Big data is everywhere. I am not exactly sure what it is, but I read about it constantly. And it seems that there are a lot of job opportunities in data, so you should probably pay attention. I won’t be looking for a job with a data company any time soon, but I am often the target of big data, constantly receiving marketing materials targeted toward me because of my buying habits. Check out this fascinating article about how one of my favorite stores, Target, uses data in a way that may walk a fine line of ethics.
Now we are seeing a new use of data in hiring. Companies are increasingly subjecting job applicants to online tests. If they are able to collect enough data from these tests, the employers can supposedly asses whether the candidate has the qualities required for the job. Want to be a cashier at a grocery store? We will test you for your friendliness. We are not talking about testing for particular skills, but for your personality. As this article discusses, the problem is that anytime you use what is essentially a standardized test, you run the risk of discriminating on the basis of race or gender.
At the risk of sounding 100 years old, whatever happened to just interviewing a job candidate? I am pretty sure that after ten minutes of face time I can tell whether someone is friendly enough to check you out at the grocery store. What do you think? Should we use testing to evaluate job applicants’ personal qualities?
6 Comments
Stephen Wong posted on December 5, 2012 at 10:47 pm
The problem with technology is that people are relying more and more on it, assuming that it is the best, most efficient, and effective method towards achieving a desired goal. However, I think companies and employers tend to forget that we’re people and we all have unique qualities that make us who we are. Some of us may be fantastic test takers, others more athletic, or social, etc. Therefore, a standardized test although can help provide data analysis for a company, i dont think that it should be the sole basis for evaluating an applicant because you don’t get the full picture of that person. It’s extremely imperative to see a person, talk with them one on one, and see ultimately how they can handle communicating with you and others and how the handle things within the scope of their prospective job.
A flaw that I see already with a standardized test for a job is that people lie, especially if they really need the job and income or have some other strong desire. And it’s so easy to just mark what you think the employer wants to see and ultimately that doesn’t do justice for the employer or the employee.
Carolina Navarrete posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:46 am
I think that these tests definitely depend on the type of job an individual is applying to. Personally, for a job such as a cashier I think a personal interview either in person or over the phone will give the employer a better sense of how friendly that person is. On the other hand, jobs that require individual to know certain things or use certain technology do benefit from these tests because those tests can specifically target exactly what the applicants know and do not know.
Lisa Cottle posted on December 9, 2012 at 3:49 pm
I understand both sides of this proposal. I do think that it really depends on what the employer is looking for and what they are looking to find out. For the most part, I like to believe people are honest and who you meet at first is who that person is, but I am not naive. This is where I think the online test may come in handy. People tend to be more honest when they feel as though they aren’t being watched and when taking a test online that could very well be the case. You answer the questions very similarly to how you would actually act because you want to get it over with (this most definitely isn’t everyone). In an interview, everyone has to put on a face for their employer. It is more formal, and you really have to make a good impression. This is where I feel like a lot of false personality might surface. I think for interviews everyone needs to be pleasant or else you won’t get the job. As I continue to type up my thoughts here it’s making me realize that its not even about the applicant, but instead about the people hiring.
If we have capable people working the hiring process it doesn’t really matter what method we use, and in retrospect it does also matter what the job description entails. Honestly, maybe putting both methods into practice for the same job might be beneficial. Making it a filtering process. I have veered in multiple directions with my response to this blog post, but I feel like it could be be evaluated in multiple ways. If there is solid communication and cooperation within the inside of the department handling the hiring, and they all have a common goal. They should know what steps to take and which people would fit that job and how they would go about finding them.
Mohammed posted on December 10, 2012 at 5:27 pm
I agree that the best possible way to determine whether someone should work in a ‘public’ job is to make a subjective assessment of their interpersonal skills. it seems to me that we as a society have all bought in to the idea that we will sacrifice that personal touch in hiring for speed / efficiency / “science”, but what is worse? These hiring practices make the termination / firing end just as impersonal. We accept that most jobs are filled by systems, and not people, and it becomes a lot easier to fire the position and not the person that occupies it.
Kanishk Pahuja posted on December 13, 2012 at 1:21 am
I believe that using technology has become very common today and looking at the online tests from an employer’s perspective, would seem to be an efficient addition to their method of hiring workers. In general, it would help maintain consistency and help the employers hire the workers with an unbiased perspective as they are merely hiring based on what they see on paper. However, at the same time, it isn’t entirely reliable as potential employees and the employer may not have a mutual understanding of the job requirements, which may result in hiring the wrong person for the job. I personally think that online tests are a good screening method and for a position that gets many applicants it would be useful for companies to go through the applications and pick out only those who pass the initial requirements and should then call those candidates for interviews, etc.
Wenwen Yang posted on December 16, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Honestly, while I see the benefit of having a face to face interview en lieu of an online assessment, I do think that eliminating the time consuming personal interview would promote a greater hiring efficiency. Obviously it would not be as comprehensive and would tell limited facts about the interviewee but in this current rapidly expanding world, I see a great need for this type of hiring process for jobs that do not require a set of complicated skills. By reducing the amount of time it takes to narrow down candidates through cutting down the interviews, employers can also potentially be able to sift through a much larger pool of applicants, allowing them to find the applicant that best fits their requirements.
Nevertheless, I do think that the best types of processes would ultimately be a combination of the two. While efficient, big data does not always provide the most comprehensive account of an applicant. It is a great tool for narrowing down the pool of applicants but as far as final decisions go, I believe a face to face interview is necessary to test the accuracy of the big data.