Objectivity
The principle behind testing is to provide objective information on which to base decisions, such as who should be offered a job, and thereby optimise the fairness of the selection process. However, despite all the care and effort that goes into testing, there can be no absolute guarantee of fairness. This chapter explores some of the things that you can do to make sure you are being treated as fairly as possible and what to do if you think that you are not. Some of these points are matters of courtesy to you as a candidate, and of good professional standards in the use of tests, but some of them are backed by the force of law.
What you should be told
You can expect to be told the purpose of the test and how the results will be used. This information may be given in advance when you are invited to the testing session, or at the time of testing. If the test is actually to be used as a hurdle, that is, with a definite cut-off, then you should be told that it is to be used in that way. In fact the use of cut-offs is only really applicable to ability tests and usually then only in high-volume testing situations. In other cases you will probably be advised that the testing process is to provide information to a recruiting manager or a panel, but that other information will also be taken into account. If you ask just how the information is to be used the administrator is unlikely to be able to tell you much more as the recruiting manager or panel involved will not be applying a set formula to the use of the tests. That is not meant to put you off; it is rather a reflection of the fact that individuals and panels vary tremendously in the notice that they take of psychometric results.
Very often you will be provided with a job description and person specification for the job and the latter might well contain a list of competencies and characteristics. It is worth looking at this quite carefully as you think about what testing processes you are being asked to complete and, if necessary, mounting a challenge. You will probably not have the expertise to check out everything in this way, but there may be some things that really stand out. In one case a company was using a test of mechanical reasoning for a job that appeared to have no mechanical component. When queried they responded: ‘We’ve got a cupboard full of them and management won’t let us buy anything else until they are all used up.’ More commonly you might find that you are being asked to take a numerical reasoning test for a job with no apparent numerical content. If so do query that; does the job have hidden components or is the test being used as a ‘general’ measure? Neither of these answers would hold water professionally.
You should also be told if feedback is to be given and when. As discussed in Chapter 4 this will usually be done prior to a report on you being written and will be a two-way process, giving you some ideas about the strengths and limitations that you might display as well as exemplifying those to the person reporting on you. Although feedback at some stage is regarded as good practice, it is not made an absolute necessity in professional guidance for testing. Certainly there is no set way in which feedback is to be given and whether or not documentation, such as the printout of a personality questionnaire’s results, is handed over will vary from situation to situation.
Examples and practice
As indicated in Chapter 2 you will often be given examples and the opportunity for practice with ability tests. For personality measures and job simulation exercises you will be given instructions on the day as well as some indication in advance of what is involved. You clearly have the right to know what you are supposed to be doing and there should be the opportunity for you to ask if anything is not clear.
As noted in Chapter 7, you might want to enquire if a group discussion is to be involved at an assessment centre. In general if you don’t want to come into contact with other candidates you should say so. The employing organisation or the recruiters working on their behalf will usually respect this and make their arrangements accordingly. If you are attending a residential assessment event in particular, you might want to check if a dress code is required. Obviously it is more courteous for you to be told without asking, but you may save yourself embarrassment by enquiring if it is not made clear. I once attended a residential assessment centre where the administrator announced on the evening of arrival that the dress code was casual, which was a bit problematic for the candidates who had assumed that business dress would be appropriate.
Consider whether you will have problems in coming into contact with other candidates and, if so, alert those responsible for the testing session in good time.
Discrimination
Direct and indirect
The law distinguishes between two types of discrimination: direct and indirect. In direct discrimination, membership of a particular group, for example in terms of gender, race or disability, is used as the criterion as to who to hire or not to hire; this is illegal. In the world of testing, the test itself could actually help prevent direct discrimination or help bring it to light if it had occurred. For example, if out of five candidates the one man scored far lower on a test than the four women, but was nevertheless hired, that would suggest that the decision on who to hire was being made on the basis of gender alone – a case of direct discrimination.
In indirect discrimination, the possession of characteristics related to a particular group, rather than membership of that group itself, is taken as the criterion for selection. Such discrimination is also illegal unless it can be demonstrated by the employer that the characteristics chosen are essential for the job. For example, to rule out men who sometimes wear the kilt as part of the selection process would be to discriminate against Scotsmen and illegally so, as this tendency would be unlikely to have relevance for the jobs in question.
Tests have sometimes been implicated in indirect discrimination. There was a case some years ago in which a group of Asian applicants to a factory sued the employer successfully, having failed to be appointed after taking a reading comprehension test. The employer argued that they needed to demonstrate that they could understand safety notices. However, the vocabulary used and the cut-offs applied were far beyond those required for this task and the candidates did not have English as their mother tongue. Had the test used language more in keeping with that actually used in the safety notices, then the relevance of the test would probably have been upheld, and many of the Asian candidates would probably have passed it, too.
Special needs
Indirect discrimination can arise with candidates who have special needs but with good test practice there will be opportunities for you to indicate such needs and so avoid indirect discrimination. Someone with poor eyesight may be discriminated against if required to take a test using print size for those with average or better eyesight. A person with hearing difficulties may be discriminated against in a group discussion if they are unable to hear clearly what others are saying. In such cases it is worth pointing out that in dealing with those who are disabled, there is a requirement for the employer to consider if the person could do the job with reasonable adjustment. For example, for those with speech difficulties, consideration might be given to providing them with software to translate typed messages into audio format, enabling them to participate in teleconferences.
