Slashdot Mirror
Pre-Interview Organization Analysis Design Tests?
miasok asks: "Recently I was deemed unfit for a job I was applying to, even before having an interview. A local software development company expressed an interest in my resume, but first wanted me to take an Organizational Analysis Design (OAD) test. The OAD test is a form with approximately 100 personality attributes and you are supposed to identify if they whether they apply to you, and if they are expected of you in your current job. I completed all fo the questions truthfully, and was surprised at the response: '...the results do not fall within our range of acceptance for the programming position'. Has anyone else had experience with such a test, especially as the sole means of determining a candidate suitable for a job? More information about this test can be found at here."
This test seems to be unfairly weighted towards people in the "lying scum who know exactly what the employer wants to hear" category. Of course, that's the way most interviews are, so get with the program!
Or just find out which companies are stupid enough to implement this test, buy some put options, and laugh all the way to the bank when the company collapses under the weight of its own managerial stupidity and/or corruptness (assuming you've timed it right).
Don't check the box that says "Reacts violently to stupid questions."
ph34r teh p0w3r 0f th3 c0w
Would you really want to work for a company where everyone fitted into the same precisely-defined psychological profile? That isn't a company, it's a cult!
I once applied for a job that gave me one of these personality profiling tests. I completed the test, and the interview, and obviously passed whatever crietia they were looking for, as they offered me the job. I then declined to take the position, and told them the sole reason why I was turning them down was the fact they used a personality profile as part of the selection criteria.
"When I grow up, I want to be a weirdo"
The company I work for relies on something a bit more simplistic...code. The client wanted 8 programmers instead of 2, so we went looking. After about 15 resumes that came close 10 were off the wall, and 5 were worth possibly talking too. Well, since I'm the head person of this project I wanted to see code. Just wanted to make sure they actually knew how to program. I found it amazing that not a one of them had anything to show. I was baffled by this concept, since I probably have 20 or 30 little utility program (most are not finished, but have allot of them) just laying arround.
So I put together a simple set of utitlity type programs that they could create to show they knew something. Ten possibilies, all simple, and they just needed to pick 3 and come up with something. For some reason they all decided it was too much trouble. So we still have 2 programmers.
I'd be curious to see what one of those test would have said about the people who applied. Not that I would ever want something like that as a basis for a programmer working for me, but it would be interesting.
Fortunately I have final say in who my company hires for programming.
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
The whole selection process is all about filtering out as many people as you can, as early as possible.
I once had to hire around 20 developers in a 6 month period, while managing the team through a pretty hairy crisis situation. The only way I could do that is by increasing the likelihood of getting a hire for every interview I did. To do that, I developed some heuristics
This process basically gives you 3 piles : rejects, shortlist, and maybes. I'd see the shortlisted folk immediately, and put the maybes through some pre-screening exercise rather than see every single one of them.
I don't particularly believe in psychometric testing when recruiting for technical positions - in fact, I think having a diverse set of characteristics in the team helps - but I would definitely ask people to sit a technical test before getting to see a "real" interviewer. I wouldn't be surprised if many organisations use psychometric tests to thin out the interview list even though most psychometric experts point out that this is not a particularly sensible way to act.
I don't know what the job market is like where you are, but in the UK it's pretty tight. You may have been in someone's "maybe" pile, and they just wanted to slim it down - it's not a personal slight, the company may not even be clueless, and if I were you, I'd concentrate on improving my CV to hit the "definite" pile.
It's all very well in practice, but it will never work in theory.
No doubt you encountered the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Assesment test. These types of tests are fairly common and are becoming increasingly common. It isn't a pass/fail type test. Rather it is an assesment of a person's personality. It categorizes your personality into one of several group types. Are you anal and perhaps good for an accounting position? Or are you an artsy, people person that would be well suited for a marketing position?
The thing is that, these tests are amazingly accurate. If you answer honestly and then look at the results, you will see that it does accurately categorize your personality. Even if you don't want to admit that the results match you, you will certainly remember other people describing you as that type in the past. Remember that the test doesn't say anything bad about you. It just categorizes your type. If you were a detail oriented, structured, authoritarian(anal), you probably would not get along well in a job with a company filled with optimistic, free-style, unstructured, talkative, artsy types.
But, as much as it hurts, you shouldn't take it personally. The company has decided what type of personallity they like and feel is best for a position. This means that others in the department and company are likely of the same personality type. If you were of a different personality type and were awarded the position, you would likely have had problems. You would have likely had some friction with your co-workers or perhaps they would have driven you crazy. Such situations are not good for the company or YOU.
A fact of life is that this "profiling" happens in every interview. You, however are more accustommed to it in the more subtle and personal method, where the HR person is mentally profiling you throughout the interview. The thing is that some people/interviewers are good at assessing a person's personality and determining if they are a good fit or not, while other interviewers are no good at it. These tests provide the company with a more standard means of assessing an individual and reduce the likelyhood of a bad interviewer making the wrong assessment.