Psych Tech @ Work

Can you "teach" consulting?How do the masters learn?What are the universal truths and secrets to success? These are the fundamental question that Dr. Van Latham answers with Dr. Charles Handler in this episode. There has traditionally been no real training for consulting skills. Most of us have learned via experience and many mistakes! There are some central themes that represent tricks of the trade.In this episode, two highly experienced consultants offer words of wisdom to those interested in building consulting careers.Dr. Latham also shares information about the consulting program he teaches at the University of Texas at Dallas.This episode is a must listen for anyone who is looking to up their game when solving problems for clients. Van M. Latham is an Industrial/Organizational psychologist specializing in Human Resources management. Dr. Latham works in all areas of Human Capital, but is known primarily for his work in organizational and leadership development. At PathPoint, he has helped businesses improve organizational capability and performance through effective people practices. He has consulted with some of the world's most recognizable companies and brands, such as American Express, AMD, Ashland, Biogen Idec, CVS/Caremark, Dollar General, Ernst & Young, Foot Locker, Harvard University, Hershey's, Hubbell, Lenovo, McGraw Hill Financial, Marriott, Paychex, PepsiCo, SAP, and Thermo Fisher Scientific.From the launch of his own consulting practice to his work with the University of Texas at Dallas as part of their Organizational Consulting Certificate program, Dr. Latham is the dynamic personality with a wealth of experience to share with listeners, no matter where they are in their own consulting journey.Find more about Dr. Latham and his work at these links:https://pathpointconsulting.com/https://obcc.utdallas.edu/organizational-consulting-certificate/ This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit charleshandler.substack.com

This episode’s guest is Kevin Wheeler, Founder, and Chairman of the Future of Talent Institute. Kevin is a futurist and a true thought leader whose personal brand brings to the party a practical but future-forward blend of wisdom.Kevin brings a really strong foundation in understanding the role talent will play in shaping the future business landscape. It is through the lens of a hybrid futurist- realist that Kevin discusses his views on how assessment fits into the big picture. In this episode, Kevin shares his views on the state of recruiting and talent assessments 10 years from now.According to Kevin, there is a utopian view that AI will take over the need for human intervention in hiring. His view does not align with this. Rather Kevin feels that 10 years the view will not be radically different than it is today. Instead we will see a more evolutionary change that will be subtle and consist of augmentation as opposed to redefinition.Kevin feels that 10 years from now there is no way we will not be able to push a button and deliver the perfect candidate. Instead, using systems to quickly settle on a shorter list of candidates that are better qualified is more realistic. In fact, the entire hiring experience will be streamlined to be simpler and easier- with administrative tasks being handled by the machines freeing up humans to do what they do best.I asked Kevin, “How his clients feel about the AI based TA tools available today? Are they afraid or excited?” Kevin’s reports that his clients are confused, skeptical and scared. They do not know if the technology that is being advertised is for real. They also fear that tech tech may take their jobs someday. Most recruiters don’t trust the black box of AI. They need better education about what the tech is really doing.When it comes to the practicality of advanced tech’s role in the hiring workflow, Kevin’s clients generally show that we have a long way to go. This is because, despite the hype, the reality is that even though there are some cool tools out there, they still have to exist within a big-picture process and workflow. Typically getting new tools to play well with existing legacy systems is an exercise in frustration. Putting an exciting tool into a process that is not its equal can create a log jam that keeps the value of the new tech from being realized.According to Kevin- There are 3 key areas where AI is going to lead change over the next 10 yearsSourcing- Finding candidates will be much easier via the assistance of AI. We already see this trend, but in the next 10 years, the sourcing function will become both more automated and more accurate.Assessments- Humans are complex and assessments don't tell the whole story. We are a long way from being assessed by AI alone. Insights can be delivered via AI and the most basic level can be automated, but blindly expecting AI to radically change assessments in 10 years is foolish. The biggest change will be the increased use of work samples that are augmented by AI.Chatbots- Chatbots and assistants in the here and now are not really too capable, in 10 years we will have very capable assistants to help us. This will mean that applying for a job will be a much better experience for candidates. We all want a good human experience. By removing the admin layer AI can help stuff will free up TA to provide the human experience candidates want.Yes, we will still have assessments in 2028, they will be easier to use and will provide a smoother, more realistic experience for candidates and TA. But beware the danger of over-relying on AI to come rescue us. Kevin is confident that we won’t be getting a magic button to deliver the perfect employee anytime soon.Kevin leaves us with the ideal strategy for the next 10 years (and beyond)- “Question everything!”Kevin Wheeler is the Kevin started FOTI out of his passionate belief that organizations need a more powerful and thoughtful architecture for talent than they have at