Australian employers surveyed recently (those actively employing staff) confirmed that while they would be increasing their advertising spend on social media sites, it will remain an adjunct to their candidate attraction strategy, not a replacement.

An inescapable truth is that active job seekers are more motivated than passive job seekers. Employers want to know that their candidate is motivated and seeing them apply to their job advert is a quick and reliable way to separate an active job seeker from a passive job seeker.

Do employers really want to compete against other employers and recruitment agencies for talent, or do they want to deal with candidates who are switched on to them as an employer? – candidates who have researched their company, their industry and are keen to join them?

Simple really, and while social media can help create new employer-job seeker connections, job advert boards are still king. At least for now… 

When embarking on a hiring exercise, there is virtually no occupation where psychometric testing does not add value however as a general guide, they are best applied to white collar jobs. It can be argued that where a particular job is routine in nature or adds limited value to the organisation, that the value of psychometric testing is reduced.

To consider a real-world example, let’s look at a manual labouring position.

In these cases where the skill set is readily obtainable, an interview and very importantly reference checking, can substantially reduce the hiring risk to the organisation. It would also be true that candidates for a manual labouring position would not expect to undertake a psychometric test. It may however be worth applying a basic personality type test such as Myers-Briggs. Such a test might be valuable in predicting how the candidate would perform in a team environment. In addition, its greatly simplified question structure and effort requirement, might make it more acceptable to the candidate.

While such an obvious example is easy to appreciate, let’s consider a major employment sector such as engineering? What type of testing is worth conducting for engineers?
This brings us to the topic of applying IQ tests to a broad range of white-collar positions. A typical IQ test usually comprises the three components of verbal reasoning, numerical reasoning and finally abstract reasoning.

In our recruitment experience, it has been pointless conducting numerical testing for engineers – why?, – simply because engineers have strong numerical skills. Without them, they would not have been able to complete their degrees.

In addition, most perform at an average to above-average level for abstract reasoning. At the same time, a significant percentage of the engineers we recruited, possessed only average verbal reasoning skills.

Unless the engineer in question is being recruited for a research position, a high IQ may not be necessary.

In our opinion, IQ testing needs to have a purpose and a goal. We are not advocates of rejecting candidates based on IQ scores, unless you have clearly defined reasons as to why a certain IQ level is required (for the position in question).
Of far greater value (for engineers and everyone else) is the application of a psychometric test which measures the candidate against valuable, workplace-related attributes. The StaffMatcher® psychometric test has been designed to test for all the attributes that matter for on-the-job-success, and none of the attributes that are superfluous to these aims.

In summary, psychometric testing will add materially to your recruitment process, while IQ testing should be applied on a role specific basis. Personality profiling can have particular benefits as a ‘light” assessment, useful in job roles of a non-critical nature.

I know, the other steps are important too. I wouldn’t leave any of them out. They include structured telephone screening , second interviews, verification of claimed qualifications, managing the offer stage and for my money, a medical test.

But, to get back on the subject, the title is about psychometric testing. Why have I singled this out as being particularly important? – Simple really, it’s because (assuming you have chosen a modern psychometric test such as StaffMatcher), it requires no specialist knowledge to apply or interpret.

This last point is crucial when it comes to employers conducting their own recruitment. Any psychometric test that requires a specialist such as a psychologist to interpret the meaning of the report is a cumbersome and likely, expensive product.

There are two key reasons why applying a psychometric test is an essential step for employers.
The first reason has to do with your existing recruitment skills. The variation found between employers in respect to interviewing skills is very significant. Many still use an unstructured approach and as a result, do not measure candidates on an equal basis. This is a recipe for failure.

Along with this is the simple reality that even an experienced recruiter (and I put myself in that category), cannot, even with a structured interview process, uncover everything that should be uncovered about a candidate before a hiring decision is made.

For example, to measure any candidate against the 26 workplace attribute essential for on-the-job success, you would need to keep the candidate in the interview room for 2-3 hours. Obviously that’s not possible or practical (exhaustion for the interviewer and candidate happening along the way).
A validated psychometric test such as StaffMatcher, can measure the candidate against all 26 workplace attributes, in 30 minutes.

So the first point is covered. Psychometric testing covers for any deficiencies in your interviewing process.
The second reason it’s so important is that it provides an equal means of comparing all candidates against known benchmarks.

Put the two together – measures all candidates equally, and uncovers essential information not available through interviewing alone.

And let’s not forget the icing on the cake. StaffMatcher provides a separate reference check for each tested candidate. It includes customised questions so you know exactly what to ask each referee.
Psychometric testing – it’s a ‘must have’ for every hiring exercise.

More and more, a significant percentage of the ‘work’ that gets done in organisations has a short-term or ‘project’ focus to it.

As an example, you can probably identify a variety of needs in your own organisation that require urgent attention, and which would occupy a capable person for a few months – but no more.

More and more people (as employees) are coming to this realisation themselves.

