What's the "AHA!" REPORT all about?

This series of newsletters contains AHA! information to help people and organizations hire the best employees, make the best promotion decisions, retain the most qualified people, maintain the widest applicant pool, follow best practices, and (if you are subject to US law) remain aware of EEOC hot-spots.

In the News
Library
ERE articles
Media Kit

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 Theory
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. Business Practice 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:

• Dress smart: people judge based primarily on appearance
• Focus your questions to show you fit the role
• Read a book that gives answers to hundreds of the most difficult interview questions

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.

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

• Hiring tests that cover topics directly related to job success or failure?
• Test scores that accurately predict job performance?
• Multiple tests that cross-check each other?
• Only qualified candidates screened in?
• Only unqualified candidates screened out?
• Legal challenges minimized?

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?.