present. After a 25 year career in corporate America serving as the Senior Vice President for Staffing and Workforce Development at the Charles Schwab Corporation, the Vice President of Human Resources for Alphatec Electronics, Inc. in Thailand, and in a variety of human resources roles at National Semiconductor Corporation, Kevin has firsthand knowledge of the need for better strategies and approaches to finding, developing and retaining people. Kevin is a globally known speaker, author, teacher and consultant in human capital acquisition and development, as well as in corporate education. He is the author of numerous articles on human resource development, career development, recruiting, and on establishing corporate universities. He is a frequent speaker at conferences. He writes a weekly Internet column on recruiting and staffing, which can be found at www.ere.net, and he and Eileen have written a book on corporate universities, The Corporate University Workbook: Launching the 21st Century Learning Organization. He has served as adjunct faculty at San Jose State University, the University of San Francisco and on the business faculty at San Francisco State University.Learn more about Kevin's work at https://futureoftalent.org or email Kevin at kwheeler(at)futureoftalent.org This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit charleshandler.substack.com

In this episode Dr. Handler & Dr. Fred Oswald- past president of SIOP and scientist extraordinaire discuss a range of topics related to the past, present, and future of employment testing.The discussion starts with the foundational reasons employment testing exists- immutable things such as the value of measuring individual differences. The discussion then turns to innovation in the field of personnel selection and the application of new concepts shaping the future of testing such as the “open science” movement.Dr. Oswald shares his thoughts about who will shape the future of testing- will it be applicants’ demands for a consumer grade experience when applying for a job, technology companies, or I/O psychologists?Finally- Dr. Oswald shares details of the research he is currently conducting. Dr. Fred Oswald is a Professor in the Industrial/Organizational Psychology program within the Department of Psychology at Rice University. He recently served as the president of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). With more than 8,000 average annual members, SIOP is the world’s largest professional organization for industrial and organizational psychologists. His expertise deals with personnel selection and psychological testing in organizational, education and military settings. Dr. Oswald’s work deals with defining, modeling and predicting societally relevant outcomes from psychological measures that are based on cognitive and motivational constructs. The conversation ranges across both Dr. Oswald's predictions, but also the state of the industry today.Learn more about Dr. Oswald and his work at http://workforce.rice.edu or email him at foswald(at)rice.edu This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit charleshandler.substack.com

This episode looks at assessments from the perspective of a talent acquisition leader and asks the question-- Do talent acquisition leaders really care about assessments?http://talentgrowthadvisors.com/ According to Linda- understanding the space given to assessments by talent leaders requires that one really understands what keeps them up at night. Unfortunately, the answer to this question is not a simple one. Pain points in the hiring process are often the result of many factors converging in a “perfect storm”. Placing all the blame on one component (i.e., ATS, assessment, background check, etc.) will not fully remove the pain. In many cases the TA process and workflow is like Frankenstein’s monster- a bunch of stitched together parts moving awkwardly together. Fixing challenges faced by TA leaders requires a holistic evaluation that applies a supply chain mentality to the entire process and its components. When one considers all of the various moving parts that are needed to create a successful hiring process- assessments far from the first thing that comes to mind.To succeed with an assessment program- one has to embrace the fact that a good hiring process is much bigger than just putting a good assessment in place. So what part of the big picture is giving talent leaders fits?According to Linda- it starts with our current labor market. It is a candidate’s market right now and the simple fact is that the supply of talent cannot keep up with demand. This is the lens through which a talent leader sees assessments.With candidates in short supply- you have to make sure you are attracting talent, not repelling it. This calls for a focus on brand management. The standard method for recruitment brand management has been an employment page with stock photos and videos that all end up looking the same.In today’s market - a targeted, differentiated approach to branding is a must. Talent leaders be creative and resourceful enough to find ways to target ideal candidates and surprise and delight them. Every decision about what goes into the process and how it is packaged is a balancing act that requires leaders to make decisions that will not upset and repel prospective applicants.This message sounds like really bad news for those pushing for assessments, but it is far from a death knell. One just has to respect the fact that he labor market shapes the box that assessments must fit in when it comes to engaging talent leaders. Any assessments used must not disrupt the apple cart when it comes to attracting talent and compelling them to complete your application process.So what are the rules exactly?From an operational standpoint- the assessment has to fit a supply chain mentality. It must be tightly integrated into the process and the right data must be delivered to the right place at the right time. From a candidate perspective - there must be a compelling reason for the assessment, the assessment must be short, and it should speak to the uniqueness of the employer’s brand.Even meeting the above criteria does not guarantee the acceptance of an assessment into the workflow. Ultimately- it boils down to the role itself, what the competition is doing, and the difficulty faced in filling openings. Assessments definitely have a fighting chance in today's market- but require a realistic view on the context in which they must work and the ability to adapt to its constraints.Linda Brenner is the Managing Director and Founder of Talent Growth Advisors, based in Atlanta. She’s passionate about defining what “good” looks like and taking concrete, measurable and staged steps to get there.Find Linda and her organization at https://www.linkedin.com/company/talent-growth-advisors or at https://talentgrowthadvisors.com This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit charleshandler.substack.com

This episode explores the various ways social media information is being used to evaluate job applicants and provides expert opinions on their viability and general acceptance. Special guest Dr. Shawn Bergman’s expertise in the area of social media for hiring, as well as his own research provide a great backdrop for filtering general perceptions about this hot topic. The conclusions drawn provide a useful context for anyone interested in exploring the use of social media data as an assessment tool. Before looking at the various ways social data is used in hiring, it is important to look at the some of the issues that apply to using social media data to make employment decisions.ConcernsThere are four overall areas of concern when it comes to using social data as an assessment. 1. Problems with source materials- There are a great deal of individual differences in the use of social media. For instance, both Dr. Bergman and Dr. Handler admit that they are not very active on social platforms. It seems logical that a lack of data based on infrequent posting or not using a particular channel- could have a negative impact on an applicant’s evaluation. The potential differences in how much people post and where- represent a challenge when comparing them to others who may post frequently to many channels. 2. Accuracy- The accuracy of social media data in measuring human traits is speculative at best. Without confidence in construct related measures- the value of social data as a predictor of job performance is suspect. Of course it is possible to simply correlate patterns extracted from social data with performance metrics- but this brings us right back to the same issues raised with most AI based evaluation tools. Unfortunately, many companies making social media assessment tools do not involve I/O psychologists - adding additional concerns when it comes to the measurement of actual job related constructs. 3. Privacy- The default assumption with social data in hiring is that the individual being evaluated has not given specific consent for their information to be used. This is probably the most talked about issue when it comes to social media data for hiring, and one that will not go away anytime soon. One of the main problems in the realm of privacy is that it is often impossible for an individual to know their data is being used to evaluate them. While opting in is becoming a standard requirement- it is virtually impossible to police the use of tools that harvest and evaluate social media data. There is also the question of who owns social data. Questions of data ownership can turn the concept of privacy on its ear- requiring legal precedent and legislation to sort out. 4. Bias- There are several ways bias can enter the room when it comes to hiring and social media data. Any process in which profiles are reviewed manually presents a serious snakepit when it comes to bias. Automated tools are also famous for creating systematic biases when making evaluations. While there is some great work being done to train AI/ML to actually reduce bias, the fact remains that social media data helps keep the very real issue of bias alive and well. Use CasesDr. Bergman reports that 70% of organizations use some form of social or public data when evaluating applicants. So how are they using these tools?Manual review of profiles/postsWhile the sexiest and most talked about use case centers around the use of AI based tools to systematically evaluate data from social media accounts and posts, the lowest hanging fruit when it comes to the use of social data for hiring decisions is the simple review of profiles by humans. Social media data is often used for a very low tech and manualized process of reviewing profiles of job candidates to look for inappropriate information, revealing posts, etc. This process is accessible to anyone with a computer, setting up many a disaster when it comes to subjectivity, accusations of immorality, etc.Human review of profiles for problematic behavior definitely opens up a great deal of concern. It is accessible and there is no accountability for reporting the results of these often ad hoc evaluations. While these evaluations can be outsourced to firms that specialize in the evaluation and return a report, this does not legitimize the method. The available research in this area shows that there is no relation between these evaluations and performance on the job. Furthermore, this type of easily disadvantages protected classes, and its job relevance is often hard to demonstrate. AI based toolsThe core of all these tools is tech that spiders the web to find profiles and information, scrapes the data, and then interprets and processes it into an output that can be used to support decision making. The tech can work passively- based on open web searches with no opt ins, or more actively - with applicants opting in to share information that can be used to evaluate