“Would you like normal tap water, untreated acidic water direct from contaminated river, or natural rainwater free of any fluoridation or government mind-control psychotropics? Let me tell you about our structured payment plan…”
Never worked with that shit, either. Monomethylhydrazine is bad enough.
Stranger
I WAS the person they wanted to give the job to. That was the thing- Mike (the former boss) had an opening for a position very similar to what I had done for him when he worked at my company, and thought I’d be a good fit. So he reached out to me and asked me specifically to apply for it.
And then we both got kicked in the ass by the psych evaluation. And he got kicked by it several more times- he either before or after asking me, asked 2-3 of my colleagues who had worked for him to apply as well, and ALL of us were kicked back because of the test. And all for the same basic reason- we were all too independent and too prone to making decisions instead of kicking them up the chain.
I figure Mike wouldn’t have bothered asking us to apply if he had an internal candidate; why not just let randos not get chosen in that case, instead of putting out several people he knew and respected professionally to come and engage in pointless application and phone interviewing?
Actually… working in IT as the liaison of sorts with the water department of a large city, my suspicion is that they got bit by the purchasing process and/or someone got cheap/lazy. Sounds very much like someone up high said they HAVE to have a test, so they implemented a test, without really caring too much whether it make sense.
Generally speaking where I work, stuff coming UP from the departments is somewhat well vetted and checked for utility, sense, etc… by virtue of the IT project management process. But stuff going the other direction (i.e. down from the mayor or council) tends to bypass all the good sense checks and just gets implemented because they asked for it.
No doubt. The incompetence just blew me away (our tax dollars at work!).
Off topic but this just made me order this book.
Got a reply to one of my applications!
There’s a link, to full out yet more information …
… the link they keep sending me? Auto-closes after a second, regardless of what I fill in.
As in, browser shuts off & kicks me back to the email, with the link.
The company wants to only see applicants who can hack into their system and fix the obvious bug that they deliberately created there.
You might try a different browser. I was somewhat shocked to learn in my current position that Chrome/Edge/Firefox/whatever don’t all work the same, and applications can either code around that or actively disallow browsers (a polite app would tell you it is doing that, but it is not required).
So, @purplehorseshoe, I gotta ask: what industry was the retail position for (I won’t ask company names), and was it an entry-level position, or a little higher up the food chain?
I remember 20 years ago, I applied to Home Depot and had a similar test. Some of the governmental positions I applied for (and got) had a similar “application” process, but up front, it was presented as a “personality assessment.” I guess my personality’s good enough.
Tripler
Although, I don’t always finish what I sta
It’s like a Myers Briggs test, but worse.
Your certainty is, frankly, really misplaced here. I would be genuinely shocked if there was any social science at all behind the test. These things are almost never based in any sort of social science at all; the odds that this test was subject to the sort of science an actual psychologist puts into such things in an experiment is probably not one in a thousand. These sorts of things almost never come from social science. They’re shit created by people who don’t know any better that are spread around the internet and by HR people. No one, ever, has subjected this test to what a psychologist would consider science - things like tests for reliability, repeatability, long term outcome analysis, etc.
The popularity of the Myers Briggs test or its various imitators, like KolbeI or Tratify, isn’t based on any sort of social science at all. Virtually none of them were developed that way. They’re popular because they make work for HR people and they’re really easy.
Handing someone a test you got off the internet is so, so easy. Actually figuring out the most cost and time efficient way to identify the right candidate for a job is HARD, and it’s fraught with risk. There is no guaranteed way to do it and most traditional methods are useless or worse than useless; I’d guess 98% of all minutes spent in job interviews are a complete waste of time. Handing out long tests and compiling scores into pretty graphs makes it look like you know what you’re doing. It looks productive.
With regards to the DMV driver abstract check, no, that isn’t it at all, actually. You are ascribing far more cunning to the hiring people than is merited.
What happened here is that the company decided they needed a clear system of establishing required competence for job titles. That’s usually done in one or both of two ways; the training matrix or the job description. The training matrix is precisely what it sounds like, a cross-reference of jobs to possible competencies, usually done in a spreadsheet or a simple database, though in very large companies you might have a purpose-built training database. Job descriptions are, well, just that.
What happened here is that - likely in a training matrix - someone concluded, quite justifiably, that a clean driver abstract was required for some roles. If you’re driving a company vehicle, or driving miles for company business (e.g. salespeople) the company is right to ensure you’re not driving on a suspended license or presenting a tremendous liability. But for whatever reason someone either expanded that requirement out to all employees or all production employees, or it just got that way in the spreadsheet.
Changing which requirements apply to who is boring document control work. That would require re-versioning the spreadsheet and maybe filling out a document change form. No one wants to do that, and it’s unlikely anyone has even told them it should be changed; the job candidates aren’t going to complain, and no one internally cares. So it’s that way just because of inertia.
Dear god, you pay $10 per impression!?!?
~Max
I’m not sure what interviews you’ve been a part of. I’ve been on interview panels and I’ve also done a hire directly to work for me, and while I’d agree that not all of the interview time is valuable, and probably most isn’t, 98% is insane. I’m sure it’s theoretically possible to get a good read on a person within a minute of meeting them but I’ve never done it.
For the jobs I’ve handled (IT) it is extremely valuable to hear a person talk about their experience and to have them try to respond to technical questions. I can at least tell if they are going to be competent enough to do their job. And that takes more than 2% of the interview time.
I’ll never forget one candidate with an extremely promising resume who couldn’t answer a single question with more than a couple of words. He was very clearly unqualified but it took some probing to suss that out. Granted, his interview could probably have been done in 15 minutes if we removed the social obligations (the beginning prep and other fluff) but otherwise it took some time to be certain that he was about as useful as a crumbly rock for the position he applied for.