal issues continue to affect the design and deployment of online hiring tools; however, a majority of pre-employment assessment users have not had any involvement in legal, EEO, or OFCCP proceedings.

There clearly is a growing interest in scientifically derived hiring tools. This trend is encouraging but not particularly surprising; these numbers will continue to grow as more organizations understand the value in properly evaluating the impact of screening and assessment tools, seeing for themselves how quality hiring tools can improve a workforce. We feel strongly that the current economic recovery is starting to drive a strong increase in assessment usage and we are eager to use this year’s survey to see if our hunch is correct.

This Year’s Survey

The goal of this year’s survey is to continue building on the information gathered from past surveys and to verify the fact that usage rates for online screening and assessment are increasing. There is tremendous value in the information your survey responses will provide. With your help, this year’s results will:

• Provide some reality to speculation regarding increases in the use of both online screening tools and online assessment tools.
• Provide a broader perspective on the evolution of the entire staffing process.
• Assist companies with some basic benchmark information about how online screening and assessment tools are being deployed.
• Likely confirm our speculation that while many companies are using online screening and assessment tools, few are collecting the metrics needed to help them understand the true ROI they are providing.
• Help us gain some insight into the assessment technologies that will be most popular in the near future.

All survey responses are confidential and individual responses will not be shared with anyone. We are not able to use information from individual vendors of screening and assessment tools or persons who may consult to multiple organizations.

Just click here and you’ll be taken to the survey, which should only take 10-15 minutes to complete. Please feel free to forward the link to any end-users of assessment. If you have any questions, contact chandler@rocket-hire.com. We look forward to sharing our results with you.

Lets take a quick look at the facts:

• Resumes are highly subjective, and there is a lack of standardization for the information they present
• Resumes are loaded with embellishments and misinformation
• Resumes are hard to deconstruct in a way that helps facilitate automated matching
• Reviewing resumes causes a serious bottleneck in the hiring process that can tax the bandwidth of hiring personnel as applicant volume increases

Of course, resumes do serve an important function in that they provide hiring personnel with a concise package of valuable information. But the fact that they are a calling card that provides a high-level summary of an applicant’s qualifications means that they end up being used incorrectly. Using a resume as a top-of-the-funnel tool on which to base quick judgments about applicant suitability is a source of major error. The value of the resume lies more in its use as one of many sources of information to be reviewed as one deepens the dialogue with a candidate. For instance, a quick resume review is an excellent way to help one prepare for an interview with a candidate.

I am not alone in my opinions. Over the past decade, many of us have looked for tools that can solve some of the noted problems with resumes and thus serve as a viable replacement. There have been many attempts to provide such tools. At the heart of all these methods is some way to deconstruct the information presented on the resume into a set of searchable, matchable parameters. Some have used parsing technology in which information is evaluated using artificial intelligence. While resume deconstruction methods are a good start, they do not really support the replacement of the resume as a capabilities presentation. These methods are really just quick fixes to something that is fundamentally broken. Anyway, AI and parsing has really have failed to catch on in a way that suggests they represent the future.

A more promising approach to getting around the fundamental flaws of the resume is found in technology that involves a more “live” approach in which applicants are asked to manually enter information into fields that represent key types of information found on a resume (i.e., what skills do you have? How many years of experience do you have?). This essentially asks the candidate to parse apart their resume manually based on parameters that are deemed important by the employer. This type of exercise greatly facilitates the ability to match applicants to job openings in an automated way, effectively replacing the resume’s role as a screening tool. I really believe such methods have value, especially for those using job boards and career sites. These methods are still not a suitable replacement for the resume, as they don’t have the richness of information that a resume does.

So where does this leave us?

Enter web 2.0. The rules are changing again. I had a really great talk a few weeks ago with a friend who works for KODA, an interesting new online job seeker community that really captures the spirit of where we are going. We talked a lot about what her company is doing to build a community in which relevant information flows freely between members and potential employers. She educated me about some of the more subtle ways that new broad-based Internet technologies are changing the way people use the web to find and apply for jobs. I combine this discussion with what I am seeing from other new and interesting companies such as Brazen Careerist, a company based on the idea that social networking can change the way people demonstrate their ability to perform jobs, essentially allowing them to provide factually based capabilities presentations. It is clear to me that deep-seated change is on the horizon.

