PSST #6 - Testing Challenges. Part 3: Testing Takes Time
In our last PSST offering, we introduced the idea that, while testing offers tremendous benefits, there are some criticisms of which we should be aware. We continue that line of thought here with another of the most common hurdles we face.
Testing takes time
The process of studying jobs and developing effective tests to assess critical knowledge, skills, and abilities takes time and, inevitably, “time is money”. This is one of the biggest areas of complaint from the managers and supervisors who are among our customers. We must realize the pressure placed on managers who are trying to function with vacancies. Such pressure can make them unwilling to commit to that which is needed to develop an effective process. Instead, they may be inclined to push for faster, but less valid approaches, such as simply rating applications.
We have all heard the catch phrase “Better, faster, cheaper”. However, seldom is it the case that something truly achieves all three characteristics simultaneously. More often than not, the adage “You get what you pay for.” is more accurate. We can probably agree that, in some instances, investing less and getting less is acceptable. For instance, I work with some charitable organizations that often host events for which seasonally appropriate table decorations are needed. We have found that a dollar store is perfect for this. We minimize expenses, the products need only last for a few hours, and there is little scrutiny. Excessive spending in this situation would be a waste and detract from the objective of funding the charitable work. Employment processes, however, are the opposite: highly scrutinized and with long lasting impact. This is not the place to bargain hunt.
That said, we must recognize the concerns of our customers. We must find ways to earn their trust and get them to commit to what we can do for them. A good way to achieve this is to focus on our customers’ needs. Recognizing the value of the work performed can turn the conversation from how long it will take back to how important it is to identify candidates who possess the qualifications required for successful performance. When I conduct job analysis meetings with supervisors, I typically find that they are more than eager to explain what they are looking for and need in new hires. A reminder of this “wish list” and engaging them in how to obtain it makes the dynamic of the interaction more cooperative and less adversarial.
Next, it almost goes without saying that our customers must be provided with time estimates and we must commit to meeting them. Engaging managers in understanding why each step is essential and how long it will take increases our credibility and, again, makes the process more of a collaboration.
One of Darany Associates’ dear friends and contributors, Steve Sonnich, provided a fantastic metaphor when we all worked together for county government. He was working with a department that was resistant to testing and just wanted to review applications and interview. He eventually convinced them to use a very basic testing process and they were happy with the results. In fact, they were so happy that they started asking about what else was possible! It was in response to this news that Steve said, “I thought of it like trying to sell them a car when they had only been riding a bike. I had to start them with a simple vehicle that felt useable to get them to give it a try. My job now is to show them what a Cadillac can do.” It won’t happen overnight, but as we get our customers to see the value of good selection, they will be more focused on the outcome than the time required to get there.
As we build trust and partnership with our clients, we can expand to program-level economies such as broader competency-based testing and staffing planning that improve the ability to have lists of qualified candidates more readily available.
In the end, we must always return to the concept of value. We must return to the reasons why we test and consider the alternatives. Our founder, Ted Darany, liked to use the example of a lottery to differentiate efficiency and effectiveness in reinforcing the mission of selection. Simply using a lottery would be very fast and fair, but is that how we should create the public workforce? How important is it that police officers, firefighters, social workers, or supervisors be able to competently perform their jobs? What are the consequences if they don’t? Remember why it is that we test and be an advocate.