Thus there is the question of adjustment at two levels: in testing and on the job. If you do have special needs it will help you to make sure that all those involved in the process of decision-making about the job are alert to your disability. As far as testing goes you will typically be asked as part of your initial invitation to undertake tests to flag such needs. Indeed, those responsible for testing may even be aware of this in advance, for instance if the testing is set up as the second or later stage of a recruitment process.
Once alerted, those responsible for the testing will usually contact you to discuss just how you might be helped. If you are partially sighted or blind and usually dictate your correspondence then, if asked to take, say, a written analysis test, you might be provided with someone to read the material to you and type your dictated responses. There are also Braille versions of some tests, but these may take a few days for the testing team to acquire. If you are dyslexic you may well have certification to advise potential employers as to how the time for tests should be extended for you.
It is worth noting, though, that the tests are generally designed for those without special needs and this has some implications. First, it may not be possible to make any suitable adjustment to some tests or exercise. For example, for someone who is totally deaf, it would be difficult to set up a group discussion that would work. Processes such as one-to-one lip reading or signing would be impracticable in such circumstances. If there is such an area for you then those concerned might consider setting up a different situation for you, basing that for instance on your indicating how you do normally manage to communicate with others.
Another implication is that those responsible for testing need to keep in mind that they have to be as fair as possible to all candidates, not just those who are disabled, and that there is no foolproof formula for this. Thus, if as a dyslexic person you are given half as long again as other candidates to complete a verbal ability test, that might be seen as OK by other candidates, but should you be given three times as long or would that give you an unfair advantage? The test users have to weigh up all of this and try to come to a resolution, but this will often involve a degree of compromise by all parties.
It is worth noting here that those involved in testing often put considerable effort into accommodating people with special needs. For example, a number of test publishers have produced guidelines for test users indicating a range of adjustments to procedures that can be considered. SHL and ASE are just two of those who have done that.
If you do have special needs, make sure they are known to those responsible for the testing arrangements.
‘Respond in your own handwriting’
You may think that the form in which you might make your initial response to a job advertisement has little to do with testing and, if so, you would be in a sense both right and wrong. What you might be getting into is assessment by graphology – handwriting analysis. This is still quite often spoken of in the same breath as testing, but so is astrology, yet it does not comply with any clear testing standards. The BPS for one, which oversees testing in the UK, will have nothing to do with it. Also, if you are dyslexic, as just discussed, you might need more time and this might be in part because you have difficulty with handwriting. Thus any invitation to respond in your own hand could be running foul of professional standards and disability discrimination.
Note that the requirement to make a handwritten application is far less common than it was in the past. Also note that it is unlikely that those who do make such a stipulation, whether intending to use graphology or not, will be aware that they might be doing something wrong. So, you may need to persist in your challenge.
Also note that the use of graphology is by no means confined to initial applications, so you may find yourself asked to produce a sample of your handwriting at some other stage in the selection process. Although not commonly used by British companies it is very popular in France, so if you are applying to the British subsidiary of a French enterprise you may well come across it.
The riddle of culture-fair testing
Sometimes tests are criticised because they appear to be insensitive to people from different cultures and backgrounds who might be taking them. If so they might well be implicated in indirect discrimination. Often, though, criticism is directed at one or two items, involving complaints such as, ‘We don’t play cricket where I come from, so how can I make a choice between that and basketball?’ Such a difficulty with one or two items of that sort would be unlikely to negate the whole of a personality measure, but is representative of the type of comment made.
You might have a different case to pursue once you have had feedback. For example, you might be told that you appear to be far less confrontational than average and ‘therefore’ will not be effective in negotiation. You might then be inclined to reason that in your culture negotiation is never confrontational but conducted by a slow and diplomatic process. Whether or not the test and the assertion about your lack of confrontation are fair will then depend on whether or not your style of negotiation would be viable in the job in question.
Of more concern may be some aspects of the ‘stage management’ of the whole testing process. For example, a recruiting manager had arranged for their assessment centres to be set up with an evening arrival before a day of tests and exercises. Their reason for this was that they wanted so see how the candidates would behave ‘once they have had a few drinks poured down them’. Clearly this would be potentially discriminatory for those – from Muslims to Mormons – who decline alcohol on religious grounds. As the manager themselves was inclined to partake on these occasions, one might also question just how well they were in a position to judge anything!
What about the Data Protection Act?
Candidates sometimes ask for all of the information arising from the tests or assessment centres and refer to the Data Protection Act 1998 as ensuring their right to this information. (The Act allows for a fee to be charged for access to it.) You may do so because you are dissatisfied with something in your testing experience. In other words, you may be thinking of making a complaint, a subject returned to shortly.