I am convinced that dynamic, interactive on-line profiles are the replacement for the resume. I bet every single person reading this article has a LinkedIn profile and most probably have a Facebook profile too. Let’s take a LinkedIn profile. It has everything a resume has, and more, including a summary of career history with detailed information about accomplishments at each major node in one’s career, and a thorough overview of skills, experience, and capabilities. The online profile is also a nexus for a web of complex, interrelated information giving it some things that a resume does not and never will have, including:

• The ability to verify information presented via input from other community users. This includes reference checking and testimonials.
• It’s dynamic, allowing the user to update info in real time and allowing for links to other relevant info housed in other places.
• It’s community oriented and allows input and commentary by others whose opinion is relevant.
• It’s flexible in that information can be extracted and tailored for specific purposes (i.e., presenting a skills profile or a summary of one’s work values).
• It provides a much richer way to present accomplishments and relevant information (links to an online portfolio for instance).

So, the online profile provides a venue for all kinds of information that can serve to showcase things that are directly relevant for a given job. As a champion for the use of assessment and a futurist, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the fact that I think online profiles also provide a great opportunity to integrate important information about an applicant into their profile. Adding assessment results to one’s profile provides an opportunity to help summarize and categorize one’s values, traits, skills and abilities, providing employers with even richer information about an applicant while also providing a way for applicants to learn more about themselves. Imagine the ability for others to comment on and verify assessment-related information or for employers to quickly access a baseline of standardized, trait-based information describing a job seeker, and you are glimpsing the future!

If one thinks about the key tennants of web 2.0 it is clear that technology has provided the foundation for the phenomenon of social networking. The interconnectivity and access to relevant information about any subject under the sun that is now at our fingertips represents a new way of doing things in almost all aspects of our lives. Technology has had a “push” effect such that people find new ways to use technology to create new products and ways of getting things done. Once these are “pushed out,” the ones with real value are adopted and quickly gain critical mass based almost entirely on their value proposition to users. Why should we believe that the world of hiring will go against this trend and ignore the value provided by new technology? Trust me: it won’t.

We have a long way to go; there are some limiting factors to consider including:

• Reluctance to change.
• Fighting to become the standard provider. This stuff will work best if one company or venue becomes the standard. This will be a challenge as players jockey for marketshare.
• Job seekers are reluctant to pay extra. Many sites that offer upgraded profiles or extra information for a fee have not faired well. Any model in which the costs are not borne by the employer is doomed.
• Technological limitations. For the profile to really work well we will need technology and products that don’t currently exist. For instance, this model really requires the ability to “scrub” profiles found all over the web and repackage information for specific purposes related to hiring

Social networking and dynamic user profiles are still in their infancy. It wasn’t that long ago that you probably faxed your resume to someone. Twenty years ago the world wide web as we know it didn’t even exist. So, if 20 years from now, profiles haven’t replaced the resume; I will gladly eat my hat!! How old fashioned of me.

Reflecting on my Facebook and LinkedIn experiences got me thinking about the excellent article about Brazen Careerist that recently ran in the ERE Daily and how it is seeking to use social networking to change the way people demonstrate their ability to perform jobs. It was at this point that I had an “aha” moment in which I realized once and for all that Social networking is here to stay.

Forgive me for being a master of the obvious but I think that while many of us are actively using and benefiting from the latest in web technology, a good number of us have yet to fully contemplate the gravity of the changes that are currently going on right under our very noses. To begin comprehending the depths of what is going on, just observe any person under 30 for even a short amount of time and you will realize that connectivity and interconnectivity are becoming firmly woven into the fabric of our modern existence.

I then must ask myself why it has proven so attractive.

The answer lies in the fact that social networking is really the next logical extension of the Internet’s ability to create a level of interconnectedness that has previously been unknown to mankind. I think we can all agree that social networking, while providing tremendous entertainment value, is also popular because it allows us to be more productive and efficient while also serving to help us share knowledge, experiences, and opinions. It is probably not a stretch to assume that we have all grown personally and professionally as a result of social networking.

The next question that popped into my head was “How will social networking impact the use of pre-employment assessment?”

To answer this question, we must first examine the bigger question “How will social networking impact the world of staffing and hiring?” Of course there are many easy and obvious answers to this question, all related to increased interconnectivity and access to information about people and their work-related experiences. Here are some more specific things related to social networking and hiring that I think we can look forward to experiencing in the near future.

Death of the resume as we presently know it: The various elements of a resume are being teased apart and presented in a different format that is based more on profiles and portfolios that follow a standardized format.

Providing a capabilities presentation via the communication of ideas: The ideas that are driving the folks at Brazen Careerist are really interesting to me. The ability to use dialogue and discussion to present one’s capabilities, interests, and knowledge will have value to potential employers.

Creating a transportable, evolving identity that relates to the workplace: The various elements that are presented as part of a social networking profile are continuing to expand and evolve. It seems that we are moving toward standardized profiles that contain a wide range of information about who we are and what we have done. These profiles will grow and change as we do, allowing us a venue to remain highly current and relevant in our presentation of ourselves to others.

