There is a pervasive theme I hear in the marketplace. It goes like this: "Forget all that nitpicky academic nonsense…surely there must be a short, business-related test for hiring."

Are psychologists really so clueless about the needs of business? Let’s explore that statement in depth.

Business people do not have the luxury of hiring everyone who applies, putting them all on the job, and watching who succeeds. We all know the pitfalls of that practice. Instead, hiring managers screen applicants using various tests such as application blanks, resumes, interviews, and the old nemesis "pencil and paper."

The prevailing business theory is if applicants “pass” these tests, they have sufficient skills to be successful; if they “fail” they probably could not do the job. While this makes great theory, reality shows otherwise.

Even the most inexperienced hiring manager knows the traditional resume, application, and interview combo is wrong half the time. In practice, many candidates will do or say anything to get a job. For example, here are a few interview “tips” found on the web:

With this kind of candidate behavior, is it any wonder that interviews have such a poor record of accomplishment? Most research shows people who pass interviews have about a 50% chance of being high performers. But most of us don’t need a Ph.D. to explain the obvious. We can see that for ourselves.

Let’s look at this from a real-world perspective. Would a reasonable business person expect:

Now – How are we going to get all those things unless we study the job; validate each hiring test; abandon training test foolishness; and, use multiple test methods? Hmm?

I think a better question is, “Is business out of touch with best hiring practices?