the applicant. Social media data is often used as part of the sourcing process. The most common use case of technology enabled tools is passive sourcing in which social data is used to identify persons who may be a good fit for a particular job so that they can be contacted about an opportunity. This use case presents a number of difficulties because it happens outside of the actual application process. Individuals may not know their data is being used and the tools used to harvest data may do so in a biased manner. These methods are not actually assessments if they aren’t part of the formal hiring process. However, there is accountability in record keeping when it comes to sourcing efforts.Social media data is also used to create a “super profile” that can be used for hiring. Profiles constructed using social media data most commonly package the data into a personality profile. There are currently many different tools that allow anyone to try creating a personality profile from their social accounts. Both Drs. Handler and Bergman report that when they tried out these tools- the results did not seem accurate. Research so far has not shown there to be any strong correlation between machine derived personality profiles and those of more traditional methods. These tools have also not shown any real correlations with job performance.The future is brightThe consensus from the research and experts in the area of social media based assessment is that “we are not there yet”.As with all advanced technology tools, we can expect to see much improvement in the future. While the technology side of things will definitely advance our ability to make meaningful predictions from social data- the moral and ethical boundaries surrounding the use of these tools will likely remain.Looking to the future it is important that we understand that technology is a tool, not a solution. When this approach is taken- the tools of the future will be less haphazard and more systematic in nature. The net of it all is that there are exciting times ahead in the realm of social data and predictive hiring. But getting there is going to require an interdisciplinary approach that recognizes legal and ethical boundaries. Shawn Bergman is a Professor of Industrial-Organizational Psychology and Human Resource Management at Appalachian State University, focusing on organizational systems, soft-skills training, leadership development, and the application of technology and analytics to solve applied problems. Dr. Bergman has been inducted into the Appalachian State University Faculty Hall of Fame and received numerous teaching honors and awards, including a Board of Governors Excellence in Teaching Award. He is also the co-founder and Director of Research and Evaluation at the Vela Institute.Learn more about Shawn and the Vela Institute here: https://velainstitute.org/our-team/shawn-bergman/See what Appalachian State is building here:https://iohrm.appstate.edu This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit charleshandler.substack.com

In this episode listeners are treated to 30 minutes of storytelling and inspiration from our special guest Mark Newman, Managing Partner of Liam June Ventures, a prolific investor and founder of pioneering video interviewing company, HireVue.As a founder of HireVue, a trailblazer in video interviewing and video assessment, Mark has been at the intersection of hiring and technology for most of his entire career. The episode kicks off with the fascinating story of HireVue's inception and early days and moves on to discuss the role of advanced tech in shaping the future of I/O psychology and selection science.The entire conversation is inspiring. From Mark’s perspective creating the future is about embracing change and maintaining a long term focus while being patient enough to accept the limitations of the moment. Mark brims with optimism about the future of selection science and assessments, stating that.."From an I/O perspective, we're entering into a golden age of the principles of I/O Psychology being applied in ways that no one that entered the field, 10, 20, 50 years ago every imagined."The conversation then turns to the journey.We are still in a time when AI based assessment is not appealing to every employer. Finding the future is about progressive employers who are willing to team up with good scientists to thoughtfully test tools and technology.Mark’s take on the bias question is to remind us not to be scared of the present state, to understand that current tools have bias and that the desire to remove it will ensure that technology is managed to this end. It is important to understand that the careful oversight and expertise of psychologists exert a powerful directional force on the management of unintended consequences from AI based hiring tools.In the end we are still in the larval stages of building the organizations of the future. These organizations will use I/O psych and data science at scale to ensure hiring is inclusive - allowing people an easier path to the job of their dreams. For now- there is still lots of work to be done. When it comes to creating the future- perhaps the hardest work for many will be checking their fear at the door. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit charleshandler.substack.com

