Two new articles on the Wall Street Journal today demonstrate the great lengths that many job seekers are going to in order to get the job.
The first piece is quite shocking and goes into great detail about how job seekers are scrambling to secure the few crumbs of retail jobs that remain by cheating on the online personality tests that many of these stores distribute.
Administrators of the test, which is called Unicru, are noting the applicants are trying to game the test by repeating it several times, comparing notes with other test takers, or consulting an online cheat sheet. Some even have their friends take the test for them.
Managers are finding that poor performance on the job is a strong indicator that the applicant cheated on the test. One guy plainly admitted to taking the test at Circuit City, failing it, and then going online to memorize the answers. He later passed the test with flying colors at a local Blockbuster.
So does the problem lie with the job seeker or with Kronos, the owner of the test? The developers behind Unicru assured WSJ that they have seen absolutely no evidence of cheating and that the test continues to be a successful assessment of talent. But evidence in front of them is hard to ignore, especially when job seekers are openly admitting to accessing the results online.
Another article on WSJ is all about the art of making online friends on social networks. Perhaps up until this point you have resisted ‘befriending’ somebody because their name sounded foreign and you were intent on keeping your circle of friends tight-knit.
But the author suggests that limiting your online friends could keep you from finding your next job. The article cites the example of Jim Bankoff, a senior adviser at an equity firm, who changed his status to “looking for a rails developer who likes to chat about sports” to reflect his need to fill a vacancy at one of his startups. Within days, his acquaintances had referred two candidates to Bankoff for the job.
While this is perfect for people who are in need of a position, it begs the question, what about those who didn’t ask to be referred and intend to keep their private lives just that: private? Gawker sympathizes with these folks, saying that the referrers are out to ‘game’ their friends.
Are you finding that more people are open to referrals on social networks since the job market has been so temperamental, and what was considered stable before could be gone tomorrow?
Popularity: 7% [?]
January 12th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Very interesting reports, Vanessa.
To me they highlight some important issues that arise when using personality assessments and testing in the selection process. First, there should be no “right” answer for the assessment. We are who we are and a good assessment should highlight this. Assessments used in the hiring process must be structured and validated to identify attempts to “game” the assessment.
Also, the desired results of the assessment should be specifically tailored (or benchmarked) to the job being filled. This customization will provide the greatest prediction of future job success and will eliminate the ability of a job seeker to “google” the answers to the assessment.
One size does not fit all when it comes to using personality assessments in the hiring process.
This is important stuff here Vanessa, thanks for bringing it to my attention! I have featured your post in my weekly Rainmaker ‘Fab Five’ blog picks of the week which can be found here: http://www.maximizepossibility.com/employee_retention/2009/01/the-rainmaker-fab-five-blog-posts-of-the-week.html
Be well!