The Good and Bad of Psychological Testing

In recent years, we have seen more clients and prospects using psychological tests to assess candidates. Indeed, a recent American Management Association survey found that 44 percent of respondents use some form of testing in their hiring processes.

Psychological testing is one of the few topics that can stir up normally even-tempered human resources executives. Some swear by testing and others think it is useless, but all have passionately held opinions.

For our part, we discourage psychological testing in executive hiring. Even when thoughtfully implemented, tests simply don’t add much to the assessment of executives. Executives are best judged on their track records, because the best predictors of a candidate’s future performance and behavior are his past performance and behavior. Instead of testing, most companies would be better off focusing on improving the fundamentals of the hiring process.

That’s not to say testing is bad; it has a valuable place in assessing applicants for lower-level jobs. For example, applicants for a customer service position can be screened for traits like extroversion or the ability to control anger.

Hiring managers want to ensure they hire great people and avoid costly mistakes. Since a candidate’s past performance usually indicates his future performance, assessment should focus on learning everything possible about the candidate’s track record. And that leads back to the fundamentals of hiring: interviewing, fact-checking, and references.

Intensive interviewing, fact-checking and references are hard work and time-consuming, but they will tell you everything you can know about a candidate’s past performance. Sadly, most companies do a poor job on these basics, especially fact-checking and referencing. How many cases have you heard of where a company hired someone only to find they’d lied about their education? And haven’t we all been asked to provide a reference for someone when it was clear the hiring manager didn’t want to hear any bad news?

A rigorous process will leave no stone unturned. Concerned about the candidate’s management style? Explore your concerns by talking with former subordinates. Want to know how much credit the candidate deserves for a success that happened on his watch? Talk with the people who were there. Trust your intuition and never let concerns go unaddressed. Fact-check employment dates, job responsibilities, past salary figures, and educational credentials, and make sure you do it early in the process. You might get an unpleasant surprise, but at least you won’t waste valuable time.

If your company can improve on the basics, focus on them before you consider testing. If your company already has a top-notch hiring process, then thoughtfully implemented psychological testing might offer you modest incremental improvement.

If you use psychological tests, keep these points in mind:

• Know what you are trying to measure and why.
• Know how you will use the results in the decision-making process.
• Have reasonable expectations for what tests can deliver. Tests should be used to confirm your opinions, not form them.
• Thoroughly check references and credentials for your testing provider.
• Ask for data validating the test. There are hundreds of tests, and quality varies tremendously.
• Be aware of legal issues surrounding testing. Running afoul of them can be costly.
• Don’t neglect the basics of interviewing: fact-checking and references.

In summary, if you use or are considering using psychological testing, you should be applauded for your desire to improve your company’s hiring process. But we urge you to direct your energy first towards improving the basics of the hiring process. There is no better way to assess executive candidates.