Sharing input, information, and opinions from others about work-related issues across moments in time and technology platforms: Social networking is a great way to get third-party information about someone whom you do not know. Relying on opinions and comments from others to build a real picture of the relevance of something or someone is standard for today’s online communities. This already has and will continue to be applied to the hiring paradigm.

The evolution of the concept of a “job.” One of the biggest factors that will continue to impact hiring is the impact that interconnectivity and technology will have on the idea of a “job.” We can expect to see jobs become a short-term proposition, with movement between work “moments” facilitated by the ability to easily and accurately identify persons whose skills and experience can be used to help companies reach specific short-term goals.

Assessment has a role in helping the hiring process evolve along the lines presented above. The overall way I see assessment making a strong contribution is in its ability to help create trait-based virtual identities that capture an individual’s ability to perform specific types of work within a specific environment. Here are some of the ways assessment will contribute to this end:

Replacing resumes with profiles: Matching persons with job opportunities and evaluating them relative to the requirements of a job or project will be greatly facilitated by the creation of profiles that include information provided by assessments. Adding information provided by assessments to one’s online profiles can help provide a more complete view of an individual in terms of their work-related identity. Important factors such as values, traits, personality elements, and interests can be summarized via assessment results that are added to one’s profile. The real key to this advancement lies in the acceptance of a standardization of the work-related information that comprises one’s profile so that one common language can be used to describe everyone. This will allow matching to be highly relevant and accurate while helping provide a standard way to discuss humans and the work we do.

Providing the ability to view a person from multiple external perspectives: In the world of performance management, 360-degree feedback represented a quantum leap. Efficient 360 was just not possible before web-based technology. The ability to collect work relevant information from a variety of sources, all linked via social networks, has already begun to make a difference. The next step will be using standardized assessments to provide all parties with a common, work-related language with which to discuss an individual relative to a specific set of work or environmental requirements.

Demonstrating relevant capabilities in real time: I fully expect there to be an intersection between social networking and gaming that allows individuals to demonstrate their work-related capabilities to potential employers. While sandbox worlds like Second Life may not have made an instant impact in the short run (when is the last time anyone even mentioned Second Life with regard to recruiting?), the rise of avatars doing virtual work is coming. In the short run, I think it is only a matter of time before we see collaborative real-time simulations that tap into traits, skills, and knowledge required for a wide range of jobs and careers. Job simulations have long been one of the most powerful and relevant forms of assessment used to predict job performance and I expect social networking and collaborative gaming to take simulations to the next level.

While some of the things I have mentioned will likely require artificial intelligence that is presently beyond our comprehension, the foundation will still be provided by the science of psychology and its ability to use scientific methods to understand and measure the traits and characteristics required to do a job within a specific environment. As with the evolution of employee selection thus far, an equal blend of technology science will be required. The result will be a much more exciting, dynamic, and relevant dialogue between employer and employee.

There are all kinds of assessments (anything used to evaluate an applicant and make decisions using the results of this evaluation is considered an assessment by the U.S. EEOC) and my purpose is not to make specific prescriptions; rather it is to present some food for thought. So, if your answer to any of the questions below is “yes,” consider using some form of assessment.

Do you hire almost exclusively based on unstructured interviews? Interviews provide a great opportunity to communicate directly with candidates. However, interviews that do not use some form of structure to ensure that questions are job-related and that all applicants are evaluated using a common set of parameters are not very effective. If the cornerstone of your hiring process is an unstructured interview, think about making some changes. These include adding a structured interview or at least supplementing your existing interview with an assessment that can provide you with standardized, job-related information about each applicant.

Do you have high turnover at one or many key positions? Turnover cannot be completely eliminated. But even a slight reduction in turnover can equate to significant savings. Assessment has proven to be an excellent way to reduce turnover, especially when one has some clues as to the reasons why turnover has become an issue.

Do you have a high volume of applicants? Almost everyone is experiencing very high applicant volume. While this is often looked at as a negative because of the extra time and effort required to evaluate so many applicants, it can allow you to be very choosy. Assessments provide you with a tool to help you do two things. First of all, a good assessment can help you eliminate the bottom 20% of applicants: those who would end up being miserable failures. At the same time, assessment can help you to identify the cream of the crop. It can be automated so that recruiters and hiring personnel are able to focus their attention on a slate of applicants who have the best chance of success.

Do you hire for potential and then train/develop? Assessments are excellent indicators of raw ability. Many folks in the assessment world will tell you that the smartest person almost always does better on the job (I don’t always agree, but that is another discussion). It often makes a lot of sense to hire based on the raw material that someone brings to the table and use post-hire training and development to figure out how to best apply what each hire brings to the table. Assessment is an excellent part of this plan because it provides a relative measure of raw abilities.

