I read with some amusement some of the debates that take place via LinkedIn which concentrate on best ways of knowing that you’re appointing the right person for a role. I’m not sure who the bright spark was who invented psychoanalysis, but they sure influenced a flourishing recruitment industry as a consequence.

This post/ blog is an earnest attempt on my part to try and inject a serious dose of realism into the practice of recruiting people; for I can see that recruitment has been permitted to become regarded as a “science” of a sort…when it is most certainly not. It is in fact about “humanities”.

Psychometric tests are an unnecessary invasive attempt to elicit particular responses to particular questions – which are then judged by some supposedly qualified expert as being either “right” or “wrong” relative to a prescriptive “ideal candidate profile”. I have been involved in employing people for 20 + years, and haven’t resorted to using any form of psychometric test during this time. Instead, I ask simple questions of candidates, which are designed to reveal each candidate’s traits, attributes, attitude and strengths and weaknesses…all relative to the specific role in question.

Nowadays, it seems to me that many recruiters are more concerned with candidate “personality”, sociability, age and gender than they are with:

a) Relevant qualification.

b) Proven experience (most importantly, achievements) relevant for the role in question.

c) Natural abilities – strengths in particular.

d) Proven capabilities that are relevant for the role in question.

 

Once upon a time, less than a decade ago, the above 4 x criteria used to be the all important criteria used to determine the “best candidate for the position”. I still use these…with much success.

Sadly, in the current era, I see evidence of “best fit” appointments being made more in relation to personality attributes than any other criteria. “Are they a nice person ?”, “Will they mix well with so and so ?”, etc. Recruiters who practice this “social acceptance/ alignment” approach to selecting the “best candidate” need to re-think their practice in my view; for the consequences of taking this approach are clear to see, and include workplaces being filled with “nice people” who unfortunately fall short on capability and experience in particular.

Remember, “the best candidate” is “the best candidate”, not because of their gender, age or personality; but because they scored the highest overall rating (if you like, points value assignment) against the 4 x well proven (age old) appointee selection criteria stated above. For me, I will place people with “proven substance/ depth/ capabilities” into roles ahead of “nice personalities”, every time.