Are these hiring practices fair?

[Ladyhawk]

Being unemployed for the last several months, I've gone on quite a few interviews. I've noticed a few practices employers are engaging in that has me wondering. Would like to know your experience and opinion on these...

1. Credit reports
Two of the 'second' interviews I've done required that I complete an authorization to check my credit history. For one of the positions, it kind of made sense because of what they do (bad debt account managers) but for the other (health care admin position) it didn't seem a fit. What disturbed me about this was that the authorization requires you to provide your social security number and your date of birth. Far as I know, there isn't anything illegal about doing a credit check but isn't an employer forbidden from asking your age...in any format?

2. General knowledge testing
At one interview, I had to complete a general knowledge test (50 questions with a time limit of 12 minutes). These ranged from questions like "How many miles from New York to Paris" to identifying certain geometric shapes and determining if they could be rearranged into another geometric shape.

3. Personality test
This one bugs me. I did one recently but the last one I did was back in the early 90's.

Employers relying on personality tests

To wit:

A survey by the Aberdeen Group Inc., a Boston-based technology research firm, found that 49 percent of companies using computerized hiring systems saw no impact on turnover. An American Psychological Association study found little evidence that tests purporting to measure honesty are accurate. The World Privacy Forum and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, privacy advocacy groups, allege that more than a few violate the spirit of privacy laws by asking sensitive questions.

I wonder how accurate these tests are. If you google it, you'll see lots of companies offering these kinds of screenings and making all kinds of claims about their success. But, how do you know if they're successful or not. Consider that:

The company that developed Universal's test, Unicru Inc., is among the giants in the employment-testing industry. Last year, the Beaverton, Ore., company assessed 11 million applicants, which resulted in 550,000 hires by retailers, grocers, trucking companies and others.

550,000 out of 11 million??? That's disheartening. Are there that many dishonest, unreliable potential employees out there?

The test I took claimed to be 'lie proof'. That is, completing the answer you think the employer wants won't work since the test will ultimately reveal the truth. After a quick 30 second scan, I determined why. The test asks the same question in 2-3 different versions throughout with subtle scenario or word changes.

Have you ever taken a personality screening? If so, do you know if it affected the employer's hiring decision? If not, would you ever agree to this? Would you agree to a credit check?

 

[WildCat]

I'd be very reluctant to provide a SS number on a first interview. You have no idea who will see it, how securely it is stored, how long it is hept, how it is disposed of, etc. If I'm a CEO, I don't want a bunch of employees who are so careless w/ their sensitive personal information, as it probably reflects how they will take care of the company's sensitive info also.

Also, at the company my sister works at a HR employee was caught stealing the identity of other employees mainly through her access to their SS numbers and other personal info. Prospective employees info is probably kept even less secure.

In the end, unfortunately, it all comes down to how much you need the job. Maybe you can request written guarantees as to their handling of your info?

 

[Ladyhawk]

I wasn't asked to provide my Social Sec # until the credit check authorization appeared. Since it was during a 2nd interview and since the company has recently contacted me to let me know where they are in the hiring process, I'm fairly comfortable that the info isn't being abused. But, that doesn't mean it couldn't be. Having to provide date of birth info didn't seem to on the up & up, either.

I also question the integrity of personality tests. I mean, if I figured out how to fool one of the tests, doesn't it follow that others could, too? How valid are the results, given that? I wonder if this is just another tool for employers to use if they want to discriminate based on age/sex/gender by masking it with "the personality test indicates that you are not a good fit for the job".

I don't know if employers are required to provide the results of the test to the potential employee or not.

 

[Rob Lister]

The test I took claimed to be 'lie proof'. That is, completing the answer you think the employer wants won't work since the test will ultimately reveal the truth. After a quick 30 second scan, I determined why. The test asks the same question in 2-3 different versions throughout with subtle scenario or word changes.

Have you ever taken a personality screening? If so, do you know if it affected the employer's hiring decision? If not, would you ever agree to this? Would you agree to a credit check?

Yes. I took one about seven years ago. It was probably the same one you took. There was no time limit on the test so for every question that did not have a distractor that actually 'fit' my personality, I made one up, complete with the little 'oval' that you you're supposed to fill in.

They made an offer that day but another company got me instead.

 

[username]

I think these sorts of tests are silly, but a fact of life. I also think drug tests are silly for most positions, but employers do these as well.

