...to be upset at not getting a job....PURELY because of a personality test?

[FergusSingsTheBlues]

I knew I was front runner. My interview went over by an HOUR and there was much talk of my first few projects etc. there was also joshing about how only a weirdo would fail the personality test, and not to worry etc.
oh, and haha, once somebody did fail it and HR vetoed the hire.

Guess what....a couple of weeks later I find out I was just as odd! They're not offering me the job because if that one test.

I'm so mad. And embarrassed.

Are you a more of a draughts player or chess player?

Oh FFS. Really? I mean REALLY? How much money are people paid to write that sort of crap and draw bullshit conclusions from it.

My dad always says everything started going wrong in business when personnel became HR; I tend to agree.

I've read that the NMC are thinking of introducing things like this to see if potential students have the right sort of attitude towards nursing etc. I wonder if it would work

Obfuskate - I agree. And also, IME some of the people most useless at their jobs are HR staff.

I wouldn't mind failing a personality test and being dropped out of the process if they had 1. Already administered a technical test (the norm in my industry) 2. I'd already had the face to face with the team. That they put the personality check ahead of those two in the process is crazy in my opinion...my job is v technical, my track records speaks for itself. Plus the would be line manager and I really hit it off... So they seem to have prioritised fit above skill. I would mind if they had used it to differentiate between two candidates at the end of the process. As it was, they told me it was between me and one either candidate so it's hard not to feel rejected.

And I'm no fantasist. He even told me I was a perfect fit for the job in the interview and that I was exactly what they were looking for.

I was being sarky when I said im an egotistical bitch...I'm just a hurt one as I think it's the worst reason for not getting a job.

I got turned down once, their barrage of tests included an IQ test.

I was so curious and furious I rang to speak to HR. The company was too small for one of those but the woman I spoke to giggled and said off the record, he doesn't hire anyone whose IQ is higher than his!

Ah well.

Mmm… I think that they wouldn't spend money on these kinds of tests if they didn't think it would result in better recruitment decisions. People who work in recruitment are as vulnerable to fashions and fads as anyone else, especially when they can use the fact that they hired an outside company to personality-screen applicants as a way of absolving themselves of responsibility if the hire goes bad

^^^ THIS!

I might never get a job again if those tests become the norm. I got bored after reading the first few questions - could never be arsed to actually answer them!

I think they've got form for it! I had an interview with Stranded Life years ago - they flew me up to Edinburgh from dahn Sarf, had a great interview, passed the technical tests (top 2% in one and in top 5% for the other) and was basically told the job was mine. This was followed up a couple of days later with a retraction, no real explanation either.

Was a bit miffed at the time, but stayed where I was (one of the big platforms) and have moved onwards and upwards, so figure it was a blessing in the long run. Hope it turns out the same way for you.

"People who work in recruitment are as vulnerable to fashions and fads as anyone else, especially when they can use the fact that they hired an outside company to personality-screen applicants as a way of absolving themselves of responsibility if the hire goes bad."

Hmm. Some tests are better than others, and IMO they should be primarily used as supplementary to the recruitment process, rather than a key criteria for selection to the extent that an otherwise perfect candidates gets ditched for the "wrong" result. But seriously? Companies spending thousands on tests so that if managers (not people working in recruitment) make the wrong decision they can blame the outside company? Sounds a bit far fetched to me!

Its worth remembering who the decision makers are in recruitment, and it isn't HR or whoever is administering the recruitment process. Whoever administered the test will have explained the result to the recruiting line manager, and if the recruiting line manager or director, or whoever, felt that the test was daft and the OP was in fact perfect despite the result, then an offer would still have been made.

While it's gratifying to see that people seem to think HR have so much power, I can assure you it's not the case!

Well the guy did say in the interview that HR "vetoed"the selection of a candidate once and only once because of his test. It appears from the feedback that they've done that again to me. So they must have more power or maybe it varies from organisation to organisation. Dunno. Ill get over it.

