Testing: a manager's experience

Subject: Testing: a manager's experience
From: KnoxML1 <KnoxML1 -at- TEOMAIL -dot- JHUAPL -dot- EDU>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 14:13:45 EST

When I managed a group of tech writers & editors in a large software company,
I
found hiring to be extraordinarily difficult, not just because of the risk of a
bad decision (which was considerable in that company). The worst part was the
bureauctatic hassle. It took unbelievable amounts of paperwork to bring someone
on.

The company had a policy of using an editing test to weed out people who
couldn't edit. The HR department permitted testing because
(1) Every new hire in the editing group had to pass the same test; no
exceptions.
(2) The results of the test were not the only selection factor.
(3) We tested only those being serously considered for a job.
(4) We didn't do the testing ourselves; we bought the testing service from a
small company that had a reputation for providing high-quality temporary
editors. The editing company's test had been challenged in court and found to
meet legal requirements for a pre-employment test; candidates were tested at
that company's offices.

Our policy came in very handy once or twice when bigshots in other parts of the
company wanted to "give" us an employee that we were pretty certain didn't have
the skills we needed (because of a poorly written resume). Sure enough, they
failed the test, and because of rule (1) we did not have to accept such a
transfer.

Testing was supposed to reassure us that we hadn't been too badly misled about
language and editing skills in the interview process. It did that, to some
degree. But I think it told us less than we wanted to believe . A test of a
narrow set of skills may tell you the person isn't grossly lacking those skills,
and that's important, but it won't tell you if the person is a good fit.

The bad news is that no editing or writing test will tell you about a person's
terrible attitude, tendency to come to work late and leave early every day,
unwillingness to pitch in for critical deadlines, or ability to create constant
turmoil and to blame everyone else for mistakes. Such people are unlikely to
reveal these qualities in an interview. Fortunately, they are pretty rare, but
hiring just *one* can make a manager's life hell for months or even years.

The safest way to select someone, I believe, is to use them on contract for
awhile. If you have that option as a manager, I'd say take it and forget
testing. Testing is very easy to do badly or illegally, and it's easy to think
it tells you more than it does .

Margaret Knox
Technical Writer, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
margaret -dot- knox -at- jhuapl -dot- edu


Previous by Author: Just one more comment about titles
Next by Author: Re[2]: A Question of TECHWR-L Netiquette
Previous by Thread: <INFO?> Help Yourself! for Windows
Next by Thread: STC Phoenix Chapter March Meeting


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads