Pre-Interview Organization Analysis Design Tests? 107
miasok asks: "Recently I was deemed unfit for a job I was applying to, even before having an interview. A local software development company expressed an interest in my resume, but first wanted me to take an Organizational Analysis Design (OAD) test. The OAD test is a form with approximately 100 personality attributes and you are supposed to identify if they whether they apply to you, and if they are expected of you in your current job. I completed all fo the questions truthfully, and was surprised at the response: '...the results do not fall within our range of acceptance for the programming position'. Has anyone else had experience with such a test, especially as the sole means of determining a candidate suitable for a job? More information about this test can be found at here."
Personally ... (Score:3, Interesting)
I had one of these once.... (Score:5, Interesting)
We do that here. (Score:3, Interesting)
We usually end up rejecting all the candidates based on their interview, that the tests say we should reject anyway. It also helps us target applicants for other jobs within the company.
Snake-Oil (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sure. (Score:3, Interesting)
Like you, I assumed that the test given was a Myers-Briggs or a derivative. I read the smarmy stuff on the "Organisation Analysis and Design" link and only imagined they were doing Myers-Briggs a grave disservice by representing it so poorly, with so much new-age business-speak.
Then, my wife (with an advanced degree in Psychology) made me click the link to the test: http://www.oad.ltd.uk/survey.htm [oad.ltd.uk]. We were floored. It's not a real personality profile at all. It's just a filter for buzz-word spouting business psychophants.
I would be more than willing to take a real personality profile or aptitude test to get an interview. But if I was asked to take this joke of a "survey" I would make a point to call the hiring manager to make certain he knew the crap the HR department was putting the applicants through. If he agreed with it, I would simply scratch him or her off the list of potential employers.
Do you really want to work at this company anyway? (Score:3, Interesting)
And if the test is not accurate, do you want to be working for a company that places that much faith in something inaccurate?
Or, look at it this way:
You seem to see this as a Bad Thing (tm) that you were rejected so quickly by that company. Have you considered turning things around and seeing it as a Good Thing (tm) that you weren't hired? If they're looking for someone that fits a particular description, and you don't, it might have been a miserable fit. Just because it's a chance at a job, doesn't mean it's a chance at the right job.
For example, for most positions in my business, part of the interview process is going through a ropes course with the other applicants. A lot of people can't be bothered. Some tell me they can't afford the time to do it (we do it on weekends). I have my reasons, which are lengthy and based on my experience working in residential treatment centers, but I don't debate it with applicants. This narrows down our pool of applicants. It might seem like a far-out idea, but I have yet to have to fire anyone or have an employee quit on me. Those that don't like the idea of a ropes course are not likely to like the way I think and do things and the way my company works.
What the OAD seems to be looking for (Score:3, Interesting)
But natural competence and personality have scant regard for status. Often as not, a misfit will mean an expensive mistake... low productivity, disruptive staff and poor morale.
While being phrased positively what they are testing for is institutional conformity. The test is designed to eliminate the kind of guy who would go to ask.slashdot to try and find out more about why he was rejected for a job. What they want most likely are people who:
a) Are highly loyal to institutions and tend to follow direction.
b) Are likely to go along easily with group consensus
c) Don't have strong opinions about issues but have very strong opinions about not being divisive.
The fact that you are:
1) A slashdot reader
2) Questioning the methodology
means it is unlikely you fit these personality types.
BTW I would agree with the other poster regarding MBTI. I disagree with the "amazing accurate" comment in fact I think there are some structural problems with MBTI as relates to Jung's theory but regardless its one of the most heavily used personality assessments in the US. A very good first book
Personality tests measure only... (Score:3, Interesting)
I wintered over in Antarctica [gdargaud.net] a couple years ago, so you bet we had to take tons of personality tests as the 2nd step of the selection process. I filled them up exactly as I knew they wanted them. So did everyone else who was selected.
After that, for a while, an interesting ongoing discussion was the various ways we'd lied our way through it. So was lying the wrong thing to do ? I'd say no, everything went well, except for the doctor/psychologist who blew a fuse during the winter and was for two months in a straightjacket. That guy had designed many such tests, so he knew exactly what to answer on them...
But consider yourself fortunate (with a little cunning it's easy to fake tests), in other countries they have much worse methods: in France the big craze is handwriting psychology (or whatever that utter stupidity is called). You have to send handwritten resume and cover letters and they pay contractors to determine your psychologic profile from your handwriting (not from the content of the letters, heavens no) !!! Not only do you have to waste hours to write those by hand, but imagine an IT pro who's been using a 'puter for 20 years and haven't touched a pen since then... I can't even read myself, what does it have to do with my IT ability ? It's the exact opposite, the more you use a computer, the less you can write with a pen...
...and I married a psychologist... ;-)