Assessments: More than meets the eye

So I quasi-randomly completed the 'personality quiz' over at the LA Times page. I did it just for fun, but it actually did something useful with my results--tailored my news. Although the label it gave me ("hot shot") is questionable, the stories it returned were based on the pictures I selected, things like politics, vacationing in Hawaii, and spending time with family. This led to a couple thoughts:

1) Why aren't more tests like this? Those of us on the professional side of testing often forget that there are tests that people actually enjoy taking. In fact people take "personality tests" all the time, through Facebook or on random websites. It's the kind of thing people pass around via e-mail. When was the last time you looked forward to taking an employment test?

2) I wonder what theory (if any) this is based on? It uses Imagini's VisualDNA technology, but I wasn't able to determine much from their website other than it took over three years to develop. Oh, and that apparently it's used by a number of sites, including match.com and hotels.com, for marketing purposes.

Taking this quiz also made me think not only about the "fun" side of testing but about alternate uses of assessment tools. These measures don't have to be used for selecting in and out. They can be used for many purposes, including some that are obvious (development) and some that perhaps aren't, like placement.

Using assessments for placement is something career counselors do all the time, but it's relatively rare for organizations. It shouldn't be. Imagine the value of putting some of your old-but-still-good assessments on the web and allowing people to take them, get feedback about their results, and receive some information that would allow them to self select in or out of various positions. It's a tool for insight, a realistic job preview, and an efficient way to populate the top of your selection funnel--all at the same time.

But wait, there's more. Imagine if you could populate your applicant tracking system with the results of said assessments. Imagine if, at the end of the assessment(s), the results strongly indicated the individual would be a good fit for a certain type of job. You could store their results for contacting in the future, provide them with additional recruiting material, lead them to relevant vacancies, and/or encourage them to apply.

Aside from some of the bleeding edge video game-type assessments, I haven't seen any selection tests that come close to fun (yes, I know we like to think that assessment centers are "fun" for applicants but we're fooling ourselves). And I don't recall seeing anyone using tests for placement in the way I described.

Have you?

Webinar on 21st Century Assessment

Went to a pretty darn good webinar yesterday put on by HCI and featuring Ken Lahti (PreVisor) and Charles Handler (Rocket-Hire). The topic was 21st century assessment.

Some of the topics covered included:

- increased functionality and usability of testing platforms

- increased sophistication of security methods

- off-the-shelf tests and "I/O psychologists in a box"

- integrating assessment with your overall talent strategy

And my two favorites:

- advanced simulations (such as those using video game technology)

- candidate data that follows them

The webinar is going to be re-broadcast several times today and tomorrow, if you have a chance check it out. You can also see a copy of the slides for free if you're an HCI member (which is free).

Free, short, and full of information--that's my kind of training.

Outback settlement contains interesting requirements

You may have heard that Outback Steakhouse, a restaurant chain based in Tampa, Florida, has agreed to settle a gender discrimination lawsuit for $19M. What's interesting about this isn't the size of the settlement, but rather the conditions attached.

Background: The EEOC sued Outback in 2006, claiming it systematically discriminated against its female employees by denying them promotion opportunities to the more lucrative profit-sharing management positions. In addition, they claimed that female employees were denied promotional job assignments such as kitchen management, which were required for employees to be considered for top management positions.

The settlement: Outback agreed to a four-year consent decree and $19M in monetary relief. So far, pretty standard. But there were additional settlement requirements, and here's where it gets interesting. In addition to the monetary relief, Outback has agreed to:

1. Create an online application system for employees interested in management positions. This is the first time I've seen this in a settlement (which isn't to say it hasn't happened) and seems to indicate that the EEOC views this as a more "objective" screening mechanism.

2. Create and hire someone for a newly created "human resources executive" position titled Vice President of People. Again, this is a new one for me.

3. Hire an outside consultant for at least two years who will monitor the online application system to ensure women are being provided equal opportunities for promotion and provide reports to the EEOC every 6 months.

The main thing that strikes me about this settlement is the faith that is being placed in an online application system to somehow ensure equal opportunity. Sure, having a standardized application system may cut down on some of the subjectivity of individual hiring supervisors, but it leaves me wondering:

- What will the screening criteria for management positions be?

- How will the outside consultant define "equal opportunities"?

- How will access to the online system be controlled, and who will be making screening/hiring decisions?

- What happens if there continues to be adverse impact, which you would expect if applicants continue to be screened on experience?

- What will be the duties of the Vice President of People, how will they be hired, and how will they interact with the consultant?

This will be interesting to watch.

Does vendor size matter?

Yesterday I attended a demonstration by a smallish firm whose product automates the job application, exam administration, and applicant tracking process. We talked about a lot of different things, including how easy it would be for end users to understand.

