May 6, 2014 | Blog

There’s No Such Thing as Bad Publicity!

Optimize Your Talent Strategy

Whether it was Mark Twain or Oscar Wilde who came up with the gist of the “any press is good press” line matters little in our uber-connected society. We live in a world where the term “viral” has become commonplace and missteps can result in some real and undesirable press. Case in point? A major fast-food chain’s mascot just got a new makeover that was two years and many global focus groups in the making. Reactions to the new look have been not-too-kind. 

 

I bring up this topic because, as businesses, our brands are our reputations. But testing and assessment professionals often have a myopic perspective into just how far their impacts can reach. I am 100% certain that the folks doing the mascot refresh for the fast-food chain above sat in disbelief wondering why the fruits of their labor were poorly received after they had done everything right. Testing experts are also fairly rigorous and academic about doing things right. By that, I mean that the quality of the testing experience is routinely explored in sterile discussions about psychometric concepts such as reliability, validity, constructs, variance, etc. But that is often the end – in essence, if we have built or acquired a quality test then our jobs as testing professionals have been completed. I have heard fellow industrial/organizational psychologists on the inside say things to the tune of “well, if they want a job here, then following our application process is the first testing hurdle. If they can’t follow rules, we don’t want them.”

 

Admittedly, I have been guilty of similar talk tracks years back. Evolution of our methods suggests the need to recognize the targets of our psychometric awesomeness not as mere objects or means-to-ends for the businesses – but as customers. If we do not, then we are setting up candidates to have an undesirable reaction to our respective brands.  If you have ever filled out a standard Applicant Tracking System (ATS) job application, it is a good glimpse into what pain and frustration our talent targets are experiencing; a good 40-60 minutes spent on filling forms that one is never totally sure if they did correctly, only to be followed by zero courtesy responses and no incentive to reconnect and learn more. One bad reaction to this is unfortunate; 500 could be catastrophic.

 

There is a lot of discussion among testing pros about the concept of collective intelligence as of late – essentially, if many people share the same views about an individual’s talents, attitudes or behaviors, then it helps to define the quality of that person’s performance in a workplace setting. I submit that technology such as Yelp reviews and Twitter retweets represent a synonymous consumer collective intelligence but from job seekers’ perspectives. Users of such technology are happy to share positive experiences about the brand they have experienced – but even happier to trample it. Doesn’t it make sense that every micro-engagement that occurs with prospective talent – from acquisition, to engagement to assessment to hiring – should build brand enthusiasm? Below are four observations (truths) about how assessment must function to build brand stewards and not brand bashers. These are not comprehensive, by any stretch, but are spoken concerns I have heard among more progressive users of tests and assessments over the last 18 months.

  • Truth #1 – Forcing a candidate to take part in a laborious and time consuming assessment session early in the recruiting process will reduce the number of brand enthusiasts. This will also limit the number of passive candidates who could become brand enthusiasts. In essence, “why have you wasted all my time if you are going to put up a road block this far into the process?”
  • Truth #2 – Job relevance in assessment is critical, but also a checkbox – the price of entry. Face-validity, or apparent relevance of assessment content, is becoming more important in assessment.  If it doesn’t seem applicable to the job, then candidates will react negatively. Assessment content that asks questions about why the sky is blue, or why people collect beer bottles will continue to irritate candidates, thereby creating a poor brand experience.
  • Truth #3 – Assessment must be relevant to the person and not just the job. Think WIIFM (What’s In It For Me?). We must get our assessment strategy to a point where candidates are so engaged they actually volunteer to do more, share more, assess more because it benefits them as a person.  Assessments must leverage the collective power of micro-engagements – with each telling us a little bit more of about the candidate…what they know, what they like, what skills they can demonstrate.
  • Truth #4 – Assessment must be available on the candidate’s terms – simple, efficient, mobile and seamless. The second that you must interrupt your engagement with a candidate and ask the person to find a computer and sit down for a one-hour testing session, your brand deteriorates as their eyes glaze over. 

 

James H. Killian, Ph.D. is Vice President | Assessment Sales with Findly Talent, LLC, headquartered in San Francisco, CA.  Findly helps organizations leverage social and mobile recruiting with seamless candidate relationship management, professional services, testing and assessment.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/james-killian-ph-d/0/182/859
twitter: JamesKillianPHD
phone: 614.477.5610