Given the higher labor rates and challenges facing companies trying to compete globally, the cost of making a hiring mistake is HUGE. Take into consideration the following:

- time spent recruiting (and $)

- time spent training

- no productivity while person is being trained

- if new hire does not work out, this investment is lost

- they have to start all over

Testing, although not perfect, reduces their perceived risk of making a hiring mistake. I don't think this will stop anytime soon, in fact, they also use software to screen resumes so you need to know the proper buzzwords for the industry that you want to work in. Otherwise you get passed over on the first cut before a HUMAN even reads your resume!

Given that they are testing and I assume actually hiring someone else, you have to find out what it is that you seem to be lacking and figure out a way of demonstrating that you have that skill set in future.

Is the test the first cut or are you getting an interview first?

Don't get frustrated - like anything else, it takes time to figure out the game and once you know the rules, you can be prepared to play. Unfortunately this game change all the time so you have to be extra diligent at keeping up.

Good luck!

Because people lie and former employers are not allowed to tell the truth. Tests give clues as to a person's personality type, disposition, truthfulness, honesty, communications style and areas of strengths and weaknesses.

I didn't need a formal test because I am trained to winnow out those qualities in an interview. I made a few mistakes in hiring anyway. No test is perfect. Like how was I ever going to deduce that one of the people who I hired would f--k a client in her office? The person in the next office complained about the noise and banging on the walls. I found shoe prints up the wall is how I verified what was going on!

Of course, I fired her! Of course, I am still laughing about it! Sometimes, the worst that can happen turns out to be a story for the ages.

understandably (could current employees of the said companies pass these tests) , but some of these companies in question I have worked for in the past and have worked for the public for 17 years as a nurese assistant in hospitals and nursing homes. to me (personal opnion) they are a 21st century way of discrinination,because the want everyone to fit into a particular sterotype, their perfect employee, the yes man, someone who will not dispute in any way or rock the boat, which sometimes needs to happen to effect changes. I am quiet but effective.

If I am paying for your time, I have some rights to dictate the behaviors you p[roject onto my clients on my dime is how I look at it. Independent judgment extends only to a point where it doesn't conflict with my philosophy. If you wear your hair long, it doesn't affect what you do. If you tell the clients that they don't have to follow policy, it does. Get the difference?

I have been an employee and an employer. The employer puts up a lot of money, time and energy to create the image he or she desires, not what you want. If you want your way, take the risks the employer did. I had some employees who thought like you do ... but not for long. I had a certain philosophical image I wanted to project to my clients and it truly was my way or the highway.

I was a hereafter employer. You know what that is? If you aren't here after what I am here after, I will be here after you are gone. It is a cruel world and if you want the bennies, you take the structure with it. The two operant words are yes followed immediately by sir until the boss says "You can call me Al!"

I work in the technical field and I've failed more than one of these psych tests they call interviews.

I worked in a large company. I have a specific skill set. A job opened for the skill set and I applied.

I did not get the job.

The person who did get the job based on the psych test contacted me several times asking what they needed to do. (They did not have the skill set needed to do the job)

I refused to help them because I believe it perpetuates this silly practice.

I hire people.

I agree there should be some form of psych test in the interview process, but not an actual test.

I have input into who gets hired on both the sales and tech side of the company I work for. I ask specific questions geared towards finding out what kind of person they are.

My interview technique is to get them talking. We have a conversation. If they don't or can't talk to me they don't go to the next level of the interview process.

I don't need a test (Can you tell me about a time when you had an issue with a co-worker? How did you handle it?) to determine what kind of person they are. I get them talking about themselves and I learn ore much more than I sometimes need to know.

I think though we have difficulty at our age when changing jobs, I interviewed with a fortune 50 company that was asking me those tell me about a time question, and the only incident I could think of where it applied was 20 years ago. needless to say I've changed a lot since then.. but that answer I gave even with the disclaimer that it was 20 years ago probably lost me the job.

the real trouble in the hiring process, is it's easier to find reasons to NOT hire someone than to actually hire someone.

In my opinion, some companies use it as a way not to hire you---meaning, they may not like you for other reasons, but use the test as a excuse