I don't know if living in a litigation happy world contributes to the tendency of companies to administer these tests or not.

I agree with another poster that it really depends how much you want the position.

Aside from having to give out information you may not wish to give these tests can be used to the advantage of a reasonably intelligent person.

If you are given a personality test, the employer is trying to find out if you have the right type of personality for the position. You can pick up any number of books on personality that provide career info based upon your personality type. It isn't difficult to work backwards and answer the test questions in such a way that you show strong aptitude for the position.

Same thing with honesty tests. If you can spot the series of related questions you can simply answer them all the same way.

The way I look at it is if you are forced into an uncomforatable situation to get a job and you consider getting the job worth the hassle and invasion of privacy, use those tests to your advantage.

Having said that I wonder if you are getting tests like this for a 'good' job or if it is a company that pays fairly low wages with minimal benefits. In my experience the lower the position pays, the worse the applicant/employee is treated. If these are low paying jobs you are applying for I would encourage you to raise your sights. You aren't a stupid person and the fact that you are questioning these tests and understand how trivial it is to manipulate them indicates you really belong in a higher paying position where hopefully you are treated in a more professional manner both while a job candidate as well as when an employee.

 

[Ladyhawk]

.

Having said that I wonder if you are getting tests like this for a 'good' job or if it is a company that pays fairly low wages with minimal benefits. In my experience the lower the position pays, the worse the applicant/employee is treated. If these are low paying jobs you are applying for I would encourage you to raise your sights. You aren't a stupid person and the fact that you are questioning these tests and understand how trivial it is to manipulate them indicates you really belong in a higher paying position where hopefully you are treated in a more professional manner both while a job candidate as well as when an employee.

True, true. The first test involved a company that paid "ok" but had great benefits. The second one involves a company that pays quite well and has better than average benefits.

I'd read a news article the other day that alledged that 40% of US employers utilize some form of personality testing. Don't know how accurate that is since I'm running 2 out of 6. Most of the companies I've interviewed with have been pretty successful and have a work force in excess of 400...for whatever that's worth...

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
1. Credit reports

For the last several years the trend is for employers to pull credit reports not just for positions that may require the handling of large amounts of money, but as an indicator of reliability. The logic is a person who keeps good credit will also be more reliable at work.

 

[H3LL]

How about writing in bold letters all over the personality test:

"This test has been widely discredited and shown to have no validity in assessing the infinite complexity of human personality.

If you want gullible, badly informed people to work for you, hire one that took the test.

If you want people that can examine information critically and make effective, real world decision in your company.

Hire me."

Would it work?
Wouldn't you only want to work for someone that did hire you?

I don't have a personality so would have to leave it blank.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I had to take a whole battery of pathetically obvious tests in order to get what turned out to be my worst job ever. It was kind of fun, though, taking those tests. The grammar and spelling one apparently weeded about fifty percent of the applicants out. It's not like it was hard.

Which of the following sentences are correct?

1. mary go down to the groshry stor on twosday.
2. I and James aten the appels.
3. We like to visit the beach.
4. The littel gurl plaied with the puppys and kittys.

The really funny one was the "ethics" test.

You witness a coworker stealing office supplies. What is the best course of action?

1. Confront your coworker in the parking lot after hours and threaten to tell their supervisor unless they give you some of the office supplies.
2. It's none of your business, so you do nothing.
3. Tell your own supervisor what you saw and let her handle the matter.
4. It's okay to take office supplies, so you can do it, too.

To pass a "business ethics" test of such sterling quality, all you have to do is say it's always best to be fifteen minutes early for everything, it's better to finish the task than stop immediately when the clock hits time for lunch, break, or going home, and be a total rat but only spread your tales to your own supervisor, unless it's your supervisor you're ratting on (which is highly encouraged), in which case you go up the chain of command to their supervisor.

The "personality" test was equally easy to fake. You just have to pick all the choices that make you sound like a total square: being early, being responsible, not making waves, obeying all the rules, and ratting out your peers in a dignified and professional manner.

 

[Dancing David]

I am of mixed mind about such tactics in an interview, but given the amount of lying people engage in to get hired, I think that employers are still at a disadvantage.

Take the issue of credit report, when I worked at the DV shelterw e had a real problem with people stealing, I mean seriously do you have to have people sign something that says they won't exploite or intimidate the residents? The question I would have is , does the credit report corellate to what the employers wants.