Are you worried about the legality of your hiring process? No one is going to answer “no” to this question. But posing it is a good way to make the point that those organizations who do not use assessments at all are actually putting themselves in more potential legal jeopardy then those who use a well-thought-out assessment strategy that follows best practices. If your hiring process is audited, every part of it is going to be considered a test. So, the use of unstructured methods that are not based on a job analysis and other forms of due diligence are not going to hold water. By choosing a valid, relevant assessment and by treating all forms of evaluation as a test that evaluates all applicants consistently, you are helping to ensure the legal defensibility of your hiring process. By doing the things that provide legal defensibility, you are also helping to ensure that your assessment system provides value because it is evaluating things that are essential for job performance.

Do you have a unified competency model that cuts across the employee lifecycle? If your organization has invested heavily in a competency model that espouses your values and the various things that equate to success within the organization, then pre-employment assessment may be a good idea. Think about it: if you are looking for a stable set of characteristics that allow you to evaluate the contributions made by employees, then it makes sense to hire based on these same characteristics. These things may vary a bit from job to job, but looking for indicators that an applicant has the “right stuff” as your company defines it makes sense.

Does good job performance boil down to one or two really simple things? Entry-level positions in which a few basic things can make all the difference in the world are great candidates for assessment. For instance, at many hourly jobs the ability to provide good customer service, be honest, and show up for work when scheduled can have a significant impact on the bottom line. Most assessment providers have collected enough data to allow the creation of measures that do an excellent job of predicting these types of work outcomes. Simple assessments can make a big difference when it comes to helping companies to hire workers who can get the job done.

The purpose of the questions I have posed here is not to offer any specific prescription in terms of what type of assessments to use or how to use them. Rather, I hope to stimulate some thought about some of the ways that assessment can add value for your organizations. The choice of what assessment is best for a given situation and the strategy for employing assessment is something that requires careful thought, planning, and expertise. Those of us who help companies develop well-thought-out assessment strategies can attest to the fact that it’s worth the effort.

Despite a slowdown in new business, most vendors have been able to continue to generate revenue from their existing client base. Vendors who have assessments that can be used for both hiring and development are finding their ability to diversify beyond hiring to be a serious asset. This makes sense given the fact that many companies have chosen to invest more in their existing employees instead of investing in hiring new ones.

Many vendors I have spoken with have taken this past year to concentrate on developing new products and ideas to ensure they are ready to hit the ground running once things start to pick up. From what I have seen, the evolution of assessment tools has continued in a very positive direction.

Most of my conversations with vendors over the past few months have been more positive then they have in some time. Everyone is starting to see some movement in a positive direction, with pipelines starting to fill up with increased opportunities.

I am a glass-half-full kind of guy. So, here are a few reasons why I feel very optimistic about what we can expect in terms of assessment uptake in 2010.

New Vendors, New Products

I have seen a number of new vendors pop up on the scene in 2009. To me this means that people are continuing to invest in the idea of assessment and what it can do to help add value. While the marketplace has many players already, competition is a very good thing. Also, every vendor is a bit different, and not all are a good match for the needs of every situation. So, more product offerings and differentiation means more options for the consumer. The downside of this trend is of course that, as has always been the case, not all vendors offer products that meet the standards that must be upheld for sound science and compliance. So, now more than ever, it pays to do your homework when it comes to choosing an assessment vendor.

I have also seen a number of nice new products from existing vendors and think that as consumers of assessment re-visit the idea of using assessment, they will find that there are more products then ever to choose from and that these products are continuing to evolve.

Increased Focus on Linkage to Business Results

Vendors are finally starting to get the idea that they should sell products based on business results. There continues to be an increased focus on using business terms and providing real-world ways to measure ROI from assessment. This is the exact type of philosophy that is required for assessment to gain credibility and increase its stock amongst consumers. It’s essential to provide ways to clarify the bottom-line impact of assessment. Although slow to evolve, the continued shift in focus to thinking of assessment in terms businesses understands is helping move perceptions of assessment from that of an overly complex academically based mystery to a solid tool for improving business outcomes.

More Transactional Products

Assessments are becoming increasingly transactional. This trend has been unfolding for several years now, but I noticed a significant increase in the development of off-the-shelf assessments that are tailored for specific jobs or industry verticals. There are several reasons for this: These assessments are easy to “plug in” to broader technology-based solutions and are thus easy to sell as add on value-adds. Assessments are just one piece of information collected during the hiring process. Using assessments to provide a sketch of a few characteristics critical for a job and not asking them to provide an in-depth dossier makes it much easier to add a more general, off-the-shelf assessment.

