Candidate assessment tools have been used for many years by recruiting firms and hiring companies alike to – in theory – introduce some scientific objectivity to the otherwise highly subjective process of determining whether someone would be a good fit for a job and for the team or company. Their promise is an appealing one, to be sure. Who wouldn’t want a ‘crystal ball’ to take away the guesswork? One that could predict whether a prospective hire will work well with the rest of the team, whether they have a leadership style that will fit well into the organisation, and whether they’re likely to be a high performer in the long run?
So, are they worth it? The right assessment, used correctly, certainly can be.
Let’s start with technical assessments; they’re a clearer choice. If there are specific technical skills that a candidate requires to be successful in a position, a well-designed technical assessment can help assess those skills. Naturally, this shouldn’t be done instead of the appropriate questioning during an interview, but rather in addition to it. The caveat with technical assessments is to determine whether they’re really necessary for that specific case or not. They shouldn’t be done just for the sake of doing them; neither should they all be the same. Ideally, a technical assessment should be customised to each specific position (rather than a standard assessment for each new hire), and should test only skills that are necessary for that position.
The question of whether to use personality and soft skill assessments is more complicated. As with any product or service, there are good assessment tools and bad, and some are better for some situations than others. The science behind these assessments has evolved over the years, and the tools available now are far more robust than those available even a decade ago. If you do plan to incorporate them into your hiring process, there are a lot to choose from, and it makes sense to shop around and ensure that the product you select is the best for your specific circumstances.
The other question – an equally important one – is how a company puts these products to use.
No assessment tool can, or should, ever replace human decision making in the hiring process. No software algorithm can reliably predict an uncertain future. Aren’t people liable to make mistakes, though? Sure, of course. Humans are fallible. But so is technology. A software program is no more or less error prone than people who are using solid interview techniques, plus good judgement and reasoning skills, in a well-structured hiring process. Putting the human and technological elements to work together can be highly effective.
People are most likely to make errors resulting from subjectivity. Simply put, we tend to want to hire people that we like. If someone is friendly and engaging, and builds rapport quickly, we tend to see them through rose-coloured glasses. We exaggerate points in favour of their candidacy, and overlook things we shouldn’t. A robust selection process mitigates this bias by using well-designed questioning techniques, applied consistently, to get as close as possible to comparing ‘apples to apples’ when shortlisting and selecting final candidates. Incorporating assessments into the process can counter that human subjectivity further, giving us the reason and the opportunity to examine some of the decisions we’re making.
Along the same lines, assessments can help mitigate some of these biases for organisations that make DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) a priority in hiring. The objectivity of assessments – good ones, used well – can help to level the playing field, and advance candidates who don’t necessarily fit a particular mould.
As with many things in life and work, timing is everything. There’s a trend towards companies incorporating assessments in the very early stages of the hiring process. Some even require a candidate to complete an assessment in order to apply. This is wrong, because it’s actually counterproductive. Companies who do this see it as a filtering step – one that weeds candidates out, shortening the list to be considered. They’re right, but the candidates being filtered out, in most cases, are the wrong ones. A good candidate is a professional who knows the value of their time, and they want to be treated with respect in the hiring process. The vast majority of these candidates will abandon an application process that includes a required assessment.
Where these tools really shine is when they’re put to use in the latter stages of the hiring process. Here, they can unearth useful, objective, and data-driven insights that may not have surfaced in the interviews. Generally, no assessment report should be an immediate and automatic deal-breaker, immediately ruling a candidate out. Instead, they should point towards additional probing questions that can be asked in final interviews. These questions will be unique to each candidate, and the answers can help hiring decision-makers make better – and still human – decisions.
(It should be acknowledged that in an increasingly litigious labour law environment, it can be helpful in some cases to have the objectivity that these assessments provide, in order to defend hiring decisions when necessary. That said, the assessments should still complement, rather than replace, the decision-making of the people involved.)
One final note on the reports that are generated from assessments like these. Smart organisations use them long after the day an employee first starts working with them. The insights and information the best of these programs provide can help you align your new hire with the right team, the support they need, and the kind of leadership that will result in the highest level of performance and job satisfaction possible.
Algorithms will never take the human touch out of human resources, nor should they. Whether you already use a tool to assess candidates, or are thinking about starting, we’re happy to work with you to ensure that a well-structured hiring process complements – and makes the most of – the insights and information you receive.