@Anaeli V. š¹ , the āprocess history + work test evaluationsā described in section IV and, the approach described in @AĆÆdaLahlouās post, are close to a system I recently experienced as a candidate. The application is your resume, and a work test comprised of a scenario you would likely face in the role, plus a short self-recorded video talking through your approach (no cover letter). Shortlisting is driven primarily by test performance, which the platform ranks for the hiring team. Candidates can opt in to letting future employers see their prior tests. Employers can set different tests for different roles.
One thought after reading Abrahamās note about the potential of an increased volume of applicants. If the entry to the system is just uploading a profile, even with a bit more detail, it is likely more people will sign up for the chance. But in this case, starting with a work test decreased the number of job seekers who completed the full application, even with encouragement to use AI (only 47% submitted the test). Combined with a system doing the initial shortlisting, that might change the cost-benefit analysis. Of course, there is the tension that those who opted out because they wonāt do videos or unpaid tests on principle, may have been strong candidates and would have been shortlisted during a normal resume screening.
Iāve built hiring processes for employers and Iām now being reminded of all the good (and the bad) things that happen as a candidate. Iām happy to share more detail if itās useful to you, and my anecdotal experience on the correlation between personality tests vs. thinking/āvalues tests vs. work tests and success in the role.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I have been thinking about this ever since, and it is interesting that things are moving forward.
Since my post, I talked to High Impact Professionals, and they are indeed adding a marker on peopleās profiles when they are top candidates. That is a good outcome.
I do not know if I find it interesting to have a work test straight away. The thing about putting the work test straight away in the application is that it would make it so that fewer people would apply, or you would have a lot of low-quality tests. I wonder what happens when you have fewer people who want to take the test. What are you filtering for? Are you filtering for people who are not as motivated, or are you filtering for people who are very qualified, busy, or have a job, so they do not want to do this?
In all fairness, I am not a fan of self-recorded videos. Every time I have that in an interview, I feel like it is unnatural and awkward.
I would be happy to connect. Please reach out to me with a private message, and I will be happy to talk.
@Anaeli V. š¹ , the āprocess history + work test evaluationsā described in section IV and, the approach described in @AĆÆdaLahlouās post, are close to a system I recently experienced as a candidate. The application is your resume, and a work test comprised of a scenario you would likely face in the role, plus a short self-recorded video talking through your approach (no cover letter). Shortlisting is driven primarily by test performance, which the platform ranks for the hiring team. Candidates can opt in to letting future employers see their prior tests. Employers can set different tests for different roles.
One thought after reading Abrahamās note about the potential of an increased volume of applicants. If the entry to the system is just uploading a profile, even with a bit more detail, it is likely more people will sign up for the chance. But in this case, starting with a work test decreased the number of job seekers who completed the full application, even with encouragement to use AI (only 47% submitted the test). Combined with a system doing the initial shortlisting, that might change the cost-benefit analysis. Of course, there is the tension that those who opted out because they wonāt do videos or unpaid tests on principle, may have been strong candidates and would have been shortlisted during a normal resume screening.
Iāve built hiring processes for employers and Iām now being reminded of all the good (and the bad) things that happen as a candidate. Iām happy to share more detail if itās useful to you, and my anecdotal experience on the correlation between personality tests vs. thinking/āvalues tests vs. work tests and success in the role.
PSāThanks to you both for the great posts!
Hi Renee,
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I have been thinking about this ever since, and it is interesting that things are moving forward.
Since my post, I talked to High Impact Professionals, and they are indeed adding a marker on peopleās profiles when they are top candidates. That is a good outcome.
I do not know if I find it interesting to have a work test straight away. The thing about putting the work test straight away in the application is that it would make it so that fewer people would apply, or you would have a lot of low-quality tests. I wonder what happens when you have fewer people who want to take the test. What are you filtering for? Are you filtering for people who are not as motivated, or are you filtering for people who are very qualified, busy, or have a job, so they do not want to do this?
In all fairness, I am not a fan of self-recorded videos. Every time I have that in an interview, I feel like it is unnatural and awkward.
I would be happy to connect. Please reach out to me with a private message, and I will be happy to talk.