In the past, I felt that off-the-shelf products were often too general to really add value, given the fact that jobs often look different within different organizations. With a solid decade of web-based testing under our belts, we have been able to greatly accelerate our understanding of what works and what does not. The insight we have gained from literally tens of millions of data points has allowed generalized off-the-shelf assessments to be more accurate then ever.

Finally, transactional assessments are very appealing to small- to medium-sized businesses, a segment that represents tremendous untapped potential. This group often does not have resources required to create customized tests but can still benefit from assessments. Since highly transactional products can be sold entirely without human interaction, they represent a nice additional revenue channel for many vendors.

Continued Integration of Assessments

Another trend that has been continuing to unfold over the past decade or so is the integration of assessment into other products. Almost every ATS has experience with integration, and many are continuing to take the initiative to offer their own integrated suites that include assessment tools.

Talent management vendors have not focused on pre-employment assessment to a great extent thus far. This is bound to change shortly.

The more accurate generalized assessments become, the easier they are to insert into other products that have a broader footprint across the employee lifecycle. Increased understanding and development of assessments that can be used for both pre- and post-employment purposes will also help to ensure uptake.

A Final Note About Progress and Doing it Right

Since day one, the integration of technology has definitely made the old-guard academics in the testing world a bit nervous. In many cases such feelings are justified. The value of assessment lies in adherence to a strict set of guidelines for test development and usage. The trends I have noted above may seem at odds with these requirements to folks who are from the old school. While proving ROI of assessments and the business drivers for using assessment may seem at odds with the roots of testing, nothing could be further from the truth. It would simply not be possible to show real ROI without ensuring any assessment was measuring the things required for successful job performance. Any vendor of quality assessments understands this and as such should have a dedication to upholding the proper standards for assessment.

The legitimate vendors out there get it and are continuing to do their best to strike a balance between doing it right and making it easy for the end user. As with any other field, survival and progress requires that we adapt and evolve. Part of this is the continued meshing of the science of technology with that of psychology. The continued evolution of assessment will see it move in a direction that makes it increasingly easy to use and understand and this will serve as a significant force in its increased popularity.

Validation is a best practice that can provide both critical information about the ROI of an assessment and the documentation required to support its legal defensibility. Unfortunately, proper validation is not the norm when it comes to the use of assessments. While many companies make use of assessments that have been validated in the past or that do satisfy some of the requirements for test validity, conducting the validation work required to fully satisfy best practices and gain an understanding or ROI is often not on even on the radar screen.

When it comes to validation, my experience shows that the biggest stumbling block is a lack of understanding of just what validation is and why it is so important. While the concept of validation definitely has its complexities, it can be boiled down to a few simple concepts which are discussed below.

What is Validation?

Webster’s online dictionary defines the word “validity” as:

….well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful <a valid theory> b : logically correct <a valid argument> <valid inference>

….appropriate to the end in view : effective <every craft has its own valid methods>

These definitions definitely hold true when it comes to employment testing. Ask an I/O psychologist and he or she will tell you that validation simply means the act of establishing two key things: 1) That anything used to make employment decisions is job related, and 2) That the assessment actually measures what it is supposed to measure (i.e., that the test is “accurate”).

There are a variety of ways to document the job-relatedness and accuracy of a test as a decision-making tool; however, a working understanding of validation should focus on two general types of validation, content validation and criterion-related validation.

Content validation: Quite simply, content validation involves the documentation of the personal characteristics (i.e., experience, education, knowledges, skills, abilities, values, etc) required to perform the job.

At a minimum, claiming a selection measure is content “valid” requires an alignment of test content to job requirements so that support for the job-relatedness of the test can be documented. This means that the job or jobs in question must be carefully evaluated and that the input of subject matter experts (incumbents and supervisors) be used to create a full understanding of the various things that are required for successful job performance.

The process used to establish the job-relatedness of test content is known as “job analysis.” Once information about job performance and related characteristics has been documented via job analysis, selection measures can be mapped out to match job requirements. For instance, if job analysis shows that the job requires fast and accurate typing, then the use of a typing test to hire applicants for that job is assumed to be content-valid based on its relation to job performance requirements.

Content validation can satisfy EEOC requirements for claiming a test is valid (provided that proper procedures were followed). However, settling for only content validation is selling yourself way short. The real value proposition when it comes to validation lies in the evaluation of the ROI provided by a selection measure. This information can only be provided by criterion-related validation.

