Selection Aids -- Interview Add Ons

If you have ever wondered, after attending a badly conducted interview, just how good an indicator of future performance the interview actually is, you are not alone. Various surveys have shown that the predictive success rate of the average interview is in fact not much better than pure chance.

Untrained interviewers score particularly badly, but even professional recruiters do not exactly produce ratings which inspire very much confidence. Since the tendency to make instant judgments in the first few minutes - or even seconds -of an interview probably has a lot to do with this, it emphasizes just how important it is to ensure that you make a good first impression.

While many employers continue to rely solely on the interview, in spite of its obvious shortcomings, an increasing number are supplementing it both with tests and with a variety of other selection aids, ranging from assessment centers to graphology. If you are not to be thrown out of your stride by these techniques, you need to know what to expect and how to handle them.



A Testing Time

Tests are the most commonly used form of interview add on. Their (at least pseudo-) scientific nature appeals strongly to employers who have been rattled by scare stories about interview unreliability. The idea of being able to allocate people marks, and offer the job to the one with the highest score, has the attraction of taking the onus off the decision maker -although, in practice, by no means all tests permit this kind of simple comparison and very few recruiters would, in any case, recommend such a simplistic approach.

Reliable information about the validity of tests as predictors of job performance is difficult to come by, since most of the statistics are produced by the people who develop and sell the tests - not exactly an independent source. The picture is hardly made any clearer either by the obsession the testing fraternity has with using a volume and complexity of jargon that makes computer speak seem like plain English, or by the acrimonious rows between the supporters of different kinds of test.

What is perhaps an even greater problem than whether tests actually do what they claim to do, however, is whether employers select the correct test for a given purpose. The failure to do this is often compounded by a tendency among employers to interpret the output of tests negatively, paying less attention to indications of a candidate's plus points and potential, than to the odd word in a report which sows a seed of doubt and suggests that a hiring may involve a risk which could subsequently rebound on the decision maker. No wonder that the Institute of Personnel and Development (IPD, formerly the IPM) has described psychometric testing as 'a minefield for the unwary'.

What is a Test?

The term 'test' gets applied very loosely to a whole range of instruments. The main types you are likely to encounter in the selection process are pencil and paper (or computer keyboard) exercises, in which you answer a number of questions; and activity tests, in which you simulate tasks you would carry out in the course of a job. The latter, which include, for example, in-tray exercises and group discussions, will be examined when we look at assessment centers.

The former can be further subdivided into performance-based tests, under which you are scored on the basis either of the time you take to complete tasks or of the number of correct answers you achieve; and self-description questionnaires, the output from which is a profile, describing your temperament in terms of a range of parameters such as introversion and extroversion. Performance-based tests are used to measure abilities, aptitudes, attainments and skills, while self-description questionnaires are used to assess rather more subjective areas like interests, motivation and personal qualities.

Most such tests are of either the multiple choice variety, in which you have to choose your answer to each question from several alternatives, or the forced choice variety in which you have to choose between just two options. The problem with the forced choice type is that you often find either that neither of the two options really applies, or that both do with almost equal relevance. You may occasionally come across free response tests, in which you can give answers in your own words, but these are difficult to mark and consequently not greatly favored.

Ideally a battery of tests should be used, rather than just one, preferably with a qualified psychologist on hand to interpret them and discuss the results with you. In practice, however, a day, or even half a day, spent with a psychologist is expensive in terms both of candidate time and company money. Many organizations just throw in the odd test, selection being based in the better cases on proper trials and experience to verify its predictive value, and in the less laudable instances on its specious appeal or on the persuasiveness of a salesperson.

Presumably also for cost reasons, some companies test just the final one or two candidates, and only do this at the end of the selection process, as a kind of insurance policy against having missed some fatal flaw. It would be much more useful to apply tests at an early stage, and use the output as a basis for discussion at interview.

Test Types and Tactics

So much for categories and formats, but what kinds of test are you likely to encounter and how should you deal with them? The types you may come across in the selection process at managerial levels include the following.

• Ability - the most commonly tested ability being intelligence, often incorrectly referred to as 'IQ'. These tests usually involve solving a number of problems which are often divided into sections such as numerical, verbal, logical and spatial. Your performance on such tests, like your ability to solve crossword puzzles, can be improved significantly with familiarity and practice. If you cannot get hold of actual test blanks, you can buy books containing tests of this type. Apart from preparing you for any tests you may encounter, they are useful for sharpening up your mind generally.
  
  
• Interests - these are more likely to be encountered at a career guidance session than as part of a selection process.
  
  
• Management style - questionnaires may be used to assess whether your style is autocratic, consultative or somewhere in between. There is not necessarily any one right style. Even within a given organization and culture, different managers may be equally successful, even though their styles vary greatly.
  
  
• Motivation - not too often found in practice, due both to the complex cocktail of factors which comprise motivation, and because it is so dependent on the relationship between an individual and an organization. The same person might be highly motivated in one environment and completely demotivated in another.
  