While the EEOC’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (aka UGES) provide a solid foundation when it comes to the do’s and don'ts of employment testing- it is always nice to hear about the EEOC’s stance on key issues straight from the horse’s mouth.In this episode special guest Dr. Romella El Kharzazi, of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission teaches us about the EEOC’s mission and their stance on all things employment testing. This enlightening conversation also includes a good deal of talk about the agency’s stance on AI based assessment tools. This episode is a must listen for anyone who is considering using AI based assessment tools but is concerned about the legal risk.Here is a quick outline of the key messages that arose during the conversation.Getting to know the EEOCThe EEOC sees themselves as “ A force for good”- focuses on the core mission of fighting discrimination and making sure that everyone has an equal shot when it comes to employment.The EEOC’s priorities are: to protect vulnerable populations, to educate businesses on discrimination and how to avoid it, and to “build opportunities” for everyone no matter who they are or where they come from The EEOC is not just about enforcement- they also create policy and do research into all areas of employment discrimination with a special focus on monitoring the employment climate at all federal agencies.The EEOC and pre-hire testingWhen it comes to testing, the EEOC’s core focus is on working with employers to monitor, manage, and eliminate bias from the hiring process. This is done via a formal complaints and investigation process that is geared towards working with employers to eliminate bias more than it is towards dragging them into court.The requirements for compliance in hiring and testing are laid down by the UGES. The good news is that the UGES has been around a long time and legal and I/O Psych fields know them well and have been building testing products and programs that are compliant. Beyond the specifics of the UGES- the advice for staying on the EEOC’s good side includes: Job analysis- Establishing job relatedness of selection procedures is critical in all situations and should not be ignored. Especially when it comes to AI based tools, the absence of a job analysis will create exposure and risk.Record keeping- Companies are on the hook for keeping applicant records- with no exceptions. It is not acceptable to claim exemption from the rules because your firm does not keep any records. While it is not mandatory for applicants to supply demographic data, compliance requires that there is a place in the application process for applicants to provide it. Failure to attempt to collect applicant demographic data creates exposure and risk Be proactive- It is always required that employers seek alternative measures to replace those that may have adverse impact. Claiming business necessity for tests that show adverse impact only goes so far. Instead - it is your obligation to search for alternatives that have less adverse impact. Employers should be proactive and when aware of a problem- seek to fix it instead of keeping status quo and hoping they are not challenged.AI based toolsWhile the EEOC does not yet have a big data policy, usual rules apply to AI based tools. It is really important to understand that the EEOC does not feel that all AI based tools have no merit. As long as the development, calibration, and use of the tools meet the requirements of the UGES, all is good. While there has yet to be a case related to the use of AI based assessments- the EEOC is paying attention and is active in monitoring how these tools are used.So, how do we leverage the benefit of AI based tools without increasing exposure and risk?First and foremost - there is a need to be sure that companies building and using these tools create a seat at the table for persons who understand the ins and outs of employment testing. Companies who rely purely on data science and empirically driven relationships are at risk. Adding I/O psychologists to the mix makes a ton of sense both for ensuring compliance and helping ensure the human side of hiring is properly represented. A hiring assessment company with no I/O on staff immediately sends up a red flag. I/Os can help ensure that employers don’t overfit models to data sets, creating unreliable prediction across locations and over time. It is paramount that employers do not simply push the blame for bias associated with a specific tool. Humans program and train AI based tools and it is people who make the ultimate decision to hire an applicant or reject them. Bias can easily enter the equation when unsupervised learning is used so there is a need for caution when using these tools. For instance features such as social media data can be chock full of landmines that are biased against protected classes such as zip code and consumer behaviors. It is really important not to confuse the use of AI for customer/consumer insights from AI uses for hiring insights. They are not the same and what is valuable for understanding consumer needs is not appropriate or equivalent to what has merit when it comes to making hiring decisions.If bias is present even with a strong correlation between the predictor and job performance there is still a great deal of exposure. In such cases the employer will be on the hook to:Prove the assessment is job related- via a job analysisShow that there is a business necessity for the bias, AndShow that alternative predictors were consideredIf you are considering using AI based assessment tools for hiring here are the things that should guide your efforts:Don't try to use advanced assessment tools based on a fear of missing out or just because it seems trendy. Make sure you have real business need.Remember the adage - Garbage In, Garbage Out. Your models are only as good as the data you feed them.Job Analysis is critical!!! It should be the starting point of all predictive hiring tools even advanced ones.Include an I/O psychologist who is an expert in the UGES in the mix.Follow Romella on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/RomellaJanene This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit charleshandler.substack.com

