Recently we've had a bit of a flurry of clientside roles and I've been surprised just how many companies do utilise psychometric tests as part of their recruitment decision making and how even after a strong interview, the results of such a test can completely alter the recruiter's opinion of the candidate.
These 'questionnaires' are supposed to discover what kind of person you are in ways that you wouldn't necessarily admit to in an interview, with questions designed to expose how you behave and what motivates you. A good test will be set up to pick up on any inconsistencies and make it difficult for you to put on an act – there is a built-in "lie scale". Some companies may additionally utilise an aptitude test which is supposed to show how good you are at tasks required in the job and may measure how quickly you get to the right answer. The employer may have a minimum score you have to achieve, or be looking for the candidate with the best score.
In my view Psychometric and Aptitude tests are only any good if the recruiter knows what they are trying to measure and why. Where they often fail is when people try to use them to assess things that you can't measure, such as creativity or leadership. The recruiter needs to decide what kind of traits they think make a good leader and look for those. I'll try to be diplomatic here because there are some companies who think they ought to be using these tests and so they brief HR to use them, without really giving them a proper understanding of the profiles of the person that they want in the role. Having said that, I do work with several global businesses who do it properly so I'm not (honestly!) having a pop at HR people.
You can't actually 'ace' a psychometric test – the
recruiter is using it to see what your strengths and weaknesses are, and how
they match up with the job requirements. Typically recruiters are looking
for whether you are a leader or a team player, whether you work well under
pressure, whether you are passive in terms of management or potentially a bit
of a livewire - none of these are necessarily negatives - it depends on the
role in question.
However, while the other elements of the recruitment process
should be taken into account, I've observed that clients do take a lot of notice
of these tests (those who don't rate the results, don't use them). A
recent candidate was at third stage for a senior marketing role when the tests
revealed them not to be able to manage conflict and they were rejected
outright. It turned out the company was in a state of flux with several
senior stakeholders proving difficult to manage and the company wanted someone
'robust' enough to deal with it. On hearing this, the candidate decided
they didn't want the role anyway!
In summary, I generally believe you can tell a lot about a
person from their CV without the need for the cost and time required to do
extensive psychometric testing. I look for length of time in roles,
progression since graduation - speedy or slow, have they spent time crafting their
CV or is it a bit sloppy. Interviewing adds a huge amount of value - I've
become pretty good at reading people and getting an understanding of whether
they are a doer, a thinker, a leader, a bullsh***** etc. I've also got clients
who will analyse school results and will make quite powerful judgements based
on A level grades and achievements at university - this includes choice of
subject and university. Giving candidates a brief for a second stage
interview tests them properly - how much effort have they put in? How well do
they present? How nervous are they? (thinking, how credible will they be in
front of my clients) I then apply all my marketing and recruitment years
of experience to understand where those skills could be utilised. There is somewhere
for everyone!