After the vendor left, I had a discussion with another of the attendees about the meeting. But our conversation wasn't so much about the product as it was about the company. We talked about the small size of the firm and how much of an issue that is when selecting the vendor.

On the one hand, it would seem small firms are more susceptible to succession planning issues. They're typically run by a charismatic, passionate, and extremely talented individual whose energy continually sustains the business. What happens when they're gone? They may also not have the built in redundancies that larger firms have, as well as the capacity to handle larger projects.

On the other hand, in my experience it's the quality of the product and the support that matters most for an IT implementation, not sheer size. Does the vendor "get" the customer? Do they have experience with the relevant issues? Are they honest about the product's capabilities and time frames? These are the factors I've found to be most important.

What do YOU think? Is vendor size relevant? Is it a make or break issue? I've temporarily turned off the registration requirement for the blog, so anyone can comment. I'm interested in hearing from users as well as vendors.

Tracking down the "Internet Applicant Rule"

When the OFCCP's Internet Applicant Recordkeeping Rule first came out it generated a lot of discussion.

You don't hear much about it now, even though it's one of the most important regulations that covered employers need to be concerned about when it comes to electronic recruiting. It specifies information that must be collected and retained about applicants and permissible screening criteria to filter down candidates.

Why the drop in popularity? Sure, it's not a new and sexy topic anymore. But another reason might be that the OFCCP doesn't make it easy to find information on the rule and they don't publicize it prominently anymore. There's no link to it on their homepage; the actual Federal Register rule is nowhere to be seen.

And the pretty-darn-helpful FAQs? Moved. Here. (granted it IS in the FAQ section)

Let's not forget about this particular regulation, as it impacts recruitment and selection (for those it applies to) just about as much as anything out there, including the Uniform Guidelines.

NEOGOV acquires Sigma

Not exactly breaking news, but for any of you out there that didn't already know, NEOGOV, a significant player in the public sector ATS space, has acquired Sigma Data Systems, a venerable ATS provider that had been purchased not all that long ago by CPS.

Sigma's strength has always been its data analysis capabilities, and presumably this will be folded into NEOGOV's product. It's an interesting move by NEOGOV, and we'll see what impact this has on its rivalry with JobAps, the other major ATS vendor that focuses on the public sector.

You can read more about it here.

Rocket-hire releases 5th annual survey results

I don't usually link to a single article, but this is an exception. Every year, Rocket-Hire and our friend Dr. Charles Handler release the results of an annual survey on the usage of online screening and assessment tools. This year marks the fifth survey and it's got some interesting results based on responses from 141 recruiting and hiring professionals:

1. Many, if not most, organizations are using an ATS. For large organizations (5,000+ employees), usage was 100%.

2. Surprisingly, many organizations are not using online qualification prescreening. Only 47% ask about basic qualifications while only 24% ask about technical skills or certifications. Why surprising? Because it's one thing ATSs tend to be decent at.

3. Use of personality measures as an assessment tool jumped in the last five years from 21% to 59% (which certainly matches the interest I'm seeing). In fact, they were the most popular assessment tool reported, followed closely by skills/knowledge tests. Least used? Simulations and online interviews. I see lots of potential in the former as our technology improves.

4. Assessment tools in general are more widely used than they were five years ago. "Fit" measures went from 29% to 40%, cognitive ability tests from 26% to 41%, and skills/knowledge tests leaped from 12% to 56%. This is good news indeed (assuming the tests are good!).

5. Unfortunately only 27% of users of prescreening tools and 36% of assessment users collect metrics to measure their success. Those that did were much more likely to find these measures effective. Hey, you can't know if you don't measure!

There's a lot more in the article (e.g., take a look at biodata usage). By the way, full results and analysis will be in the May issue of the Journal of Corporate Recruiting Leadership.

Links a go-go

A smörgåsbord of good reading for this holiday week, 2007:

More evidence that IQ has a environmental component

Teens creating Internet content in greater numbers

New law increases mandatory retirement age for commercial pilots

Wednesday best day of week to send out recruitment e-mail (hat tip)

How to improve your corporate career website (Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV)

Ford, et al. wrap up EEOC lawsuit over written exam

Free ATS! No, really! (Okay, there are several installation steps)

...and last but not least, for those of you doing major shopping this week:

Recruiting at the mall (I've wondered why more orgs don't do this!)

Links a go-go: Halloween Edition

Good reading for this October 31, 2007--enough to frighten us into paying renewed attention to our recruiting and assessment:

Testing without analysis...now that's scary!

It's scary, all the things that get in the way of job performance

What's that sound? Oh, just ATS reports running.

Be afraid...very afraid...of drop-down menus!

Hope your career portal isn't frighteningly bad

The number of job boards is truly monstrous

Becoming passive employers

Let's take a moment and think about what job search could be.