In some cases it might be due to their job role being made redundant (laid off) with both sides agreeing that the employee did a great job while they were there. In other cases it could be down to poor economic times or substantially different skill sets being required at different stages in the organisations existence.

Whatever the reason, many of us can agree that ‘work’ is becoming more outcome focused, and short-term in nature.

Perhaps for all these reasons, a growing number of job seekers are prepared to commence employment on a fixed term basis (contract), and then if both sides are happy, move to full-time employment status.

If you’re an employer that hasn’t explored this option before, here are just some of the potential benefits:

Firstly, contracting offers you the “try before you buy” benefit.

In simple terms, you may not be 100% convinced through your hiring process that the preferred candidate will perform to your expectations. There’s nothing like seeing a new employee in action first, before you commit to a long-term future with them.

Secondly, it may suit your business planning a little better. Your business may be growing, but you’re not certain this new growth is sustainable. At the very least, you might like to see a few more months of increased revenue before you’re comfortable with another full-time employee.

Thirdly and just as importantly, it’s an opportunity for the employee to trial your business to determine if it’s really what they want and where they want to be. It’s better for them to announce they don’t want to progress past their contract term (eg: 6 months), than leave you at a time when it really inconveniences you.

And let’s not forget the emotional and real effort that might be invested in training and development, only for them to leave in a few months telling you they never really enjoyed the role.

Contracting – consider adding it to your employment options.

If you’re an employer that hasn’t explored this option before, here are just some of the potential benefits:

Firstly, it’s the “try before you buy” benefit.

In simple terms, you may not be 100% convinced through your hiring process that the preferred candidate will perform to your expectations. There’s nothing like seeing a new employee in action first, before you commit to a long-term future with them.

Secondly, it may suit your business planning a little better. Your business may be growing, but you’re not certain it’s sustainable. At the very least, you might like to see a few more months of increased revenue before you’re comfortable with another full-time employee.

Thirdly and just as importantly, it’s an opportunity for the employee to trial your business to determine if it’s really what they want and where they want to be. It’s better for them to announce they don’t want to progress past their contract term (eg: 6 months), rather than have them leave you at a time when it really inconveniences you.

And let’s not forget the emotional and real effort that might be invested in training and development, only for them to leave in a few months, telling you they never really enjoyed the role.

Contracting – consider adding it to your employment options.

Done correctly (that means obtaining the right information) it ranks alongside psychometric testing and interviewing as one of the most reliable predictors of on-the-job performance.

However there’s one small point that occasionally trips up employers – and even some experienced recruiters. It’s the subject of “checking the referees”.

What I mean by that, is establishing that who they say they are and more importantly who they claim to be, is accurate.

So what seems to be the problem here?

The issue is that when receiving details from your candidate about their referees, you will often be provided with a mobile phone number. Along with this you would expect to receive details of their job title and employer, plus the nature and time – duration of the relationship between them and the candidate.

If a switchboard number is missing, you should ask for one. Once you get it, you should cross check that number with the company website.

A switchboard number allows you to instantly confirm that the claimed job title and employer of the referee are accurate.

We’ve heard of instances where referees no longer work where the candidate claimed they did or more worryingly, that they never actually worked at the place they claimed to (they were coached by the candidate or are just a friend trying to help them out).

An in-between lie is that they were a colleague, not their manager as was claimed.

Apparently, it’s even a service you can acquire via the Internet. Check out careeradvice.com if you don’t believe us.

Smart recruiters have traditionally followed a practice of placing their adverts on the top three Australian job posting sites. This strategy paid dividends because in doing so, their adverts were viewed by 95% plus of on-line job seekers. The cost to cover all three sites was typically $500 – $600. A small investment if it finds you the right candidate.

Employers could and should, be following a similar advertising strategy. However the job posting landscape has changed in the last few years and the changes are well worth understanding…

For most of the last decade and continuing to this day, SEEK remains the number one job posting site ranked by number of visits.

Going back a few years, MyCareer and CareerOne rounded out the top three places. On that basis, you would include all of them in your “Top 3” strategy. Real world experience showed that the successful candidate sometimes came from player two or three.

However over the last couple of years, SEEK began to distance itself markedly from the other two.

The result of this was that if you did receive a great candidate from player two or three, there was a good chance the same candidate also sent you an application from SEEK. Once you realised this, you rightfully questioned the value in advertising with players two and three.

But there’s been a new development. It’s the rapid emergence of LinkedIn as a job posting and talent search portal. What we can’t tell at this stage is whether more jobs are being advertised on LinkedIn compared to players two and three however, there is no doubt they are gaining.

Recent data we have seen, suggests that both employers and recruitment agencies are planning to use LinkedIn more in future. Many of these groups view LinkedIn as an adjunct to their advertising strategy. Specifically, they talk about it as a companion to, rather than a replacement for, SEEK – but no mention of traditional players number two and three.