  
• Personality - a number of personality tests may be encountered in the selection process, including some which were not designed for use in recruitment at all. Unfortunately the ones which appear to candidates to be most plausible tend to be the least reliable, and vice versa, so do not be surprised if you cannot see the relevance of some of the questions you have to answer. These tests, or - more correctly - questionnaires or inventories, are usually of the self-description variety. Although their designers claim to build in lie-detectors', candidates may be tempted to answer with what they perceive to be the desired, rather than true, answers. For example, if a job seems to call for an extrovert and there are questions like 'Do you prefer to spend an evening (a) reading a book, or (b) going to a party', you do not have to be Machiavelli to plump for the latter.
  
  
• Team building - the most widely used questionnaire, Meredith Belbin's Self-Perception Inventory, classifies people into various different team roles, each of which has its value. Even if you were to familiarize yourself with these roles, and to guess which one would make you the ideal candidate for the job, the nature of the questionnaire would make it difficult to fake. It is probably, therefore, best to answer honestly.

At managerial level you are unlikely to encounter either aptitude tests (used to assess people's potential for such roles as computer programming or operating machinery) or attainment tests (again used mainly at lower levels, e.g. word processing tests given to interviewees for secretarial jobs). Executives' aptitudes and attainments are more likely to be evaluated by technical questions or by the kinds of participative exercises used in assessment centers.

Activity Tests

The fundamental principle behind assessment centers is job simulation. Given that it is impracticable to put a bunch of applicants through a trial period in a job in order to decide who is going to produce the best performance, it is argued that the next best thing is to create situations which, though inevitably artificial, do replicate as closely as possible the job in question, or at least key elements of it. Therefore, while a full assessment center program may well include interviews, and pen and paper tests, the emphasis will be on what are often referred to as activity tests - the sorts of things you may have done on management training courses. There will also probably be group discussions.

These attempts to simulate the work situation are both strength and a weakness of assessment centers. The idea makes a lot of sense, but it is difficult to put into practice because it involves getting a bunch of job applicants, the four or five people on a short-list for example, together for at least one whole day, quite possibly two. This may be practicable when a large company is making an internal promotion, but it presents major problems when the candidates are all currently employed in demanding jobs of their own - and, of course, bringing together such applicants also raises the thorny problem of confidentiality.

This difficulty, combined with the inevitably high costs of running assessment centers, results in them not being as widely used for external selection purposes as you might expect. However, because the principle behind them is sound, individual elements of them - the activity tests and group discussions -may well be encountered as part of an executive selection process.

Group Exercises

When short-list interviews for a position are being set up, candidates may be asked to leave the whole day free so that, in addition to being interviewed by one or more people, they can participate in a group exercise or discussion. The dynamics of this are, to say the least, interesting. Although the task or problem with which the group is presented may involve the need to work together as a team, the candidates for the position in question will be aware that they are being observed and will consequently feel the urge to compete with each other to make the best impression.

Such exercises vary a great deal in structure, depending on such factors as:

• whether objectives are tightly defined or are expressed only in general terms, leaving the group to define them more precisely;
  
  
• whether a leader is nominated in advance or simply left to emerge;
  
  
• how much preparation time is allowed - if any;
  
  
• the extent to which competition and co-operation are deliberately built into the briefing;
  
  
• whether or not specific roles are assigned to the various participants.

Since the variation is so great, no perfect formula can be provided for dealing with such situations - you need to be ready to think on your feet. Nevertheless, here are a few basic rules which will stand you in good stead.

• Keep your cool. Careful study of the briefing you are given will often reveal information which is deliberately designed to be missed by those who dive in feet first.
  
  
• While you need to make a contribution which will be noticed, do not try to monopolize the show. Yes, you have guessed, it is quality rather than quantity that you should aim for once again.

In choosing how to contribute, try to relate the exercise to what you know, from interviews, from the job spec and so on, about the type of person they are looking for. Aim to demonstrate these qualities in what you say and do.

• Do not openly knock the other members of the group. You are likely to score more brownie points by acknowledging the value of someone else's contribution - then going on to make your own.

In-Tray Exercises

One of the most popular individual, as opposed to group, selection aids is the in-tray, or basket, exercise. You are asked to assume that you come into the office one morning to face either a series of crises in your normal job or the need, due to some emergency, to take over someone else's job. There will, needless to say, be a number of conflicting priorities - far more than you can possibly deal with single-handed in the time available. You will be assessed on both the decisions you take and the reasons you give for making them.