Dr. Ed Levine, Professor Emeritus in Industrial/Organizational Psychology at the University of South Florida, and a long time friend of Dr. Charles Handler joins us in this episode.Dr. Levine literally wrote the book on job analysis. In this episode Dr. Levine shares decades of wisdom about the how and why of job analysis. The conversation takes an existential turn and provides really refreshing perspective about the true essence and value of job analysis.So what is job analysis anyway and why is it so important? To answer this questions Episode 4 includes a great discussion about the key inputs and outputs of job analysis, but then reaches into a refreshing philosophical territory.Points of interest in the discussion include:Essentially job analysis translates what people do on a job into words. While job analysis may seem cold and boring on the surface, it is actually a spiritual thing in many ways because it involves a search for meaning within the work people do.Job analysis highlights the attributes needed for success at a job- providing a measuring stick for job applicants. The ability to hire based on the fit between applicants’ match to the human traits required for job success is of course critical to business outcomes. But job analysis has even more value because it helps individuals find work that is meaningful to them- therefore offering a larger benefit to society.The entire concept of a job is now getting outmoded so the view is turning to “work analysis” this expands the domain to include emotions, teams, personality factors, etc. This covers the work process not just a job. The future of job analysis is really bright. Beyond the applications for selecting employees, job analysis will continue to be a foundational aspect of the relation between humans and work. As the concept of a job changes, so too will job analysis. We can expect to see the scope expanded beyond just the study of one person’s role in one discreet job. Instead we can expect to see job analysis extending into “work analysis” that transcends the walls of one organization. Work analysis will focus on the study of the things required for various types of work. As work continues to become more team based in nature, we can also expect job analysis to be applied to the study of what teams need to successfully accomplish valued objectives. New technologies such as sensors and IOT devices will allow us a much deeper view on how teams interact in the workplace. Insights from this work will help promote a better understanding of the traits required to optimize the human elements that impact the success of work teams.We can expect to see advances in technology contribute to the evolution of job analysis. In the future we can expect that job analysts will have access to database that contain the results of thousands of job analysis studies. Think of an evolution of the O*net system to include access to accumulated job studies will allow analysts to instantly dial up job profiles that are fairly complete. Imagine this data being yoked to AI based systems that provide a deeper level of intelligence about the human traits required for success. Job analysis is a foundational part of any talent assessment program. Building an assessment without a job analysis is like building a house without a blueprint. But as we see in this episode, job analysis has a lot more to offer.All in all- Job analysis will continue to be a bright star in the understanding of humans and their work.Dr. Levine is a prolific author, speaker and consultant, working with governmental agencies, across the private sector and most recently with NASA on Astronaut selection. You can learn more about Ed by visiting his site: http://luna.cas.usf.edu/~elevine/And watch for the 3rd Edition of his book, "Job and Work Analysis" here: http://sk.sagepub.com/books/job-and-work-analysis This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit charleshandler.substack.com

Ben Hawkes is an I/O psychologist who is a thought leader in area of game based pre-employment assessment tools. Ben is currently the co-Founder of BlackHawke Behavior Science and has served as the Selection Assessment Lead for Shell International since 2016. Ben’s background and experience make him a perfect resource for helping Dr. Handler answer the question, "Are game-based assessments the future of employment testing?"The short answer as revealed in this episode is: Don’t believe the hype!Game based assessments have a ton of value and are are PART of the future, but they have the same limitations as traditional assessments (if not more). Game based assessments will make a positive and essential contribution to the future of assessments because they will help us learn how to make assessments more lifelike and enjoyable. This episode touches on few key points to help educate and orient those interested in game based assessments1. Gamified assessments are not true games It is important to know what you are looking at. It is important to be careful not to believe the hype that a gamified assessment is really a game. Doing so is made harder because it is difficult to say exactly what is a game. Games have to meet certain requirements such as the presence of rules, an enjoyment factor, suspense, and control by the player. But there are grey areas around the true definition and it is common for things that have game like elements to be called games when they really aren’t.Gamified assessments- that is assessments with game like elements, are becoming increasingly common and are more likely to be an integral part of the future of assessment.Gamification has many advantages because they make assessments more enjoyable but allow them to maintain the characteristics of a good measurement tool. This is essential because when all the dressing is stripped away- assessments must be psychometrically sound measurement devices.Assessments that provide gamified elements such as: feedback, choices, dynamic user interfaces, and realistic environments definitely have a lot going for them. The upgraded user experience provided by gamification means we can expect to see an increase in their use. Just know they are not truly games and that gamification alone is not enough to make an assessment legit.2. Where does the risk lie?A good rule