Are pre-employment tests effective or outdated?

Job hunting has never been easy for candidates or companies. It makes sense: we spend at least one-third of our lives at work. People want to work for companies that support our goals, and “get” us. On the other side of the table, companies want to ensure that the people they hire are competent enough to do their job. 

Every company requires pre-interview documents — usually a resume, cover letter, and a set of job-specific questions. This is the general expectation, but some companies are requesting a bit more. One example: pre-employment tests. These can range from personality assessments to (in some instances) math tests. When I was a freelance copywriter, one company required candidates to complete a math skills test. This led to the question, "Why am I taking this test?" 

A little background on pre-employment tests

When you think about it, the entire hiring process is a comprehensive assessment. From screening calls, rounds of interviews, and (I would argue) the first 90 days of employment, candidates are being evaluated from square one. Pre-employment testing can be a valuable part of the hiring process. They’re standardized and provide a degree of objectivity that cannot be done in an informal interview. 

There are many different pre-employment assessments. These include:

Job knowledge

Job knowledge tests are perhaps the most straightforward type of pre-employment test. Especially for candidates who are applying for a role that requires specialized knowledge, it’s an effective way for companies to know that the candidate can do the job. For example, a bookkeeper should be able to complete an Excel exercise. 

The limitation of this test is that it doesn’t account for a candidate’s potential to learn and grow into the skill. For a generalist candidate, they may not know as much as a specialist, but they may be a fast learner. Some sites teach candidates job skills (often at low or no cost), but companies may miss out on an outstanding candidate by focusing too much on a job knowledge test.

Cognitive ability

Cognitive ability tests are used to measure a candidate’s intelligence. There are various ways companies can approach this. Some employers may choose IQ tests, while others may focus on specific skills, such as verbal ability, math skills, and deductive reasoning, to name a few examples. Companies that use these tests operate under the understanding that mental capacity correlates to job performance. 

What are the pitfalls of cognitive ability tests? They can be discriminatory. In fact, some would argue that IQ tests are continuing racial bias and systemic inequality. Cognitive ability testing is a hugely debated topic across multiple industries, but companies that opt to include these tests during the hiring process will generally use test results as a guide, not a barrier to entry. And if that’s not the case? Run.

Emotional intelligence and integrity tests

To distill emotional intelligence and integrity tests to the true reason companies use them: Good companies employ good people. Logically, an integrity test can be a good measure of potential job performance. They rely on a person’s character rather than their ability to recall a math skill. So a candidate who has a history of dishonesty might raise a red flag for some teams. 

These tests aren’t foolproof, though; answers can be faked. In some cases, questions can be illegal. For example, a question that asks candidates to respond to ‘I am easily distracted’ may seem like a good way to gauge a candidate's productivity, but it could indirectly discriminate against candidates with ADHD, which would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Therefore, companies should not lean on emotional intelligence or integrity tests to weed out candidates.

Personality tests

Companies use personality tests to assess whether a candidate will be a good fit for a role and a team. For example, on one of the marketing teams I’ve worked for we found out that over half of the team were INFJ personality types on the Myers Briggs scale. Talk about having a specific type! We worked exceptionally well together, even forming friendships that extended beyond the company. 

Teams might examine tests with the assumption that candidates with certain personality traits will be more successful in the role. For example, companies might expect a sales executive to be outgoing and personable, which is a fair generalization. However, that’s not the case for every sales professional.

Personality tests are also limited when candidates answer the way they think they should respond. Companies should ideally use these tests sparingly during the pre-employment process, or at least have a clear outcome in mind with these assessments. 

Physical abilities

Physical abilities tests measure a person’s strength and stamina. These tests are usually reserved for more labor-intensive or higher-stress jobs. From relocation crews to firefighters, it’s expected that employees can meet the demands of their careers. Beyond job duties, physical ability tests can reduce workers’ compensation claims and have a low risk of inaccurate results.

However, when tests stray too far into measuring what a candidate cannot do or determining a candidate’s health, that is protected by the ADA and highly illegal. Key takeaway: asking candidates to lift a 50-pound object is reasonable, but a candidate’s gender, age, or ethnicity should never play into whether or not a candidate is qualified for the role.

Should a pre-employment test decide a candidate’s fate?

Absolutely not. There is no test that can capture the full measure of how well a person can do their job. However, if someone does not meet the minimum job requirements necessary to perform their job, testing is an objective way to eliminate a candidate easily. That’s not to say that companies should hinge their decision on whether the person they’re interviewing can pass a test. 

For example, teachers take post-baccalaureate courses, complete internship-esque observation hour requirements, and take multiple certification exams. Any teacher can tell you that’s the no-brainer part of the job. The real demands of the role aren’t clear until the teacher is running their own classroom. I won’t go into the full scope of what teachers are not taught during their certification hours, that’s an entirely different blog.

Pre-employment tests: Yay or nay?

Companies need to recognize that pre-employment tests serve as a supplement, not a yardstick. Companies should also consider the message they’re sending to their candidates: if hiring teams are using tests as part of the application process, it may appear that they don’t care about potential team members. No one wants to be a rubric on a page, they’re a whole person.

On the other hand, companies are allowed to be just as thoughtful as candidates about who becomes a member of their team. Pre-employment tests can provide extra insights that interviewing teams might not notice on a call.

My two cents? Companies should use assessments if they have a clear “why” in mind. A forklift driver without a forklift license isn’t a good fit for the role. Pre-employment assessments should be part of the hiring process, following a screening interview, not in lieu of it. And perhaps most importantly: a copywriter doesn’t need to solve a quadratic equation to create content.