Testing 1 2 3…Testing 1 2 3

Along with the teeth-gnashing tedium of applying for jobs online comes the even more

annoying and tedious practice of taking tests as part of the application process. Before many a company even lets you in the door for a face-to-face interview you have to take a test, sometimes multiple tests. And you thought the SATs were well behind you. Think again, job-hunting suckers.

In some cases, it’s reached what I think are absurd proportions. For instance, a while back, I received an email from a company to which I had applied for a job. In it, I was told I had to pass three distinct steps even before I would be deemed worthy enough for an in-person interview. Those steps were: a preliminary test; a video chat (it wasn’t specified how that would be accomplished); a phone interview; and then if I passed muster through the first three grueling steps, I would be asked to come in for a face-to-face interview. Like I was meeting the Pope.

So what was this job, you may wonder? A NSA operative? A barista at Starbucks? A CEO of a multi-national corporation? Operator at a nuclear plant? Greeter at Wal-Mart?

Nothing that important. The company merely wanted someone who would scan the Internets for cute pet videos, post them, and write a witty summary of the video. For that a person had to go through four stages of testing and interviews!? A 12-year-old with superior language skills could do that job.

I completed the first step (which took an afternoon), but soon after received the inevitable “we are going with other candidates” email. Ug! What a waste of my time.

That’s not to say I disagree with the concept of testing as part of the employment application process. You wouldn’t hire a chef without seeing if he or she could make a basic omelet. I do question, however, how valid these tests are in assessing whether a person has the right technical and personal skills for a particular job. Is it fair to ask applicants to steer through a sometimes grueling, onerous and time-consuming testing sequence that may or may not give a true picture of a job seeker’s qualifications? So many factors go into what makes a good employee.

Full-disclosure: I have yet to actually pass a “test” I’ve taken as part of an application process. Therefore, my perceptions are likely skewed against these silly tests. I did horribly on SATs (but those were the days before SAT prep courses) as well.

Or have I failed the tests? Applicants are rarely told how they did on the tests, whether they finished just out of the top five or came in last. So I don’t know if other factors worked against me, such as not having the proper experience a company was looking for to fill a particular job. Was I rejected because I’ve been laid off? Too old?

How much weight do companies give to those tests? Say, for instance, the person who scored the best on the tests turns out to be an arrogant jerk in the interview. Yet the person who came in second or third has a much nicer temperament and would be a better team player. Who would you rather hire? I’d hire the person with the better personality, although admittedly the logic of HR decisions escapes me. There are probably a lot of companies that would hire the jerk just based on the test scores alone.

Yet I believe there is something more ominous going on with all these ridiculous tests that the majority of people would fail anyway. It’s simply another way HR departments can weed through numerous candidates without really having to do an in-depth evaluation of each individual applicant. It’s similar to what many companies do when they summarily reject any job applicant that has been laid off. It makes the hiring process easier for them.

I've also learned never to apply to big-name companies that only accept Ivy League graduates. Why bother? It's just another way for them to winnow down the hiring process. As if that Ivy League degree makes them any more qualified than anybody else. It doesn't. It just means that they came from families wealthy enough to give them every advantage so they could get into those top schools. 

Many bogus job coaches tell job seekers to emphasize the skills and experience they bring to a job so they can show a potential employer how they can help the company prosper. Do that and you’ll get the job! HA! Nothing could be further from the truth. Companies couldn’t care less about you and your goody-two-shoes skills sets. From what I’ve gleaned during my job searches during two protracted periods of unemployment is that companies are looking for reasons NOT to hire you, pure and simple. Been laid off? Deep six that loser. Failed the test? Next!

While it’s certainly understandable why a company needs to establish a procedure to weed through numerous applicants, I sometimes wonder if the process is unfair to job seekers and whether it truly yields the best potential employee. Some applicants may be adept at cracking the code of a particular test, yet not have the skills that would make them a good, long-term employee. Tests can measure knowledge, but can they uncover a person’s ingenuity and ability work under pressure?

Companies whine about how they want to make sure they hire the right candidate. Filling and refilling positions is too expensive, so they want to make the right decision only once.

Yes, companies take a risk when they hire any employee. Will that person work out? But so does the new employee.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told in job interviews how wonderful a company is and how supportive my colleagues will be. Yet I don’t know if that’s true until I actually start working there. I may be surrounded by genuinely nice, helpful people, or I could end up with a rageaholic boss and backstabbing wasps for co-workers. (I’ve had more of the latter than the former.)

My former workplace is a perfect example. I was hired for one job and then six months later, my job duties were changed completely…without any advance notice or training. In classic management by mismanagement, I was given the worst job no one else wanted because I was the least senior person on staff. It was horribly unfair. But companies don’t care about being fair to their employees.

Through sheer hard work (and a lot of stress), I managed to do a good job, surprising myself and my nasty bosses, who were probably secretly hoping I would fail. Because if I failed, they could blame their poor management decision on me, rather then themselves. For all my perseverance I was laid off anyway.

Isn’t that the biggest risk any new employee takes—the risk that their new employer will dump them when budget cuts must be made? Last hired…first fired?

Nevertheless, when given the chance I will take any test given to me and try to do my best even though the odds are stacked against me. Sometime, though, I would just like to say to a company:

Enough with the tests already! Hire me!