Assessment for Hire:
The Use of a Tool By
Douglas B. Richardson, J.D., M.A.

Before you dive into the assessment pool, consider some ground rules and common sense caveats that can help prevent you from abusing or being abused by the assessment process. First of all, reflect on why you’re considering using assessment. There are really only two broad interview questions: 1) “What value can you add to our organization? (and can you prove it in a way I believe)” and 2) “Why do you want this job?” In other words, through the selection process, one seeks valid information about competency (expertise and experience), motivation (what kinds of settings, activity, settings and satisfactions are most rewarding), and the ever-elusive “fit.” 

Second, remember that you can gather a remarkable amount of information from the resume, face-to-face interviews, reference checks and other steps in the hiring process. Since assessment takes time and costs money, ask if there is an equally effective way to collect valid information faster and cheaper.

In evaluating potential senior executives, often the clearest indicator of what they can do is what they have already done. Since you are hiring a set of experiences and behaviors, not just potentials or aptitudes, the best evidence of candidates’ skill-sets, vision, judgment and ability to execute might come from a detailed probing of their career history and choices, not some abstract instrument. Sure, a licensed psychologist can administer a variety of intelligence tests, but they might provide less value than directly asking and validating how the candidate has applied his or her intelligence to prior challenges and triumphs. 

Indeed, the answer to the “just how smart are you?” question may be relatively simple: “Smart enough to have acquired the education, been hired for all those jobs and achieved all those accomplishments documented on my resume.” If references concur, you might have your answer.

So when does supplemental assessment pay off? In short, it can be invaluable when you seek to profile “soft” factors, like personal values and satisfactions, motivational drivers, communication style, leadership aptitude, or effectiveness when playing with others. These traits and factors can be hard to probe directly with interview questions. Still, they are the very “fit factors” that can make all the difference between the CEO who mobilizes the troops and takes the company to the next level and the disappointing underachiever who jumps ship after six months.

Daniel Goleman, creator of one of the many Emotional Intelligence (“EQ”) models now vying for support in the leadership marketplace, has led convincing research suggesting that, beyond cognitive intelligence, the most important determinant of success in private sector leadership (regardless of setting) is not dazzling technical expertise or even strategic genius…but instead a set of interpersonal competencies: 1) Self Awareness, 2) Self Management, 3) Social or Context Awareness (also called political savvy and street smarts) and 4) Interpersonal Skills. A well-executed assessment process can provide real insights – and even some quantitative measures – about these essential competencies. 

Many consultants prefer to administer a battery of instruments, each designed to view the candidate from a particular perspective. Whether assessment instruments are used singly or in concert, the results can be compared with the trait-based criteria you have so carefully established for the position. The following are critical points to remember is selecting and utilizing any tool or administrator: 

Choose carefully – it is critically important to select the right consultant, psychologist or HR/OD/executive search firm. Get references. Ask around. Look for publications or other evidence of strong professional standing and solid credentials.

Invite early involvement -- assessment works best if the assessor is included in the selection process from the onset, participating in defining and prioritizing job functions and behaviors, learning the subtleties of the employer’s culture and operative norms, and anticipating the issues that may arise in integrating the new hire.

Don’t cop out -- tools must never replace your own judgment or be used as the sole vehicle for making a hiring decision; instead, rely on them to flag themes and issues that should be further explored in the selection process. 

Collaborate -- assessment isn’t something you do to candidates on behalf of employers; ideally, it is a collaborative process among employer, candidate and assessor/search firm.

Consider costs -- assessment costs vary widely, but bargain-shopping can cost even more in the end. 

When and if you determine that utilizing an assessment tool is appropriate, you will find hundreds clamoring for your attention. There are time-honored inventories repackaged and spiffed up for the millennium as well as a plethora of brand new tools claiming a “new and unique” approach to categorizing and measuring critical success factors. Among the various instruments, there are two principal categories: psychological or clinical measures, and “non-cognitive” instruments and personality profiles.

Because “psychometric” tools directly measure mental capacity, mental health or mental functioning, they are typically administered by licensed psychologists. These include such tools as the WAIS-R (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Inventory), MMPI (which screens for pathology), and the famed Rohrshach ink-blot assessment. Such instruments purport to measure mental functioning and capacity, therefore predicting individuals’ performance ability. Accordingly, they are held to a higher standard by employment lawyers concerned with issues like validity and prediction of job performance.

“Non-cognitive” instruments do not directly measure ability or raw intelligence; instead, they profile such performance-related factors as motivation, vocational interests, behavioral styles and preferences, leadership style, personal values, modes of interpersonal interaction, self-awareness and context awareness. Most currently fashionable “emotional intelligence” inventories fall into this category since they assess behavioral preferences and styles. 

We can group these performance-related factors under the umbrella label “Operative Style and Vocational Interests.” A number of respected instruments can accurately and objectively profile these factors which affect performance, such as the Birkman, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (particularly the more sophisticated Type II), the DISC, the Firo-B, 16PF, Life Styles Inventory (LSI) and the Schein Career Anchor. The advantage of such well-known instruments is that they are value-neutral -- they simply mirror back whatever information is projected onto them without subjective bias. They reflect not only what traits characterize one’s leadership, interpersonal and operative style, but also how strongly those traits are expressed (i.e., there’s a difference between working well independently and being an out-and-out loner). 

Non-cognitive instruments may be administered by non-psychologists, although it’s important to find an assessor who has been fully trained and certified in the use of whatever tool(s) you use. Qualified administrators might include vocational assessment experts, career consultants, executive search firms, OD (organizational development) and management consultants or human resources professionals. Skilled assessors can bring a subtlety to interpretation that others can’t match. Actual administration takes various forms: some tools are filled out with a #2 pencil, some can be self-administered and self-scored on the Internet, and others are administered face-to-face (usually the psychologist-administered psychometric measures). 

As you consider assessment options, remember to view them as tools in reducing risk in hiring. In conjunction with a comprehensive hiring process (including multiple interviews, thorough due-diligence and additional input from an executive search firm or other advisor), such instruments can lend richer perspective and supplement your rational judgment and gut reactions. In the end, review your notes, solicit input from appropriate members of your team, blend in the results of any assessment tools you employed and – perhaps least scientific yet most important – trust your instincts. Your “hunches” might be your most effective assessment tool.