The “new” assessment my CEO wants me to start giving candidates. Am I insane for thinking this is bullshit?
Evaluating the Latest Hiring Assessment: Is It Ethical and Effective?
In the ever-evolving landscape of talent acquisition, organizations continually seek innovative methods to identify the best candidates for their teams. Recently, I encountered a new (or rather, not-so-new) assessment tool that has sparked considerable debate within my professional circle. Its origins trace back nearly two decades, and it appears to have seen little to no updates since then.
Understanding the Assessment Tool
This particular evaluation involves candidates completing a four-page ranking exercise. The content of this exercise asks them to rate a series of highly contentious and ethically provocative concepts—such as murder, torture, slavery, and executing heretics—on a scale. The purpose of this exercise is to generate a comprehensive, ten-page personality report. This report offers an in-depth analysis of the candidate’s personality traits and work style, with a notably intense focus on negative indicators.
Concerns About the Assessment’s Approach
According to the company leadership, the assessment is designed to weigh negative traits significantly more than positive qualities. Consequently, the resulting profile tends to emphasize perceived red flags—traits that might suggest risks or problematic tendencies—rather than highlighting the candidate’s strengths or potential contributions.
This approach raises several concerns from an ethical and practical standpoint. Is it appropriate to evaluate individuals based on responses that include ranking concepts such as violence or oppression? Moreover, how does this method align with fair hiring practices and the principles of respectful candidate engagement?
Seeking Perspectives and Best Practices
Has anyone here had experience with similar assessments? Do such tools serve a meaningful purpose in the hiring process, or do they risk undermining candidate dignity and perpetuating biased judgments?
In my view, while innovative assessments can provide insights, they must be employed judiciously, ensuring they respect ethical standards and contribute positively to talent decision-making. As professionals dedicated to fair and effective hiring, it’s vital to scrutinize the validity and morality of the tools we use.
Conclusion
The debate around this assessment underscores the importance of critical evaluation of hiring methodologies. Candidates should be assessed based on relevant skills, behaviors, and potential—rather than through provocative or potentially harmful theoretical exercises. I welcome your thoughts and experiences on similar assessment tools and how we can best balance innovation with integrity in the hiring process.