|
The reality is that the proper and consistent use of effective testing and assessment systems can dramatically strengthen a company’s legal position.
Job-related testing and assessments are essentially the only way to document objective and non-discriminatory hiring practices. Assuming the hiring process includes determination of job fit, skills match, and company fit – the most susceptible to bias or discrimination is company fit, which is largely determined by interviewing. Only the testing components of determining company fit are purely objective. Skills match may or may not be measurable depending on the job. Only job fit, when measured by the proper assessment instrument, is completely objective.
As Hogan (1990) points out:
“Bias is a social component of the decision-making process, not a feature of test results; therefore a primary advantage of test use is that tests, unlike interviewers, are incapable of being prejudiced by the applicant’s race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, religion, age, or disability.”
When an employee does not fit the job for which they were hired, the company loses the time, energy, and money spent in the hiring process as well as money spent on coaching and training; and of course, there is the loss of performance, lowering of company morale, and the cost of turnover. Equally important is the employee’s loss of the time and energy invested in the wrong opportunity.
The information provided by effective and properly used assessments can help each party arrive at the best decision. Every legal guideline and regulation supports that purpose. In fact, it is inconsistent with the spirit of EEOC and ADA legislation to hire a person for whom the probability of reasonable success in the job is limited.
LEGAL CONCERNS
Consistent Application of Testing
There should be a standardized selection process for each position or job category. All applicants for the same position must take the same test or assessment at the same point in the process. It is not necessary to test everyone within the same job category. It IS necessary to test everyone who reaches the same point in the process where tests or assessments are used.
Tests and assessments are only valuable if they measure criteria that are directly related to job performance. This is necessary for legal compliance also. In the selection process, the greatest advantage in using assessments is using the information to predict the future performance of applicants. The ability to do this is not an intrinsic quality of any test. It is found in the relationship of the test results to the results of job performance, and this must be demonstrated through validation research.
NOTE: Viatech Global and our associated companies have determined the attributes necessary for success in over 5,000 different jobs through the use of a simple but sophisticated Job Profiling process. Stakeholders determine what is necessary for the positioning in terms of “key accountabilities” – before applications are solicited.
Under the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (1994), a selection process must provide fair and equal employment opportunities to all applicants. Testing may be used:
- to screen out those applicants who are not likely to be able to perform the job successfully
- to group applicants in accordance with the likelihood of their successful performance
- to rank applicants, selecting those with the highest scores for employment
- The operative principle must always be to avoid any adverse impact or non-performance related discrimination against any minorities.
Quality of the Instrument
The instrument should be copyrighted no earlier than 1991. Two pieces of legislation that have directly impacted testing are the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The provisions of both of these acts must have been considered in the construction of any psychometric instrument used in making business decisions involving people.
The instrument must have been designed for use in a selection process. Many instruments which were originally validated for use in counseling and self-development are unfortunately marketed as hiring tools. Validation is a major element of compliance, and validation is dependent upon two things. First, that the instrument has demonstrated that it measures what it claims to measure, and secondly, that it has demonstrated it under the same circumstances in which it is being used.
(NOTE: All Viatech instruments have been validated and used in the business environment, and employed people were used in the psychometric studies.)
The interpretation manual for the instruments must provide thorough documentation of the development of the scales used, the development of the norms, the various validation studies, and the diversity of the population used in the studies.
NOTE: Viatech’s DISC and Workplace Motivators instruments were both re-normed in 2003 utilizing profiles of over 123,000 individuals; only SAT and ACT have been more extensively validated. Validation studies of our axiology instruments have been published by over 20 testing bodies .
Use of Job Fit Assessments with Existing Employees
The accuracy of newer generations of assessments has created extraordinary possibilities for analyzing and understanding the performance and job satisfaction of existing employees. Today assessments are used extensively in:
- Coaching/mentoring for solution of performance problems
- Building self-governed teams
- Re-organization or restructuring
- Succession planning
Risk of Offending Candidates and Employees?
People who are not familiar with today’s sophisticated assessments may indeed initially be offended. However, if some people are offended by a company’s sincere and professional efforts to insure their success through effective job matching, team building, and succession planning, it is a small price to pay for the overall benefits to all employees in the organization.
Excerpted in part from Right Person-Right Job - By Chuck Russel, 1996
|
