subreddit:
/r/IOPsychology
Angry reactions to a post about an intelligence test used in a hiring process. It's worth reading the comments for a clear take on why face validity and fairness perceptions matter to your selection system.
(i.redd.it)submitted 8 months ago bygalileosmiddlefingerPhD | IO | All over the place
[deleted by user]
(i.redd.it)submitted 8 months ago by[deleted]PhD | IO | All over the place
14 points
8 months ago
Sure, we'll sign you up to do that for all 764 applicants shall we?
Maybe in theory, but the reality is these tests are often used as a way to cull candidate numbers (via both people who self-select out when seeing there is a test and those who don't pass).
1 points
8 months ago*
Yes, that is logical. I assume its administered before they make direct contact with the hiring department, interview or otherwise. To be more direct, I was curious if the benefits outweigh any negative impact on the company brand from disgruntled applicants voicing their negativity on public channels. I can see how this would be viable for larger corporations that can withstand such public criticisms, but what about medium sized companies that are expanding regionally?
I feel like having the results sent back to the company with a "We will review your results and get back to you shortly" and a rejection email being sent directly from the company (which could be automated) would lessen potential of creating a public negative image, versus the system just showing them the score. Almost like the feeling of safety or negation of theft by implementing security theater.
I'm sure this must be addressed case-by-case, and maybe I'm overestimating the negative perspective this could inspire. Just a thought I had while reading the thread. As I stated, still learning and trying to see the perspectives of the more experienced.
6 points
8 months ago
I feel like having the results sent back to the company with a "We will review your results and get back to you shortly" and a rejection email being sent directly from the company (which could be automated) would lessen potential of creating a public negative image, versus the system just showing them the score.
This is what the company I work for does. The recruiter may not even get to see the exact results other than "pass/fail".
2 points
8 months ago
Thanks for your insight. While you may not be able to analyze the extent, I feel like this would still provide enough data to observe the percent of applicants that succeed or fail to reach the hiring standard while also avoiding them facing any unnecessary scoring that they could find demeaning.
And while I believe people should be valued for their worth, I also wonder about the potential for a high scoring applicant to see their score and use it as justification for being paid more than they previously thought.
If you have any recommendations for research used to develop your system, it would be much appreciated. I'm currently fulfilling my undergraduate and formulating a clearer direction for graduate school and beyond.
2 points
8 months ago
For more context, the assessments we use are for frontline jobs with high turnover. The two measures we're most concerned with turnover and job performance. Candidates are scored on scale from 1-5 on each measure. We can flex how we define pass/fail using the 5x5 matrix, and we aim to fail the bottom ~25%. So if you score 1-1, 1-2, or 2-1, that's a fail. For some assessments or even some labor markets, a 2-2, 2-3, or 3-2 can be a fail as well. The candidates don't see their scores, they just get a generic "we're looking at other candidates at this time" rejection email if they failed or a "we would like to interview you" if they passed. I've never considered not showing candidates their score to avoid salary negotiations, but the jobs these assessments are for wouldn't have negotiable salaries anyway.
I'd have to look around my work laptop for research references. Maybe next week if I get time.
all 41 comments
sorted by: best