Part Five
Dr. Dave Barnett
Editorís Note: In issue 99:04:02, Dr. Dave Barnett introduced the concept of sales tests and the common objections recruiters have to them. In this final issue, Dr. Dave discusses the number one objection to sales tests.
Objection #1: "Iím worried about the liability of giving selection tests."
Itís a sign of the times. J.C. Penny did not worry about government guidelines for hiring and firing. But the litigious nature of society has become the most common objection today, more of a concern for potential test-users than cost or need. As oppressed as many business owners and managers feel with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requirements, U.S. law is relatively lenient compared to legal requirements in countries such as Australia and New Zealand. Friends down under tell me it usually takes a full year or more for companies to document a dismissal for any reason.
There are no government-approved selection tests. The EEOC does not endorse any test. The law requires selection tests must do two simple things:
Tests are by definition discriminatory; that is, they classify individuals according to some variable. As long as you can document that the variable youíre assessing is critical to job performance, you have nothing to fear from government regulators.
Use a test that measures contact initiation behaviors. Unlike personality variables, these are not subjective concepts from which conclusions can only be inferred. Behaviors are objective, measurable. Can a salesperson succeed in a sales career without making contacts? Hardly. We work with clients to be sure they document contact initiation, a key competency required for being in sales.
Tom used a personality profile to recruit salespeople for a small manufacturing company. When I asked to see the job description for the position, I saw in an instant that Tomís company was legally vulnerable.
"What does that personality test measure?" I asked Tom.
"Drive, determination, extroversion, openness, the usual," he replied.
"Where is that stuff in your job description?"
It wasnít there. The job description was a list of behaviors, what Tom expected salespeople to do, not what they should be. Sure, the salesperson who sold Tom the test said drive, determination, and extroversion were important for salespeople and Tom agreed. But without specifically stating that these attributes were required, any applicant turned down on the basis of the profile could sue Tomís company and likely win.
Even if Tom had included those psychological buzzwords in the job description, the company would still be exposed. All that would be required is for someone to dig up one salesperson who tested high in drive, determination, or extroversion but didnít make the grade. Voila! Quick as a flash your attorney is whispering in your ear, "Weíd better settle."
I remember talking to one manager who had grown cynical about using selection assessments. "If these tests are so #@&%$ good at predicting behavior, why canít they spot the people who are most likely to sue me for giving them a test?"
At first I dismissed the objection as just one more manager having a bad day, but the more I thought about it, the more sense this began to make. And thatís when I came up with something I called Validity Check.
The Validity Check scale actually has nothing to do with statistical validity. It is designed to provoke and evaluate behaviors that indicate the test-taker is not open to getting objective feedback about results. This means if someone doesnít want the profile to be accurate, it wonít be. I canít tell you how we measure Validity Check or the other built-in self-validating factors. Itís a closely guarded secret. But I can tell you it helps reduce the risk of someone becoming upset by test results and taking it out on you or your sales organization.
Using selection tests in general can make a lot of sense for modern sales organizations who need to be cost-conscious, risk-sensitive, and bottom-line brilliant in the pursuit of a winning sales team.