Once again, the first requirement is not to go into a flat spin. Beyond that, it helps to know what the exercise is trying to assess, so that you can aim to demonstrate the required qualities. These include:

• your ability to work under pressure;
  
  
• your skill in prioritizing a number of conflicting requirements;
  
  
• the ability to sift the wheat from the chaff - the in-tray will usually contain a certain amount of information which can be binned straight away;
  
  
• how good you are at delegation;
  
  
• whether you can distinguish between fact and opinion;
  
  
• how sensitive you are;
  
  
• your capacity for logical reasoning, and analytical and critical thinking;
  
  
• how flexible and imaginative you are.

Reports and Presentations

If the job you are applying for is one in which report writing is a key element, you may be asked to bring with you to the interview a relevant piece of written work you have produced. Alternatively, since the prospective employer has no way of checking that such a sample is entirely your own work, you may be asked to write a brief report or essay, based on information, or a subject, which will be given to you. Essay subjects can range from topics of general interest to current issues relevant to the industry in question, and they may even be as specific as 'How would you tackle your first three months in this job?'.

As yet, it is rare for candidates to be asked to submit a video but, when oral presentations are important in the position in question, you may be asked to make a presentation, either just to the interviewer or to a small group of people. Sometimes you are given the opportunity to prepare visual aids such as flip charts or slides for overhead projection. On other occasions you may be given very little time to prepare anything at all.

These occasions are inevitably nerve-racking but remember that everybody is in the same boat. Keep your head and do, in particular, take care to ensure that you have understood the briefing properly. If you are faced with a demand to make a presentation at zero notice, you can always gain a breathing space by asking to use the cloakroom before you proceed.

Eyes and Ears

Other forms of activity test which are sometimes encountered include fact-finding and listening exercises. The former, which test things like analytical and reasoning ability, involve you being given a certain amount of information to start with, then having to obtain more, usually with a view to making a decision or recommendation - which may be used as an opportunity to make you give a presentation. Listening exercises use either film, tape or a live presentation to provide you with information, and then test your perceptiveness of it by using questionnaires.

You may also, occasionally, be presented with case studies. For example, candidates for a finance director's position may be asked to compare the profit and loss accounts and balance sheets of two companies, and to comment on such matters as the comparative performance and strategies of the two businesses. An exercise like this - which will probably have one or two 'tricks' built into the information provided - tests the ability to:

• keeps calm and analyzes the information thoroughly;
  
  
• considers not only technical, but also commercial, aspects;
  
  
• make a brief oral presentation with minimal preparation.

Then there is the dreaded role play. You may be asked to participate in such scenarios as a client meeting, a negotiation or a staff appraisal, with a representative of your potential employer playing the other role. While many people seem to be thrown by role plays, they do normally represent situations which you should have encountered many times before in your everyday work experience, so they should not present undue problems if you simply ignore the pressures of the selection process and behave as you normally would in real life.

How to Respond

Tests - using that term in the very broadest sense - seem to throw candidates far more than the interview does however nerve-racking that may be for some people. The reason for this may well be primarily the fear of the unknown. Interviews are at least something most of us are familiar with. Tests tend to be shrouded in an element of mystery.

Occasionally candidates do refuse to take tests. In some cases they may actually be justified in doing so. The potential employer could well be using a test that is totally unsuitable for the purpose in question, or may be failing to observe accepted administration procedures. Unfortunately, though, the assumption is likely to be that, if you refuse, you must have something to hide. It is rather like ducking a question in an interview. Generally speaking, therefore, you would be advised to be prepared by acquiring in advance knowledge of the kinds of tests you are likely to be faced with, then, when you do get presented with one, to keep a cool head and give it your best shot.

The ethics of the testing business dictate that anyone who is given a test is entitled to feedback on the results and a chance to discuss apparently erroneous assessments. Primarily for cost reasons - it is very time consuming - this is rarely volunteered. If you do decide to insist on your rights and ask for feedback, you may prefer to play safe and wait until you have heard whether you have got the job or not, in case you are seen as a nuisance, or even as a troublemaker.

Graphology

Widely used in France, and also in Switzerland and French-speaking Belgium, graphology is still not generally accepted in the UK as a selection tool. Its theoretical basis actually seems eminently sound. At any given school, it is argued, all the children will be taught to write in exactly the same script yet, by the time they reach adulthood, they will all be writing in a uniquely different way, as identifiable as a fingerprint. Graphology argues that the development of each person's individual script must be driven by subconscious factors relating to their different temperaments and that, by analyzing the various elements of a person's handwriting, it is therefore possible to deduce relevant information about their personality, and physical and mental health.

While many people would probably agree with the first part of this argument - something, after all, must cause the change from a standard to a uniquely individual script - the second part is more contentious. Some practitioners in graphology do produce remarkably accurate analyses, identifying factors ranging from basic personality traits to disorders like heart problems, alcoholism and sexual perversions. On the other hand, there is a strong subjective element. Two or more practitioners cannot always be guaranteed to agree on an analysis of the same handwriting sample. Graphology seems to be as much of an art as a science and, as such, may have as much in common with the interview as with the psychometric test.

"The whole thing can get a bit like a game of poker.