Personality tests are only partly discredited, they can indicate what behaviors people might engage in, especialy when it comes to an issue like "What is your interactive style?", if the test would weed out individuals with power and control issues I would be all for it.

It seems that in social work there is a lot of misrepresentation on the part of prospective employees, the fail rate for my current job is very high, I can imagine the anguish of an employer training people who just bail.

My wife has supervised and she says that when she interviews she asks questions to weed out the obvious mismatches but then makes the final decision based upon the 'personality' of the applicant. In social work there are traits that are very positive, and those that are detrimental.

 

[kalen]

How many companies have asked you to pee in a bottle?

 

[Mojo]

A former colleague who is currently in the job market has had to provide handwriting samples for a graphologist to analyse at a couple of recent interviews.

 

[Mycroft]

I had to take a whole battery of pathetically obvious tests in order to get what turned out to be my worst job ever.

I think there is a connection. The company that requires these tests is the company that dehumanises its employees.

I once turned down a job when the company required a urinalysis. I don't use drugs and would have passed easily, but my thinking was I didn't want to work for a company that felt the contents of my urine was any of their business.

 

[gnome]

My favorite story about a personality test used to screen applicants happened to my best friend... he was applying for a job at a convenience store, and all of the applicants were given this test.

Only one passed the personality test, and they hired that guy--and had to fire him less than a month later for stealing from the store.

 

[aerocontrols]

My favorite story about a personality test used to screen applicants happened to my best friend... he was applying for a job at a convenience store, and all of the applicants were given this test.

Only one passed the personality test, and they hired that guy--and had to fire him less than a month later for stealing from the store.

Yeah, but all the other applicants would probably have stolen from the store, and then burned it down.

 

[Ladyhawk]

I've been in management for the better three-quarters of my working life. 98% of the time, my staff and I would get along quite well. I've done more interviews and screenings than I care to count and usually, my biggest dilemma would consist of trying to chose one among so many qualified people! Seriously!

I'm not saying I was the best manager ever but, lately, I'm amazed at the questions that I'm NOT asked during an interview. Seems that most of management just wants to bullsh*t about their latest vacation, someone we both know from the industry, etc. I'm really shocked at the questions they don't pose that are specific to the job.

For example, if I were hiring an admin asst, I'd want to know if they're available to work late in the evening, what's their typing speed, how familiar are they with MS Office (or relevant software), what do they like least about their current (previous) job ( and why) and then pose some scenarios and ask them to tell me how they would prioritize tasks in real life. I'd volunteer what I could about my own management style, expectations, the corporate culture, etc. I've also told several folks, during the first interview, that they didn't mean the minimal criteria and did not qualify for the position. I even coached one applicant (whose self-esteem was obviously very low) how to approach an interview in the future and how to be better prepared!

Seems, instead, employers are relying on these personality tests and credit reports to tell them something meaningful. Just because someone is "organized, loyal and creative" or has a high score on their credit report, doesn't mean they know how to actually perform the job.

 

[Kopji]

A former colleague who is currently in the job market has had to provide handwriting samples for a graphologist to analyze at a couple of recent interviews.

Grrrrr. There are no such jobs in the US you know... That is almost entirely a European fictitious occupation. Better not start exporting these quacks. And who analyzed the graphologist's handwriting to make sure they are qualified?

On the other questions... probably fair as long as they are applied to all applicants. If YOU are the only one taking the tests, well...

The tests sound stupidly obvious, but if you are too stupid to figure out the "right" answers they don't want you...

Personally, if a person spells their name more than one way on their application they're off the interview pile.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Personally, if a person spells their name more than one way on their application they're off the interview pile.

Or if at the interview you ask them what they prefer to be called (ie, is Catherine "Cathy" or Peter "Pete" or Michael "Mike") and they say "everyone calls me Giggles" or "Sparkle" or they prefer the name of a character from a video game or Japanese cartoon.

 

[H3LL]

Personally, if a person spells their name more than one way on their application they're off the interview pile.

Shakespeare is off your list then?
I suppose him being dead has some disadvantages too?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Shakespeare is off your list then?
I suppose him being dead has some disadvantages too?

That and the fact that he apparently plagiarized the whole of "Hamlet" from a roomful of monkeys with typewriters who'd been working on the script for quite some time.