Criterion-related validation: Whenever possible, the statistical evaluation of the relationship between selection measures and valued business outcomes is desirable. This type of validation is known as “criterion-related validation” and it can provide concrete evidence of the accuracy of a test for predicting job performance. Criterion validation involves a statistical study that provides hard evidence of the relationship between scores on pre-employment assessments and valued business outcomes related to job performance. The statistical evidence resulting from this process provides a clear understanding of the ROI provided by the testing process and thus helps document the value provided. Criterion-related validation also provides support for the legal defensibility of an assessment because it clarifies the assessment’s accuracy as a decision-making tool.

While criterion-related validation may seem mysterious, it has much in common with two more well-known concepts that are used to help find value within business processes: six sigma and business intelligence. Both of these methods require that data be examined in order to help clarify relations between various process components. The resulting information can be used to help streamline business processes and uncover meaningful relationships between various streams of data. The creation of a feedback loop using criterion validation is really no different.

The 1-2 Punch

In an ideal world it is best to have both content and criterion validity evidence. Documenting content validity is a minimum requirement for any pre-employment selection measure; however, content validation alone can’t provide any evidence for the ROI associated with a test or selection measure. Adding statistical validation bolsters the legal defensibility of an assessment and provides insight into ROI. Unfortunately, most companies do not perform criterion-related validation.

There are a variety of reasons for this.

• Criterion study not possible: A legitimate reason for not conducting validation studies is that there are simply not enough people in the job to allow for a reliable study to be conducted. The greatest shortcoming of statistical validation is the fact that its results are not credible unless the sample size is well over 100. Therefore small companies and jobs with few incumbents will preclude the ability to gather criterion-related validation evidence.
• Lack of resources: Many companies feel that conducting criterion-related validation studies simply takes too many resources. They are unwilling to spend the money needed or take the time to collect the data required to perform such studies.
• Lack of understanding: Many companies do not understand the concept of criterion-related validation and are not aware of the value it can provide.
• Lack of guidance: Test providers often sell tests as being “valid” because they have been validated for jobs similar to the one in question. While this may be true, it is not always an “out” that allows one to avoid doing criterion-related validation. Many test vendors do not provide advice or services related to criterion validation, leaving the user on their own to figure out this part of the equation.

What does all this mean to staffing professionals?

• At a minimum all measures used to select employees should be content-valid. Failure to document content validity means the legality of your selection measures is compromised.
• Whenever possible, it pays to conduct criterion-related validation to add additional support for content validation efforts and to gain insight into the ROI of selection measures.
• When reviewing tests provided by vendors, make sure to understand that a claim that a test has been “validated” can mean different things. Don’t assume that just because the test has been validated in another setting, that it is automatically valid for your particular situation.
• Lack of proper validation for tests and selection measures can be costly! Citing lack of resources as a reason for not validating is like passing over dollars to pick up pennies.
• Both types of validation can add value. Content validation provides legal piece of mind and criterion validation bolsters this and provides the ROI evidence needed to build a business case for using assessment.
• Educate yourself about validation and the options available to you. For more information talk to an industrial psychologist about validation and legal requirements and consult resources such as the Uniform Guidelines for Employee Selection Procedures.

As with anything else, it may take a bit of extra time and resources to do things right, but the extra effort will provide value and piece of mind.

For the last seven years, Rocket-Hire has surveyed users of web-based pre-employment assessment tools, so we again asked members of the ERE community to tell us about their usage of typical pre-employment screening, testing, and assessment programs. As with years past, we zeroed in on the pulse of pre-employment assessment usage. And in an increasing climate of legal scrutiny for testing, and the hoopla surrounding the Ricci case, we decided to focus the content of today’s article on two issues that are inexorably linked: Implications of evaluating one’s assessment strategy, and attention to relevant legal issues.

Those interested in obtaining a copy of our full report can email us (chandler@rocket-hire.com) and we will be sure to send you a full copy once it has been completed.Or, check out an upcoming Journal of Corporate Recruiting Leadership, probably the October 2009 issue, where we’ll have an in-depth analysis.

A Word About our Methodology
This year, 148 recruitment and hiring professionals completed the Rocket-Hire Online Assessment Usage Survey. Respondents were evenly representative of recruiters, recruiting leaders, HR executives, business owners, and hiring managers, and featured a wide variety of organizations and hiring situations.

Use of Assessment Tools
Overall usage of assessment tools was generally about the same as in past years — roughly two-thirds of respondents. Of that two-thirds, 54% are deploying both paper-based and online assessment, and 30% are using exclusively online assessment. The remaining employ only paper-based tools. Most use a variety of different assessment methods, with the majority using between one and three different types. The table below reveals the proportion of firms using various common tools.

Usage rates of common assessment tools

Skills and knowledge certifications and personality assessments continue to be popular, with indicators of cultural “fit” and various cognitive ability measures also widely used. In addition, we observed a surge in the adoption of web-based background investigation strategies.

