Not Invited to Interview after Cognitive Assessment: Follow Up
A few weeks ago, I wrote about a client who had taken a cognitive test as part of a preliminary screening for a role for which he was more than qualified and how subsequent to that assessment, he was eliminated from consideration without there ever being an actual conversation between him and anyone at the hiring company. Thanks to you, my readers, and the advice/input you gave, he decided to follow up with them. Here’s how it went:
Candidate: Thank you for letting me know. I am curious how the testing imposed on candidates aligns with this specific role. I have not taken math since high school and obviously will not perform well when presented with SAT-style complex math and reasoning questions. How is this germane to the communications role? Why would that supersede an actual discussion with candidates about their experiences solving critical business problems unless the shaded area of the circle is one of your critical imperatives?
Recruiter: I appreciate your concern. Every candidate, from the interns to the CEO, must take the same assessments, and it is one of many factors we use to determine an applicant’s qualifications. Thanks for your feedback.
Candidate: Thank you for responding, although you didn’t answer my question. Good luck with your recruitment efforts.
Recruiter: ***Crickets***
I will bet that this is not the first time this recruiter has had this question posed. She’s not the one making the rules here, and there’s a chance she disagrees with the protocol she must follow. But, as my client pointed out to her, she did not answer the question that he posed. The question was simple—how does the imposed testing align with the specific role? Rather than answer the question, she responded by essentially saying this is company policy. And for what it’s worth, I highly doubt that a cognitive assessment was part of an initial screening for anyone at the C-level. I say this as someone who works with C-level executives all the time. Most of the ones I know would consider such testing a waste of time and decline to continue.
The recruiter’s response highlights one of the most frustrating aspects of the job search for everyone, regardless of level. And that is the lack of useful information and feedback passed on to candidates. The question of how the testing is relevant to the role is reasonable and should be addressed with an appropriate answer. If there is no sensible answer, then perhaps it’s time to reconsider the usefulness of such a tool as a screening device.
Again, I’m not saying that all testing is irrelevant. When hiring programmers, companies quite often require a coding test. It’s the same when a company hires an editor and requires a proofreading test. But both examples are designed to assess the candidate’s competency in a critical domain. Standardized cognitive testing does not accomplish this, and as some of my readers pointed out, some people are excellent test-takers who cannot solve their way out of a paper bag! This is yet another symptom of a broken hiring process and #LazyRecruiting.