How to succeed at psychometric tests

Image via Wikipedia

Psychometric testing can be controversial – extremely controversial in some circles – yet it’s popular with human resource managers and recruiters. They see it as a quick and efficient way of categorising people.

From their point of view the issue is simple; a recruit’s CV, interviews and references generally tell managers all about a person’s skills, experience and functional ability. Getting important objective information about personality – in particular a candidate’s ability to mesh with a corporate culture is harder.

That’s the sales pitch. The reality is stressed recruiters often use a barrage of different tests, including psychometrics, to speed the hiring process while using the minimum amount of energy.

In some cases testing is automated. Candidates sit at computers – perhaps in a recruitment company’s offices – and work through on-screen tests. In other cases the tests are paper based and professionals supervise the testing.

At a senior level these tests are a waste of time without the intervention of a qualified and experienced professional. The results can be complex to interpret and sensible analysis is beyond the scope of a layperson. It might be fine to hire a cleaner on the basis of an automated test, but not a knowledge worker.

I had personal experience of psychometric testing about a decade ago. After a series of intense interviews for a senior position I was asked to take the tests. The session lasted for around four hours, almost without a break. In my case I warmed up with what looked like IQ tests and moved onto logical reasoning exercises.

This was followed by a long and vaguely baffling exercise where I was asked to choose from seemingly random pairs of job titles in order of preference. For example, the test might pair ‘janitor’ and ‘rocket scientist’. Picking one of those two isn’t exactly hard. In fact, the test was obviously designed for an American audience and included some job descriptions that, while not incomprehensible, certainly were not familiar.

Finally there were the real psychometric tests – I suspect the job-ranking test might be a form of psychometric exercise too. Answering the questions isn’t difficult; indeed, the tester asked me not to think too hard but to go with my first response to any question.

By the end of the four-hour test session I was emotionally drained, physically exhausted, thirsty and hungry. After a 30-minute lunch break I returned for a task-specific question and answer session.

A few days later an industrial psychiatrist called me to discuss the tests. He discussed my longer-term career prospects and plans and made suggestions that I hadn’t otherwise considered. I was worried the tests might show him that I was an employment basket case – or worse. In fact the news was positive and insightful. It turns out I’m better at certain things that I previously thought. I got the job, but that’s another story.

Going purely on my experience, I can certainly see some merit in the ideas behind this kind of testing. Personality is the most important factor when hiring an executive. It’s more important than skills and experience and as important as aptitude. It’s good to establish objective benchmarks that go beyond the kind of human prejudices we can all be, even unwittingly, guilty of.

However, I have two concerns. First, despite what the professionals say, it is possible for people to learn how to answer psychometric tests in a way that portrays them in a favourable light.

Many years ago I interviewed John Wareham a New Zealand-born recruitment guru who helped develop these tests, he said the trick people quickly learn is to avoid the extremes. Most tests ask you to rate things on a scale of 1 to 5 – if you want to get a good job make sure the bulk of your answers cluster around the centre of this range. On the other hand minor alarm bells ring if you fail to tick any extreme answers. Wareham also said the tests quickly detect any dishonesty by cross-referencing, so answer truthfully or you’ll be exposed as a phoney.

My second fear is that managers often use it as a way of offloading decision-making responsibility. External objective measures are good, but they can’t make decisions. There’s a temptation to just look at printouts and test scores and not go beyond this to look at other, possibly more compelling, evidence.