But consider if you are successful in obtaining the requested information, whether it will actually tell you anything of value. What you might get is the technical output from one or more tests. Those using it will have gone through specialised training to interpret it, which might last anything from a week to a year, therefore it might convey very little to you. In fact, I have found different legal authorities, where I am unclear on whether the Data Protection Act does ensure this right of access. If you press for the information, you may be given it, but if you are refused, you may wish to seek legal advice.
Something funny happened
The guidelines for testing indicate that candidates should be allowed to work in peace and quiet and without disturbance. There are a few things that most commonly cause disturbance, some of them within and some outside the control of the test administrator. They are supposed to keep a log of the testing session, including noting if anything untoward has happened. To do this the administrator needs to know about it and clearly may not do so if they are not in the testing room at the time, so make sure that if, for instance, a telephone rings in the room, you bring this to their attention. Also, do check that they are intending to note it in the log and not just make sympathetic apologies to you.
In fact, a telephone ringing is one of the more common disturbances and one that you might want to head off by asking the administrator, if there is a phone in the testing room, whether it has been diverted. Also, you may or may not be asked to ensure that your mobile phone is switched off, but whether or not you are asked, make sure that you do so.
If you are taking tests in a room in a regular offices, as opposed to a specialised testing suite at, say, a test publisher, you should reasonably expect that other staff will have been warned in advance to be quiet as a testing session is in progress. This should also be backed up by a notice on the door advising people of the fact. Look out for such signs as, if you are disturbed, their absence may have been a contributing factor. (Of course having signs on the door is not a total guarantee of quiet. Recently a manager had left the open-plan area where they were based so as to have a loud conversation on their mobile phone in a nearby corridor. They thereby spared their open-plan neighbours, but were a nuisance to the candidate taking a test in a room off the corridor. The sign on the door had either not been noticed or was deliberately being ignored.)
A fire alarm going off seems to be a surprisingly common occurrence. If it is only a trial run you should have been warned about it in advance and so just have the noise to contend with. Disruptive enough as that may be, it is far less so than if an evacuation is necessary, when you may find yourself standing in a draughty car park for half an hour. If the disruption seems to be really extreme then you may want to enquire if the testing session can be rescheduled. Of course this is unlikely to be particularly convenient to you or to the organisation concerned, but it might lead to a fairer result for you.
Other forms of disruption can arise if the administrator fails to follow the administrative instructions properly. For example, you may be asked to make your responses by pencil or pen, but either way you should be given a spare.
What is not known, of course, is the precise effect of any of these disruptions on your performance, but by noting them you are more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt in marginal cases.
Timing
With timed tests you need to know how the time is going. Very often you will be able to consult your own watch and/or the testing room will have a clock prominently displayed. If neither of these is available then ask to borrow a watch or for a clock to be brought in. (An administrator was once obliged to borrow a clock from the kitchen of a hotel where they were holding an assessment centre; the candidates were assisted in their time management, but the lunch was late.)
Make sure you can keep track of the time.
How to complain
If you do think you have reason to complain, then you will be likely to get furthest if you do so rationally rather than emotionally. Shouting at the test administrator or the person giving you feedback will be unlikely to advance your case much. Also, think about what you are complaining about. Was it actually something about the test that was the cause of your complaint or the fact that you were not offered a job? True, if there was something amiss in the test itself or the way that it was handled, then it may have affected your chances adversely. But, if you don’t have very firm grounds for complaint about the testing then you may be missing your real target, for instance someone on a final panel who seemed to take a dislike to you.
If something does seem wrong at the time of testing, mention it then and follow it up in writing afterwards. Otherwise it may seem that you are just trying to find excuses for a poor performance. Putting things in writing is in any case a good idea; it helps you marshal your thoughts and gives the other party the best chance of understanding and handling your complaint.
Be careful about how you cite ‘expert’ sources. A phone call in which a disgruntled candidate claims they were ‘speaking to a psychologist, who said that it wasn’t right to use that test’, will cut little ice. If your friendly psychologist really has a worthwhile expert opinion then they should be encouraged to put that in writing for you to use. The same goes if you are inclined to consult the publisher of a test. Quoting what you have been told, or think you have been told, by a duty consultant responding to what they think you have experienced, leaves room for much confusion. If you can get the publisher to put their support for you in writing then it is likely to carry much more weight with those involved in the testing process.
Also, consider if you should be addressing your complaint to those running the tests or, rather, to the potential employer. If you really do think that the use of the tests have resulted in unfairness to you then start with those responsible for them and escalate your complaint to the employer if you do not get satisfaction. If, on the other hand, you feel that the whole process or some part of it other than the testing is at fault, then go to the employer straightaway.
You may have a legal claim if you think you have been unfairly discriminated against, however, as noted, the law is not clear in relation to data protection here, and in almost every other aspect of the application of testing. Unlike the United States, which has had similar legislation but for longer, and in what appears to be a much more litigious society than the UK, there is little case law to go on. So, if you think you might have a complaint on legal grounds you will need to consult legal experts. Also, remember that the tests are being used to help fair decision making, not to catch out people who belong to one or other particular group. So, do be vigilant, but try not to be paranoid.
If you do complain, do so carefully and rationally.