My first response was to give SL some feedback about the issues I see with their recruitment process, but then my husband pointed out I'd only be confirming what they said in the first place so I feel like I can't even complain.

I feel much better this morning.....it's reassuring to know (Although depressing,) that they've done that before to other people.....Ill never apply for another position with them again. Standard Life can KISS IT.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18723950

There's an ebook out there that talks you through the questions as well (so for example to 'I never lie' you should answer "disagree" because everyone lies, so if you say you agree with that statement it shows you are a liar - ffs), didn't read how much it was but it sounded interesting, if written in an irritating ebook type way.

It made the point that it's all bollocks anyway as how someone reacts is context dependent. A sales person ahead of their targets will behave differently to one behind in their targets. And personality tests don't tell you how someone will behave under specific moments.

Honestly is companies spent the thousands they must spend administering this on employee welfare/perks they'd probably get a more motivated, honest, reliable workforce.

I used to use personality profiling; but it was mainly used to see who was the best fit from the good candidates and make a decision about whether or not it would be possible to support that person enough in the role.

If they want what you are not - the job itself would not end well.

Eg - one of my potential candidates for a job that involved going and supporting companies in claiming grants and being able to calculate financial benefits versus outlay was crucial and during the maths side, the candidate clearly hated maths and thus would have hated the job. People used to think the job was the holy grail of jobs in the company and I needed people to help companies to improve performance using the system and it involved tons of maths as well as all the other skills she had.

Alternatively, I had another interviewee who was showing signs of leadership but during the testing, it was clear her English skills were lacking, but her role was to be managing an admin team, of very difficult people and I needed her people skills more than her English ones, so to support her I paid for basic literacy skills, and supported her in spelling and other associated skills - and she flew. Had she needed support in the people skills, which was a major part of the role - it would have been much harder to justify.

I think never applying to them again is missing a trick. You now know what they are looking for so when answering, you can answer with that in mind. . Worked for me .

*I wouldn't mind failing a personality test and being dropped out of the process if they had 1. Already administered a technical test (the norm in my industry) 2. I'd already had the face to face with the team. That they put the personality check ahead of those two in the process is crazy in my opinion...my job is v technical, my track records speaks for itself. Plus the would be line manager and I really hit it off... So they seem to have prioritised fit above skill. I would mind if they had used it to differentiate between two candidates at the end of the process. As it was, they told me it was between me and one either candidate so it's hard not to feel rejected.

And I'm no fantasist. He even told me I was a perfect fit for the job in the interview and that I was exactly what they were looking for.

I was being sarky when I said im an egotistical bitch...I'm just a hurt one as I think it's the worst reason for not getting a job.*

OP, I would write to them and tell them this. You've nothing to lose and it might make them think.

tungtingsista since when does being an Indivudual rather than team player mean I'd shaft anybody?

They're not the ones who've didged a bullet.

I can't comment on the use of a personality tool in this particular situation. But I believe they can be used effectively in recruitment. Not on their own but together with other assessments.

Don't you think the interviewer in a 'traditional' interview is trying to assess your personality? And probably in a much less reliable, valid and fair way than a properly designed personality instrument.

OP - I'm sorry you didn't get the job. If nothing else they were very unprofessional to imply that you had it in the bag and raise your hopes.

None of The Big 5 based questionnaires are robust though. It is all crystal ball gazing...

I have "passed" a personality test which told them I was different to the rest of them and they decided that would be an asset. It wasn't. I was miserable for the 6 months I bore it for before getting out of there.

I "failed" one and when I rang up for feedback it was clear that the real reason was because of my age (at least 15 years younger than the other people at the assessment morning) I guess originally I was offered a place at the morning because of my CV but when they met me they realised my age profile didn't fit.

It's a shame when these tests are used punitively as I do believe they have merit used in the right way by trained psychologists (not wannabe psychologists in HR). But OP I would be hurt at 'failing' when I felt my skills had nailed it.

I reckon any company that lets an interview overrun by an hour doesn't know how to recruit properly, full stop.