Some companies have interview processes that involve psychometric and behavioral questions. However, what is the point of such questions and how do they relate to the job? In many cases, such questions are so personal that they end up violating GDPR in the way candidate profiles are assessed, stored and processed. What is the point of mapping shapes through a hole? What is the point of so many unnecessary tests? The candidate likely already has a degree and to obtain that they likely had to also sit multitude of tests. It seems like tests are an endless cycle for people when it comes to recruitment. And, having multiple stages in an interview process not only increases the bias with the number of interviews, but also reduces the probability of someone passing all the stages. Invariably, the interview questions do not match the job, and there is only so many ways an interviewer can ask questions to a candidate. No doubt such tests are defined on the advice of Phd individuals who want to test others but are too incompetent to have practical skills of their own. In many cases behavioral and psychometric tests are flawed as statistics is used to evaluate candidate answers, and those answers are very much subjective and purely academic. Such subjective evaluation also leads to rejection to suitable roles and incorrect recommendations to roles for which the candidate may not have any prior experience. No wonder organizations struggle to hire people because for every aspect of work Phd individuals are providing and dictating incorrect guidance determined through flawed academic analysis which rarely takes into account outliers, while pigeonholing people into artificial groups of biases. Phd individuals in the IT sector have really made a mess of the field and this is likely to grow as more and more get hired into professional workplaces in organizations with very little to offer in terms of practical returns. Perhaps, this is also a reflection of how academia is a failure to societies at large and the Phd qualification, in particular, that produces such incompetence where one percent of the population dictates to the world on how things should be done. HR processes are only going to get worse and more competitive where academic potential weighs higher than practical experiences leading to stymied organizational performance and growth. The ultimate goal of an application and interview process should not be overly complicated and academic in nature. The whole objective is to evaluate the skills of the candidate to do the job which is more practical in nature. So, what if they are not a cultural fit in their approach to life or that they can't be bothered to do silly hackerank tests. Pointless tests tell very little about candidates anyway. Not to mention they may be incorrectly worded or just expect a subjective way of doing something. Not everyone can fit neatly in a square box. The only real way to conduct interviews is to have a friendly, approachable discussion about the job and the skills required to do it, with as minimum stages as possible rather than dragging the process on an endless cycle of subjective evaluations, at the expense of using costly and implausible third-party systems.