Interestingly, 2009 highlights a trend emerging over the last few years: It is now just as common to find organizations deploying assessment company-wide as it is to find it used for only one or two jobs. These findings reflect the fragmented use of assessment that we have experienced in our client work. To be sure, there are tons of ways assessment can be used, but there is no one major trend in how or how much it is implemented.

Effectiveness of Screening and Assessment Tools

This year, 80% of assessment users felt that assessment had a “positive impact” on their organization. In contrast, only 3% of assessment users felt these tools did not add value. However, only 64% of assessment users collected metrics to judge the quality of their interventions, and 79% judged ROI using one or many indicators. However, definitions of “ROI” vary widely, with some approaches considering a broad, cursory opinion from managers, whereas only a few use a true scientifically derived method such as a validation study.

Wide variation in the real-world evaluation of ROI clearly reveals that, while many companies do collect metrics, few of them are going about this in a way that reflects best practices. This is cause for concern given the fact that these same best practices create the foundation for demonstrating the legal defensibility of assessment measures.

Legal Issues

This year’s Supreme Court decision in favor of firefighters who challenged the City of New Haven, Connecticut, has once again focused attention on the legal aspects of pre-employment assessment. In anticipation of the High Court hearing this case, we wondered how much typical users paid attention to legal and regulatory issues related to using assessment to evaluate candidates.

Percent indicating legal issues are “central to this activity” or “very prominent”

These results express both positive and negative connotations. On the positive side, it seems that a good number of companies pay attention to legal issues related to testing and assessment. On the other hand, perhaps more firms should consider devoting resources to demonstrating and documenting legal defensibility. The lack of understanding of what is actually required for ensuring compliance and defensibility may create problems as both assessment usage and legal scrutiny increase.

The energy spent on legal considerations does not relate to the extent of assessment deployed, or size of the organization, nor number of hires. As with overall usage of assessments, legal concerns do not follow any pattern across survey respondent demographics or assessment strategies.

Legal defensibility is not just another set of meaningless hoops that must be jumped through and checked off. Proper evaluation of ROI via validation and legal defensibility are actually two sides of the same coin, the common goal being to document the job-relatedness of all tools and processes used to select employees.

Though the continued economic turmoil has put a damper on hiring, the adoption of in-depth assessment tools continues to grow, especially as more organizations devote resources to find out if testing and assessment is worth it. The bottom line: Quality hiring tools can improve performance and employee engagement (i.e., provide ROI) while also ensuring the legal defensibility of hiring practices, but it is essential to demonstrate how much they actually benefit your organization.

A complete discussion of the intricacies and technicalities of validation, discrimination, adverse impact, and differential prediction is beyond the scope of the words I am writing today. Suffice it to say that this case has placed competing priorities in the use of testing in the spotlight. These competing priorities are using fair testing while striving to eliminate discrimination in hiring. While title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has attempted to provide some guidance in relation to these competing goals, the Ricci case has laid bare some critical issues that in my opinion certainly call for the government to re-evaluate and modernize the standards it has set.

We are mandated to use valid tests. Valid tests can often lead to minorities being hired at lower rates than those of other races. This is seen as OK as long as the test has been validated, because in theory this means the test is job-related and job-relatedness is the standard by which the legality of testing is determined.

However, what are we to do when sticking to the use of validation — as we have been asked to do — creates a situation that actually inhibits the goal of ensuring diversity and fairness? This has been a thorny issue for those of us in my profession for a long time. There is no magic bullet. The dissenting opinion in this case led by Justice Ginsburg rallies around the idea that the spirit of diversity and fairness should be the highest standard to which we aspire in hiring. It is hard to argue with this point … except for the fact that there are technical issues which can stand in the way of our achievement of this goal.

So, what does all this mean for hiring in the corporate world? I offer my humble answer to this question as follows:

Don’t Panic -- Police and fire testing is the most highly scrutinized type of testing known to mankind. Don’t panic based on the results of this case. Do use this as a time to think about your use of testing and where it may leave you exposed.

Validate, validate, validate -- In this case the validity of the test was upheld. In my mind the validity of the test, while an issue, was not the main issue at hand. The only reason the city tried to throw out the test was because it ended up being counter to its goal of diversity. Despite this, I cannot stress enough the need to validate all testing that is used to make employment decisions. It is the cornerstone of best practices in testing and provides the documentation you will need should you find yourself in court. Without such documentation, you are toast! As an added bonus, validation is the process that provides awareness of issues such as adverse impact. You may not even know you have a problem unless you take the steps to validate. Remember, ignorance of the law is no excuse!

