Getting a Job - Making it Impossible
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 06-22-2009 - 10:01am |
By Liz Wolgemuth
It is, no doubt, some job seekers' worst interview nightmare: an hour on the phone answering questions posed not by a hiring manager but by a psychologist. Or, even more frightening, several hours in an office with a psychologist, quietly filling out multiple-choice tests, or even performing workplace simulations with paid actors. Marketing executive So Young Park started scouting for a new job in November, the middle of the worst recession in two-and-a-half decades. Park's search took about four months, and she was asked—by three different companies—to have a talk with a psychologist. "I had never had to do one before," Park says. Indeed, experts suggest that this economy may have created a perfect storm of reasons for companies to embrace psychologists in the hiring process: Employers are struggling to filter the right hire from truckloads of candidates, and the ugly marketplace means good hires are even more critical to a company's success.
The goal of psychologists in hiring is really to discover the knowledge and skills that would be associated with success in the position they are helping fill—and then to follow a fairly structured format for the assessment. Some executive interview assessments can be costly events involving job simulations that attempt to mimic a tough (even stressful) scenario or meeting that might be encountered on the job. Often, the psychologist will play a role in the simulation, but it's also common to pay trained actors to play the parts of frustrated consumers or aggravated employees. Most of the time, however, the assessments should not be stressful to the candidate. "If stress is not an attribute of the job...you want people to feel calm and to understand what's going on," Sidle says. Whether a psychologist spends a few hours in testing with a possible manager or spends all day assessing a prospective executive, the bottom line is fit. For example, a prudent supervisor who runs a tight ship may be a great manager, but if the client company is looking for an innovator, it won't be the right match.
<<
How many of you have filled out an "online" application recently, say for a retail store? It's often 25 pages of idiotic questions like "have you ever stolen money from a cash register?" Oh, absolutely, in fact, I'll steal anything that isn't nailed down.
Seriously, are you really going to answer that question with a 'yes'? And when you fill out an online application and click the "send" button, do you really feel you've accomplished anything and/or that someone on the other end will actually see your application?
Not so long ago you walked into a place of business and asked if they were hiring. If they were, they'd hand you application, which you filled out and handed back. If you were lucky, you got interviewed then and there. 3 times in my life I've been hired on the spot. That would never happen these days.
Companies can now check your background from top to bottom. Not just criminal or driving records, but credit, as well. Eventually employers WILL be able to check health records. And now they're going to add psychologists to the mix? Will they eventually get to where they demand answers to personal questions about your relationships, childhood, family, past, etc?
It's fine for an employer to find the best employee for the job, but is losing the humanity aspect of hiring the way to do that? What will happen to the millions of people who don't make the "grade" one way or another? All those people who aren't completely and utterly perfect in every way? (and how many of us can say we are?) How many good potential employees will be overlooked because a psychologist deems them "inappropriate" in some way? Their parents divorced, perhaps, or they smoked pot when they were 16.
No matter what, we are still dealing with human beings and that, in itself, should be an important part of looking for the best employee. If an employer wants to hire a computer they can simply call Dell. If they want a human being, they should be accepting of the fact that human beings come with flaws.


DH's company already has a psychologist/psychiatrist conduct a portion of the interview. From the initial application it takes at least three months before someone is hired.
I've taken IQ tests in the early 60's as part of the job application.
I'm glad I've never had to deal with applying for a job online. It's so impersonal. The most important part of a job interview is the face to face interaction IMO. Personality & demeanor go a long way in making an impression.
I can think of yet another reason to screen potential employees. The RKBA crowd has lobbied hard to make restrictions on firearms dangerously lax. An employer would REALLY like to know, in advance, who's a potential loose cannon (someone who might go postal or come back with a firearm to settle a grudge, real or perceived). If those who are fatally flawed from the get-go could be screened out, would certainly be a blessing. Wonder if psychologists have any tests which show that propensity towards violence and mayhem.
In regards to the last paragraph, to the best of my knowledge* no computer has yet shown sentience and malevolent intent, though there have been several times when I could have sworn that my laptop was out to get me.
*Remember Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey?! Speaking of movies, haven't there been a number of them regarding precognition about violence? Denzel Washington and Tom Cruise starred in two of them if memory serves.
Jabberwocka
Even psychiatrists can't predict future homocidal or suicidal behavior. That's just another
Can see both sides of the search for, and screening of qualified hires. DD used to do freelance web design work but her small business clients are suffering--so she's looking for a part-time job. To her potential employer, I'd like to say that she's hardworking and smart. Take a chance on her and you won't be sorry. Side one.
Flip side. DH is a small business owner so he knows the cost of hiring the wrong person. It's greater than you might think by the time forms are filed; insurance paid for workmen's comp, health, unemployment, etc; and employees learn the firm's way of doing things.
I can think of plenty of settings where employees SHOULD either have comprehensive background checks or psychological screenings. Some where they should have both! Consider all the priests in the Catholic church who molested their youngest and most vulnerable.
Psychologists cannot predict specific events; nor are their tools of evaluation perfect. But they can often pick up on those clues which indicate a predilection towards violence, vengeance, pederasty, viciousness, or other emotions which could be toxic; liabilities to an employer in terms of workplace behaviors. Who would want to hire a ticking time bomb?
That said, there are sooooo many things an employer cannot ask of potential employees (which may be another reason for the evaluation by an "expert"). Am surprised that that a psychological screening would be unquestioned considering its encroachment on privacy. Desperate times?
Much depends on who is evaluating whom and with what intent. Winnowing out all but the shining stars does seem a bit unrealistic. 'Sides, "stars" also tend to be prima donnas and might be more demanding of proper recognition, recompense, office space, etc.
Jabberwocka
Blessings,
Gypsy
"What is life? It is the flash of a firefly in the night.
It is the breath of a buffalo in the wintertime.
It is the little shadow which runs across the grass
and loses itself in the sunset.
- Crowfoot, Blackfoot warrior and orator
Dog fighting is cruelty, which is a human activity and a human illness.
It's not the dog's fault.
All dogs need to be evaluated as individuals."
--Tim Racer, one of BAD RAP's founders
http://www.badrap.org/rescue/
Mika Dog
"All things share the same breath;
the beast, the tree, the man.
The Air shares its spirit with
all the life it supports."
--Chief Seattle
"If there are no dogs in Heaven,
then when I die I want to go where they went."
~Will Rogers
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress
can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
~~Mahatma Gandhi
Blessings,
Gypsy
)O(