Recent numbers from a reliable source¹ tells us that SEEK sits at the top with 24.24% of visits and LinkedIn growing rapidly at 15.05%

So what’s happened to players two and three?

Traditional player number three (CareerOne), recently teamed up with Monster.com – the massive USA jobs board. This may have helped them get their nose in front of MyCareer.

Based on their traditional position of number two, MyCareer seems to have suffered the biggest fall.

The numbers tell the story. CareerOne has 5.74% of the visits and MyCareer a shade less at 5.57% ¹

So large now is this gap that it may now be more valid to refer to SEEK and LinkedIn as the tier one job portals, and the others as the tier two portals.

So where should you advertise?

Well for one thing, we have a feeling (no hard data available) that LinkedIn’s primary audience is probably management level, seeking packages above $100K per annum.

On that basis if your vacancy is over $100K per annum, consider SEEK along with LinkedIn.

If your vacancy is under $100K, go with SEEK and if you’re not getting the type of candidates you want after a few days, then duplicate your advert onto one of the tier two sites.

The above comments are our opinion only and you should review each service offering before making a decision.

1. Figures are for the category of online job databases, employment classified website, employment agencies and human resources management services. It also includes any website relating to job seeking, vocational training and career development.

Source: Recruitment Extra magazine June 2012

The simple answer is: get out of the office and into a social environment to change the nature of the discussion.

While it may be a fine line, it’s in both parties interest to find out if they’re suited to each other. Looking at it from the candidate’s side, they could be making a decision which impacts on their personal life as well as their business life. How content or otherwise we are at work, has a direct impact on our well-being and sense of happiness.

Make sure everyone knows that’s it’s a social meeting and not a formal part of the interview process. Make it for outside business hours when people are generally more relaxed and where it helps to reinforce the social aspect.

To stay true to the intent, talk about interests, hobbies, sports, current events etc.

When people are relaxed, discussions tend to open up.

At the end of the day, we all want to work with people we enjoy being around. Social meetings can help both parties become more comfortable with their choices.

Consider for a moment how you go about recruiting. How well structured is your process? Even if you’ve still got some way to go in creating a repeatable and effective recruitment process, the following is a simple idea that’s well worth implementing.

When you’re at the point of inviting a candidate in for interview, send them a confirmation email including a one-page document outlining your recruitment process. The document should include relevant contact details with a Google map of your office listing handy information (such as available parking, or directions to use public transport).

The backbone of this document should be a detailed explanation of your recruitment process. It should be as simple as listing those steps which you take as an organisation. An example is as follows:

1. First interview (conducted at our premises)

2. Psychometric testing (conducted on-line at your premises)

3. Reference checking (we require 3 referees mutually agreed upon)

4. Medical check (Clinic to be advised)

5. Police check and/or credit record

6. Second interview (location to be advised. Normally at our premises).

By preparing this simple document, your candidates will know what to expect. If they have any concerns (such as having a medical check or answering a psychometric assessment), they have the opportunity to discuss it with you.

For those employers that don’t properly announce their recruitment process (or worse still unveil it one step at a time), they can risk turning good candidates away.

Rarely has a candidate complained about the length of the process or the steps involved when it is outlined from the first point of contact. In fact, my experience is that they welcome it, and regard the employer as a professional outfit.

This was inevitable although it wasn’t there ten years ago, and I can’t even remember seeing it five years ago. But it’s certainly there now – and in abundance.

It’s understandable that some candidate’s will look for every advantage they can get.

Without going into too much of the detail of what this coaching delivers, let’s assume it assists the candidate perform better at interview.

Personally, the number of “coached” candidates I have come across over the years hasn’t really changed. What has changed however is their general level of ability in interviewing – in other words, most candidates generally perform better today at interview, than they did ten years ago.

Imagine you’re in this scenario: Candidate number one performs very well at interview, and has an acceptable level of work achievement. What you don’t know is that candidate number one has received interview coaching.

Candidate number two has an equal level of work achievement, but does not interview as strongly (no coaching). To complicate things further, candidate two has other enviable traits that would make them a better employee, but you’ve been swayed by the strong interview performance of candidate number one.

This is where interview coaching can become a problem for employers.

While I’ve simplified this discussion by leaving out how effective your interview process might be, the reality is that coaching has the potential to skew results for those employers with less robust or sophisticated interview processes.

Why is this so, and what can you do to protect yourself from it?

The reality is that interviewing generally strikes a 50-50 power balance between the candidate and the employer. A good interview process can tilt that balance firmly in the employer’s favour but equally, a coached candidate might gain a real advantage – particularly over more deserving candidates.

Psychometric testing tilts that balance heavily in favour of the employer. It’s for this reason that every preferred candidate should be tested after interview and just prior to reference checking. It’s for this same reason that the StaffMatcher psychometric assessment includes a customised reference check for each tested candidate.

More than ever, interviewing alone is a risky strategy for identifying good employees