Look at the bigger picture -- I agree with Justice Ginsburg that the overall goal of eliminating discrimination is the highest standard to which we should be held. In the corporate world this becomes an issue of fairness in hiring practices across the board. One of the biggest ways to guard against problems while working to achieve diversity is to look at the demographics of your workforce vs. those of the available workforce in the area. If these do not look about the same, you have a problem. This problem can be rectified by actively recruiting for diversity. Diversity training programs are OK, and of course I support them, but the best thing to do is to put your money where your mouth is and be aware of your demographics and seek to hire diversity at all times.

Seek out testing that has been shown to reduce adverse impact -- The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures pretty much lay down the law when it comes to testing. A key part of this doctrine is that one should always seek out tests that are known to have less adverse impact. We know that cognitive tests have the most adverse impact while also providing the best predictive accuracy (i.e., validity). Resolving this conundrum remains the crux of the issue, with the Ricci case as firefighter tests are highly cognitively loaded. In the real world I feel this issue is best addressed via awareness of what is required for the job and by seeking out selection procedures that we know can test cognitive traits while displaying lower levels of adverse impact. If you guessed that I was going to recommend simulations as the best way to accomplish this goal, you are correct! The issues of this case are yet another piece of evidence that clearly demonstrates the value of simulations over more traditional types of testing.

I look forward to the discussion that my opinions generate and I am glad to see my corner of the hiring world getting its brief exposure in the national media spotlight. I certainly hope that the awareness generated should serve as a catalyst for change.

I was recently reading an article in which many of the members of the mission control team were interviewed about the mission and the various roles and tasks they performed. One of the most interesting things was a discussion about the fact that almost all of the mission control team members were very young.

The mission required extensive use of computers and the ability to use computers to do things that had never been done before. Computer science was such a young field, and the moon mission so unique, that there were no persons with any experience doing what needed to be done. In order to accomplish the mission, NASA hired a group of people who had the ability required to work with computers and experience working with computers, no matter what the application. The article did not say what methods were used to determine how hiring decisions were made, but clearly a non-traditional approach was required. We all know the result of the decisions NASA made and we all know that the combination of workers, equipment, and planning resulted in a resounding success — the kind of win any corporation would be proud of!

Even though the Apollo 11 mission happened 40 years ago, it’s ripe with lessons for those of us in the hiring profession. This is especially true when it comes to creating strategies to use assessment in the future of the hiring and the workforce. My thoughts:

• As has always been the case, the bottom line is that understanding the traits valued for getting the job done and including the scientifically based assessments required to measure them in your hiring process will help ensure you achieve successful performance of your mission.
• Creating the future may often require taking a leap of faith in someone’s abilities to make a contribution. Testing can help make this leap easier by helping to identify those individuals who possess the raw abilities and characteristics required. A caveat here is that — as with any employment testing situation — time must be taken to identify abilities and characteristics critical to desired outcomes as a first step in the development of the testing program.
• Training and experience are an excellent way to help mold the raw material that brought to the table. When seeking to do something that has not yet been done using new technologies, training is essential, as is the ability for hands-on learning in which team members can educate one another.
• Ideas are and will continue to be the currency required for successful progress. Identifying applicants who are creative and possess the proper thinking styles will become increasingly important.
• Bringing together persons with backgrounds in different areas and asking them to function together as a team will be essential to success. New innovations and progress are increasingly requiring input from those with vastly different backgrounds.
• Given the above point, it seems logical that an increasing amount of attention be paid to ensuring a harmonious cultural fit between the members of the team. It is often mismatches in work styles and values that cause problems within a team dynamic. There are an increasing number of applications which allow organizations to measure, model, and optimize fit when creating and aligning work teams.

Technology is continuing to make the above points easier for those folks with out a background in testing and assessment. As with almost every other area in our lives, technology is radically changing the landscape. When is the last time you sent a fax? Could you be as efficient without email? We are entering an age of unprecedented accelerated technological advancement. The time horizon for quantum leaps in technology has been shortened to milliseconds when one considers the grand scheme of things. The computing power and things needed to put a man on the moon 40 years ago can probably be duplicated by several laptops now.

The things we are going to see in our lifetime are going to blow our minds. This statement will be true for those of us in the general business of hiring, and those of us who specifically concentrate on assessment. Virtual simulations of entire jobs, human interactions, and interactions between humans and machines are going to be the future of hiring. I have just started to see some of the first steps in this direction. What I have seen and learned so far is that it is going to require a diverse set of perspectives to create the hiring tools of the future. Folks in the testing and recruitment industries are going to need to team up with persons in other, seemingly unrelated industries in order to make it happen.

I am currently working on putting together a consortium that represents key stakeholders from the assessment and gaming industries as well as persons from other areas yet to be defined. I am just at the concepting stages at this point, so I encourage interested parties to post here if you want to talk about this idea.