[ NNSquad ] Re: Google tries new angle on hiring

[Sara Wedeman <sara@behavioraleconomics.net>]

Psychometrics - the measure of all things cognitive/behavioral - is one of my areas of expertise. I am familiar with the methods and tools Google uses in assessing candidates, and have always found them mortifying. In truth, the methods most companies use are mortifying. I use the term 'mortifying' because they reflect an almost total ignorance of what qualities are most important to their success in the company, and to the success of the company overall. Moreover, they lack the most basic understanding of what to look for in an assessment process. Some required but typically absent features of these programs include:

• Validity (An assessment should measure what it was intended to measure). Validity can, should, and must be measured quantitatively. There are standards, set by experienced psychometricians, for the methods by which validity is tested, as there are standards for what constitutes an acceptable result.Â

• Reliability (the assessment should be stable and not subject to fluctuations, random or otherwise). Reliability is also measured quantitatively, according to established, proven methods.

• The ability to predict job performance within a realistic but clearly defined range of accuracy. This is also a quantitative measure.
  

• They cannot be shown to discriminate between equally qualified candidates of various social, cultural, or demographic groups.

The danger in ignoring the first three points is: wasting time and money on something that looks like an assessment process, but lacks the necessary substance (looking like an assessment process without actually being one is called "face validity." If someone tells you an assessment has face validity, run for the hills: all they are saying is "it looks like a test!"). The net result of using one of these is that your choices will be no better than they would if you had not done the assessment at all.

In my experience, the danger with the last point is the only one that businesses understand. It is known as: the class action lawsuit. Fortunately for most corporate HR departments, few spurned applicants are trained psychometricians--otherwise the losses from these things would be staggering. 

As someone who cares about whether employment testing is done well, poorly, or at all--I almost wish applicants knew more about this stuff. Maybe then, employers would be motivated to do things right. Ironically, they would be the primary beneficiaries.

Finally, getting help from someone who does know what they are doing would be a nice antidote for the "I'm so smart I can figure anything out even though other people had to go to school for years, then enter into lengthy apprenticeships, to develop such expertise" brand of hubris that plagues the tech world in particular.*

Hope this is helpful,

Sara

* I am in the odd position of being a member of both worlds, so I'm not immune from such leaps--or more aptly, lapses- of logic. I'm not placing myself above anyone --this is merely a case where I don't suffer the "I'm so smart I don't have to know anything" problem because I do know something.

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com> wrote:

Google tries new angle on hiring

http://bit.ly/gWzA76 Â(Financial Times)

 ÂThe new approach includes a new "rule of five" that limits the
 Ânumber of interviews a candidate can attend to no more than that
 Ânumber, said Laszlo Bock, head of human resources. In the past,
 Âwould-be Googlers were often subjected to 12-14 interviews, he
 Âadded.

 ÂThe company is also trying to cut out the kind of intellectual mind
 Âgames its interviewers have often used to test the brain power of
 Âpotential hires.

Â- - -

Darn, and I was just about to suggest a new hiring question too!

 ÂQ: What's the *fastest* way for a competitor to try create search
   quality that approaches that of Google? ÂChoose only one.

     a) Build world-class systems

     b) Hire great people

     c) Treat employees well

     d) Spy on what Google users are doing

Oh, wait, sorry, that wasn't a question for potential Google hires,
it was for a different firm that shall remain nameless here.

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org
Founder:
Â- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
Â- Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org
Â- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Google Buzz: http://bit.ly/lauren-buzz
Quora: http://www.quora.com/Lauren-Weinstein
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com

-- 
Sara C. Wedeman, PhD
BECG-Behavioral Economics Consulting Group 
8327 Germantown Avenue, Philadelphia PA 19118

t: 215.242.5415Â mobile: 267.825.4044 fax: 215-242-3534
skype: auroraz7