of thumb when looking at game based assessments is don’t buy based on the sizzle because the steak may taste like crap.For those shopping they first need to know that to be usable as an assessment a game must meet the minimum standards of being fair, reliable, and valid. Many tools may look like or be called an assessment but may not fit these minimum requirements. One type of game that is commonly mistaken for real assessment is the “attraction games”. These are branded experiences that allow the job seeker to interact with a job or organization. They are great for employment branding but typically are not designed to be measurement tools.Another type of game that must be approached with caution are “non-contextualized” games. These games take place in a simulated environment such as outer space or under the ocean. While these are sold as being attractive to applicants they may actually have the opposite effect. Candidates actually value assessments that appear job relevant more than they value being entertained by the experience. In the world of candidate experience, fairness is king and candidates value job relevance over fun. Personality tests alone, be they games or regular measures, are not strong predictors of work performance. So it is not a surprise that personality games have struggled to be effective as selection tools and their ability as strong predictors of applicant performance should be met with a healthy dose of skepticism. Yes, it is possible for games to measure aspects of personality but they have not proven to do so with at the accuracy level of more traditional assessments. Many games, including those that claim to measure personality, are sold based on the number of data points they generate about an applicant. These data points are called “paradata” and they are the byproduct of all the actions within the gaming experience. The sheer number of data points does not mean an assessment is a good measurement tool. Measuring constructs that underlie work performance requires understanding what you are measuring first and foremost and then creating accurate and reliable measurement tools. Just because you have millions of data points does not mean the patterns that belie personality are found within it. Finally- games may not meet accessibility standards required of selection tools. It is important to fully evaluate any assessment games for compliance to ADA standards.3. So what can we trust?Gamified assessments are great as long as they are held to the same standards as regular assessments. Currently the strongest type of assessment games are cognitive games. These games have many advantages over regular cognitive assessments they are more engaging, work better than traditional assessments on mobile devices and early research shows that they actually work better than regular cognitive assessments while having less adverse impact. Cognitive games are also very good at measuring multi-tasking which is becoming increasingly important for many jobs.3a. We can trust that games will be an important part of the future of assessmentsIn the future games will help measure things that are not easily measured by static assessments. We can expect to see an increase in the use of gamification techniques to make games increasingly more enjoyable. We can also expect to see games become more like simulations that mimic the real workplace. We can also expect to see a modular approach where many mini games that measure specific traits are packaged together in a branded wrapper. We can also expect to see more Virtual and Augmented reality based assessment games.Are games the future? They are definitely part of it as they offer many attractive elements that will help talent assessments evolve.Visit www.blackhawke.io to learn more about Ben and his work supporting venture capitalists (VC) and other investors by analyzing the psychological strengths and weaknesses of entrepreneurs and startup teams. BlackHawke equip VCs with insights and guidance to minimize conflict, address the inevitable 'people issues', and accelerate startup growth. And connect with Ben on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/benhawkes/ or Twitter: https://twitter.com/WorkPsy or even email him at Ben(at)yacmo.com This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit charleshandler.substack.com

There is no one better to weigh in on this most timely of topics than Gerry Crispin, co-founder of CareerXroads and the TalentBoard and long time champion of those who demand more from their hiring experience.In this episode provides an honest answer to the question:"Can assessments and a positive candidate experience peacefully coexist?"Gerry makes the answer simple: Candidates do not hate assessments at all. What they hate is engaging in a hiring process that seems unfair. Perceptions of fairness are driven by many things- where the assessment falls in the talent acquisition workflow, selling the value of the assessment to the candidate, and feedback from recruiters. But the #1 factor in job candidate’s positive feelings about an assessment is a clear link between the content of the assessment and the job they are applying to (aka “face validity”). The idea that candidates drop out of the process due to the length of an assessment is a myth. Candidates disengage from the process when they feel their time is being wasted by irrelevant questions delivered in what appears to be a vacuum.Beyond this revelation, Gerry provides some great ideas for those who want to make pre-hire assessments a value add to the candidate experience and delivers the good news that they can actually play a starring role. You can follow Gerry on Twitter at https://twitter.com/gerrycrispinConnect on LinkedIn here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gerrycrispin/And Learn more about CareerXroads here: https://cxr.works This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit charleshandler.substack.com