Last week, we covered merit based job posts. This week, let me tell you why I hate hiring assessments and how to assess culture fit and skill without all the bias that comes with generic tests.
I was a bad test taker. I had really good grades, did all my homework, and wrote great essays. However, if I was sitting in front of any multiple choice exam? Chances were I wouldn’t do well. Obviously, I didn’t know that as a kid but looking back there’s one clear indicator that I knew my test taking skills would come between me and my dreams even if I couldn’t put a label on it at the time.
It was the summer before 8th grade. At the time, and for the 13 years of my life prior to that, I wanted to be a doctor. I was an accident prone kid and I loved that I could help people when they were hurt. So, that summer, my Mom sent me to a nerd camp for kids that wanted to be doctors at Emory University. We were there for a week living in the dorms. Each day, we experienced a different aspect of working in medicine.
On one of the first days there, we did a Q&A panel with students and a professor at Emory Medical School. Someone asked about how long medical school is. Casually, the professor told us there were seven points when you could fail out of medical school. Each one included - you guessed it - a standardized test. That was the day I decided I would not be a doctor.
The Bias Behind Pre-Hire Assessments AKA WHY I HATE HIRING ASSESSMENTS
We often use merit based hiring assessments - for culture and skill - without considering the emotional impact and bias these tests have on people like me and so many others. I get it. On the surface, the proposition seems simple. If I give the same test to everyone, I know who’s the best. However, pre-employment assessments are historically biased and that history is important to understand if you want to use them to create more equitable hiring outcomes.
Research has confirmed that cognitive ability tests, personality assessments, and algorithm-based screening tools (i.e. resume readers) don’t predict success equally across race, sex, disability, and other traits. Yes, even your beloved Meyers-Briggs. No shade on them, it’s all of these tests. The reality is that - especially in a hiring context - candidates are going to tell you what they think sounds good, not the truth. There’s also an ugly truth in how these tests are written.
I don’t think another traditional tech assessment or some audit of bias is going to fix that. It surely won’t help you get more qualified hires. This change to creating assessments that actually predict outcomes? It’s not a one and done deployment. Instead, it’s regular training on unconscious bias to minimize the impact of individual biases on hiring outcomes. People need to be trained on asking better interview questions, hiring panels, and scorecards. But it’s also finding new ways of assessing talent that let us have more quality experiences with those folks.
Work Samples: The Ultimate Merit Based Hiring Assessment
Of course I have an idea. Hear me out. If merit based hiring is built around this idea that the person most qualified to do the work should get hired, let’s do a work sample. I know, wild. Crazy. Outlandish. (Note sarcasm.)
Nope. It’s just practical and that feels like innovation when you’ve always done things one way. Yet another reason I hate these hiring assessments.
Try these 2 really simple ways instead.
1. Ask my favorite interview question: How would you fix [sample] process? For example, how would you fix the interview process? You’re going to tell them ahead of time what problem to solve and give all candidates the same amount of information. Tell them how long and who will be in the room to answer questions. Let them talk. See what questions they ask.
2. Have them do a consulting project. Everyone has the same or a similar project. Same deal as before. Make sure they know who they can ask for questions and set up intentional time where they work alongside the team. Ethics note: You must pay people to do work for you. But, bonus: Work gets done and you can hire more confidently.
The hard part is scoring this work. You need to decide what good means beforehand and create clarity on the scoring. For example, if I were creating a consulting project assessment - I might break my score into 3 categories: Execution (did you do it, did you do it on time?), Communication (how often/style), and Teamwork (how did they handle conflict?). I’m going to include very specific examples with every score. Also, going to focus on not overcomplicating it. No 1-10 scorecards. Stick with yes/no or 1-3. Hire help for this part if you really want to scale it across an organization that’s hiring more than 5 people a month.
Next Week: Candidate Communications
In our final post of this merit based hiring series, we’re looking at candidate communications. In the executive order, this was one of the top priorities to overhaul federal hiring. So what does good mean? What emails should you automate in the candidate experience? What emails should never be automated? How can teams build simple infrastructure without expensive tech?
Be sure to subscribe and I’ll send my blog with all the answers to those questions right to your inbox.
More in this series:
- Candidate Communication Emails You Can’t Automate
- 5 Questions To Answer In Your Job Post
- Merit Based Hiring: Executive Order Explained
At Three Ears Media, we train teams to create better content using AI. Whether it’s job posts, candidate communications, or more creative outlets - let us teach your team the prompts to take the average output and transform it into something worth sharing. We offer team training, process consulting, and 1-1 coaching for teams interested in creating high-quality content that drives qualified candidate conversion. Interested in learning more? Book a call with me.
Make sure you get this series delivered straight to your inbox by subscribing here.
