The Employer Test Redundancy

It’s happened again. I was applying for a writing gig and I was, again, faced with an assessment that had NOTHING to do with the actual job description. A mathematical logic test. I am not a strong mathematician. At all! Sure, I can count, add, subtract, multiply, and divide, and I sure as hell never shortchange anyone while doing a transaction at a register. But I am not good at getting geometric forms in a specific order, based on math formulas.

The increasing reliance on mathematical logic tests during job application processes for positions that seemingly bear no relation to mathematical prowess raises a significant question: why are companies employing redundant assessments that do not align with the job description? This practice, which appears to be growing in popularity among employers, is not only perplexing but also critically flawed in several respects.

Firstly, the primary objective of any recruitment process should be to identify candidates who possess the skills and attributes necessary for the specific role. When companies introduce mathematical logic tests into the mix, they stray from this objective, focusing instead on a broad, one-size-fits-all approach. Such tests fail to account for the nuanced demands of various professions, especially those where mathematical logic is not directly applicable. It’s like asking a fish to climb a tree and then judging its ability to live in a forest.

Moreover, this practice can significantly hinder diversity and inclusion within the workplace. By imposing unnecessary barriers to entry, companies risk sidelining talented individuals who may excel in the core competencies required for the job but do not perform well in unrelated tests. The assumption that high performance in mathematical logic correlates with job performance across the board is not only unfounded but also discriminative and a little dumb. It inadvertently favors candidates with specific educational backgrounds or cognitive strengths, regardless of their relevance to the job at hand.

The over-reliance on such tests also underscores a deeper issue within the hiring process: a lack of understanding or definition of what skills and qualities are truly necessary for success in the role. It suggests that companies might be using these tests as a crutch, a means to artificially narrow down the candidate pool under the guise of objectivity. However, this supposed objectivity is flawed if the criteria being measured are irrelevant to the job’s actual demands.

Critically, the use of redundant tests wastes both the employer’s and the candidate’s time. Candidates are forced to prepare for and take tests that do not reflect their potential job duties, diverting their focus from showcasing the skills that truly matter. For employers, it means sifting through results that offer little to no insight into a candidate’s suitability for the role, potentially overlooking the best fit for the position in favor of those who simply test well in mathematics.

The solution lies in a more thoughtful, tailored approach to candidate evaluation. Employers should invest time in identifying the specific competencies and qualities that are critical for success in each role and design their selection processes accordingly. This might include a combination of skill-based assessments, behavioral interviews, and practical tasks that closely simulate job responsibilities.

In conclusion, the indiscriminate use of mathematical logic tests in the hiring process for roles that do not require such skills is a misguided practice that serves neither the interests of the employer nor the potential employee. It’s time for companies to abandon this one-size-fits-all approach and embrace a more nuanced, job-specific selection process that truly identifies the best candidate for the job. By doing so, they will not only improve the quality of their hires but also foster a more inclusive and equitable workplace.