Definitely not "The way it should be"

Recruitment press encourages cheating | Date:

Tuesday, 16 September 2008 |

8 comments

votes: 0 | score: 0

Whilst enjoying my recent holiday I was relaxing reading The Sydney Morning Herald careers section (what holiday?) when I came across an article by one of their journalists that really annoyed me. Now I am not easily annoyed, but this article really got to me. The article in question was about how to "get the results you want" from psychometric testing and then went on to explain how to "beat the test" for those that "have a fiery temper and are prone to fly off the handle" or those that are "not so good at being a team player".

The fact that a careers lift out that is paid for by employers and recruitment agencies can print such a piece baffles me - This article advocates cheating and employing underhand tactics to dupe an employer that clearly values the recruitment process more than the author.

At RecruitR we go to every effort to match our candidates to roles that suit their needs and by doing so we are careful not introduce parties that have differing needs. Many of our clients do use psychometric or personality profiles though do so as a management tool not a selection tool.

What are your thoughts? Get the job at any cost or get the job that's right for both parties?

Clinton Moore, Director

8 Comments Posted

Devil's Advocate | Tuesday, 16 September 2008 12:42:17 PM

Fair call-- I think there's definitely value in psychometric testing, but is "cheating" in a job interview really that outrageous or that unusual?

I think all of us have done it at some point or another ito some degree in a job interview.

After all, if a prospective employer asks you a loaded question like: "Are you a team player?," are you really going to say no?

So what's the difference between stretching the truth to give an employer the answer they want to hear in a face-to-face interview or on a test?

Maybe it's not so much a problem with people cheating on psychometric tests as how they're perceived by job seekers as unfairly categorising them into neat little boxes based on whether they pick A B or C on a multiple-choice exam. And no one wants to be put into a box!

As a job seeker facing a tick-box test, do you have any suggestions on how someone can get past being treated like a certain personality "type" to be seen as the complex and creative human being they actually are?

Clinton | Wednesday, 17 September 2008 1:50:03 PM

Thanks for your response. You raise some really good points, the first being that some interviewers would even consider asking someone directly if they are a team player!!! Interviewing any job seeker is a skill and one that many companies fail to recognise let alone provide adequate training. Anyway, getting back to your question, firstly I need to reiterate that psychometric tests are not, and should not, be used as a selection tool - they are a powerful management tool and help an employer understand what stimuli you need to be the best you can. So in summary, when used properly a psychometric or personality profile can help your new employer become aware of what a truly complex and creative human being you are.

molly | Wednesday, 14 January 2009 5:20:08 PM

Interesting to read that the user of the tests defends their right to use a tool that is not what it seems but argues against the job seeker understanding what psychometric testing is really about. If the test is not about the questions themselves, but about the way the applicant answers them why is there not some imperative on potential employers to be truthful about what the job is really like, not what they think will attract applicants. I think more honesty is required on both sides. OK so the potential employers want to catch people who are "cheating" on the test. It is manipulative of the employer to not reveal the real purpose of the test and what they're really looking for and allow the applicant to make an informed decision about their desire to work within that framework.

Anonymous | Saturday, 7 March 2009 11:46:56 AM

A position I went for once involved an initial psychometric test. The result print was later given to the engineering director with whom I had the interview. He glanced at it, smiled, pushed it to one side and ignored it uttering the words "psycho-babble...", then conducted a proper interview for the role. I got the job.

Simon | Tuesday, 2 June 2009 5:26:15 AM

I am a qualified psychometric test administrator. If a test is administered well and it is a good, robust test, it is unlikley that this type of approach will go un-noticed. There are mechanisms in many good tests that spot inconsistency and many questions are cleverly written to eek out those that may attempt to mis-represent themselves.

If you land a job that is unsuitable to your personality traits, competencies or skill set - you are unlikley to thrive in your career anyway - so just dont cheat on yourself!

Anonymous | Friday, 4 September 2009 4:03:08 PM

Psychometrics are crap - they are stupid and pointless and it is a disgrace that employers utilise them. Not only are they absurdly intrusive but they are misinformative and encourage people to hire on the most threadbare of bases. As for the notion of it being 'bad' to try and beat a psychometric - grow up. Of course we try to deceive employers - just as they decieve us that working for their company will be "exhilirating", "life changing" and all the other spin companies speil. You HR boffins are ruining peoples careers for spurious reasons. I have two Masters in my field - and can't get a job in my own area because morons in H/R decide that I don't meet your BS personality profile tests. And none of your H/R smoke and mirrors has ever been proven to be any better than traditional hiring techniques. You've created a nice little cottage industry and like to think you are shrinks - even though most of you are anything but qualified to assess peoples' personalities.

Anonymous | Sunday, 11 April 2010 4:20:28 PM

As someone with a degree in Psychology I can tell you what utter nonsense psychometric testing is. It is nothing more than projecting a false impression of a person by imposing ridiculous definitions on what is a complex issue. Personality and intelligence require top-down approaches to their understanding; they are non-linear surfaces - you cannot begin to define them with a series of questions and answers with underpinning factors. Personality testing is particularly dangerous and so badly constructed (from start to finish) that to twin a person to a job role based on whether they are a designer-innovator or whatever crap terms are being applied is nothing short of disgusting. I've seen many good people excluded because of this drivel when all it needed was a competent interviewer at the helm with some intelligence and intuition.

Whiteblack | Monday, 21 June 2010 9:20:34 PM

You raise some really good points, the first being that some interviewers would even consider asking someone directly if they are a team player!!! Interviewing any job seeker is a skill and one that many companies fail to recognise let alone provide adequate training.

It is nothing more than projecting a false impression of a person by imposing ridiculous definitions on what is a complex issue. Personality and intelligence require top-down approaches to their understanding; they are non-linear surfaces - you cannot begin to define them with a series of questions and answers with underpinning factors.

__________________________
Whiteblack