Right now, job search is static. Someone searches for a job, and either a vacancy exists or it doesn't. But what if we were a little more creative?

What if instead of getting "zero results for your search", the candidate received something like:

There are no current openings that match your search. However, the following positions exist that may have openings in the future.

What followed would be a detailed description of current positions in the organization that matched the search criteria--jobs people actually had. And you would allow people to submit a job interest request so they would be notified when that job (or similar job) became open. Yes, some systems already have job interest requests, but too often it's based on broad job titles and it fails to provide the rich information a job seeker needs (e.g., who they will work with, learning opportunities).

What else could we do with this feature? We could profile the individuals that are in the current job. Okay, maybe not everyone, but a sample. At the very least we could provide a basic job description (and not a boring one).

This idea fits with a concept I think we all need to focus more on. In addition to seeking passive candidates, we should be passive employers. Passive job seekers aren't looking for a job, but they could be. Passive employers don't have that particular opening--but they could. But unless you tell candidates that, how will they know? How do they know that a perfect match exists in your organization, and if they just had waited another week to search, they would have seen it?

Why do we make applicants the servants of the ATS, not the other way around?

Let's take this a step further. Let's say I'm an attorney in Seattle looking to relocate to Boston. I know I'd like to work for a smallish firm with decent billable hours, co-workers that know their stuff and are good at their jobs but value work-life balance.

How the HECK am I supposed to find that firm? Sure, I can look for current vacancies on job boards. Or maybe I just happen to know someone who works for such a firm and they have an opening. Or I might be able to find some information through a Google search or services such as Vault or Hoover's (although that information is very limited, you still have to know the company name, and information on public sector agencies is anemic). But that'll only get me so far. Then what?

There is no general database of employer qualities to search through (sites like Jobfox are trying a similar idea but it's still based on vacancies). No easy way to punch in the above criteria and have a system spit out, "Here are all the firms that meet your criteria. Here are the ones that currently have openings, here are the ones that don't currently may may in the future."

People search is getting more and more sophisticated. What about employer search? If we expect applicants to take an active role in managing their career, we should give them the information they need to do it. We can, and should, do better.

Helping applicants help themselves

Most organizations do a passable job at conducting interviews and administering other types of tests (let's be optimistic).

They also do an acceptable job of recruiting, although there is great room for improvement, particularly in the public sector.

But one area that nearly all organizations could improve in is job-person matching--specifically, helping applicants figure out which jobs to apply for.

In a recent article on ERE Charles Handler writes about using quality assessment methods to help applicants figure out what job would be a good fit.

Imagine going to an organization's career site and being offered two options:

1 - Know what job you want? Click HERE to apply for a specific position.

2 - Not sure what job you want? Click HERE to find out what jobs might match your interests and abilities.

After selecting option 2 (and being amazed that a career website is so easy to use) the applicant is taken to another page where they're given two more options:

1 - Know your abilities and interest? Use THIS simple checklist to describe yourself.

2 - Want more information about your skill levels? Click HERE to take a variety of assessments to help you describe yourself.

And so on. The information that comes out of the self-assessment is used by the applicant to complete an easy-to-use inventory of their skills. This information is then used by the system in several ways. The first is by recruiters, who can pull up lists of individuals who meet position requirements.

But the more empowering use of the data comes when the system spits back a list of jobs that the candidate most likely would qualify for (organized into logical categories). It also tells the applicant how to proceed--how to find out which jobs are currently open and how to apply for jobs that aren't.

The beauty of the system is that it's entirely automated, the site is very sticky, and people aren't just slogging their way through an enormous job application.

Let's compare that to the candidate experience at most websites today:

1) You have to find the career link. Most of the time this is easy, but often the link is tucked away at the bottom--almost like the organization doesn't want you applying in the first place.

2) You have to navigate a dizzying array of options while your eyes try to process a multitude of links (the fact that Google's lesson in simplicity hasn't been adopted by more organizations is truly mind boggling).

3) You have to figure out which category of job you're looking for--from a large list of sometimes duplicative titles.

4) You have to figure out what specific job title you want--if you can even find the listing of job titles to begin with (hint: put the classification link at the top of the page!).

And you're not even to the application phase yet, which these days usually means about an hour spent navigating an ATS product that was designed by folks with zero training in human factors.

For many organizations, it's time to go back to square one: what should our application experience feel like, and how can we help applicants help themselves?

Who exactly are you screening in?

Job applicants aren't stupid. They know you're looking for certain keywords when you review their resume or application. And simply switching to ATS hasn't changed the game, just the way it's played .

You may think that you're screening in the candidates with the most targeted qualifications. But are you really? Or are you just letting in those that are the best at playing the game?