A Misplaced Faith

A blog post on Huffington Post caught our eye last week (Employment Testing for the Priesthood Can Prevent Child Abuse). The title concisely states the thesis, but aside from a few sensible sounding comments about pre-employment testing from a headhunter, the rest of the article unfortunately does not offer any logical support for the over-reaching title. It also perpetuates some misconceptions about pre-employment testing, which is what I want to address here.

It should come as no surprise to regular readers of this blog that we’re big believers in the utility of pre-employment testing, but it’s also important to recognize the limits on the power of such tests. They are not a panacea that can solve all the HR-related problems of any organization, even when used properly.

This blogger’s argument unfortunately rests on an inaccurate idea of how pre-employment testing works. To begin with, let’s set aside the fact that joining the priesthood is a lengthy process of study and commitment, making comparisons with other “you’re hired, you start tomorrow” work settings inappropriate. And let’s also set aside the obvious fact that the church’s current difficulties would seem, from an organizational perspective, to be much more about review and internal management than about hiring per se.

All that said, if any organization could in fact push the envelope on pre-employment testing, the Church would be one of the few. After all, questions about religious faith, sexual orientation, marital status–which would be illegal to ask at, say, the post office–are perfectly relevant to ask prospective priests.  We would imagine that the latitude to pursue mental health testing for prospective priests would be wide (much like for police officers), in contrast to more traditional work settings where such inquiries are usually not legally permitted. We sometimes have people call us up and say that they just had to fire a crazy person, and ask us if we have tests that can help screen out such employees in the future. Tests for psychopathology, however, are generally not permitted in the US in the context of pre-employment screening, because of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which makes it illegal to administer anything that can be construed as a medical exam as a condition for offering employment in most settings.

But even if the church had the latitude to pursue intense clinical testing, what exactly would these tests be looking for? The author of the blog post doesn’t offer any help on this question. And even if there were a test that would indicate predilections for certain kinds of deviant behavior, the fact is that no employee assessment tool is a perfect predictor, guaranteed to screen out everyone who is a “bad apple”. In fact, employee assessment tools are about increasing your hiring accuracy rate, or decreasing your likelihood of hiring a “bad apple” of whatever kind, not about ensuring it will never happen.

In a future blog we’ll discuss in greater detail how pre-employment tests offer information and utility, but not certainty. Many prospective clients we speak with who are just beginning to investigate pre-employment testing expect that tests should somehow provide a perfect rank-ordering of how a group of new hires will perform on the job. (Sadly, the marketing departments at some of our competitors do not try very hard to clear up this misperception.) Such a faith in the power of testing is unrealistic. In fact, the pursuit of perfection in testing can be highly counter-productive: if the threshold for selection is set so high that it absolutely minimizes (but never eliminates) the chance of failure, it will also screen out many employees who would have been excellent performers. These cases are called false negatives, and they represent a costly yet unobserved error in lost opportunity.

It is the horrible nature of the documented and alleged cases of abuse that makes us all want to consider ways to ensure it never happens again. Our point is that faith in some unspecified pre-employment tests over and above what the Church is already doing at the selection level is probably misplaced. Such tests don’t exist, would never be failsafe, and would likely exclude large numbers of potentially valuable employees.

Tagged
Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to A Misplaced Faith

  1. ROUHEL FEINSTEIN says:

    I AM IN FULL AGREEMENT. YOUR POINTS ARE WELL NOTED ..GOOD JOB YOU FELLAHS ARE DOING

  2. Josh Millet says:

    Thanks Rouhel, appreciate your support!

  3. bad apple says:

    I recently applied to an ambulance company in New York City as an EMT-B. As a part of that process, I was required to take a pre-employment screening test that consisted of self-reporting feelings. The test puzzled me, but I was certain it would present no bar to my employment.
    Several of my EMT classmates are now employees of the company. As measured by the NY State exam, I tested far better than they did. In fact, I had the highest score overall in my class on the New York State written EMT exam, with a 97%. I was one of only three people in the class who passed their practical test on the first attempt.
    I am currently a student at a local college, where I am on the Dean’s list, with a 4.0 GPA. I am a member of the honor society. My IQ has been assessed at 144, and evaluated repeatedly at “near genius level.” My SAT test scores are in the 99th percentile overall.
    The preceding is why I was stunned to receive this e-mail from the HR department:

    Thank you for your interest in employment with (the company name). Your score on the pre-assessment was lower than what we’re looking for, which is the reason why your application was put on hold. Please let us know if you have any other questions.

    I recognize that I have been permanently barred from employment with the company, despite the sophistry about being “put on hold.” I have to say, this terrifies me. No matter how hard I work, I cannot overcome a defective personality – especially since no one at the company even bothered to speak to me. That is why I would appreciate honest answers for the following questions.
    If the pre-assessment is a personality test, how exactly does one score low on it? What is a failing grade? How does one improve their score?
    May I see the results of my pre-assessment? If not, why not?
    Who read the results? Did a clinical psychologist or other expert review them, or are they the result of a computer algorithm?
    Is this a medical test? What does it diagnose?
    To whom are the results available? Does the company have any obligation to protect my privacy? It didn’t slip past me that the confidentiality question only applied to the contents of the test itself, and not to the results.
    Who would you rather have show up if someone you loved were in an accident, the person who scored perfectly on the trauma section of the state exam, or the one who consistently forgot basic precepts of pre-hospital care, but scores well on personality tests?
    I’ll find a job at the first company that takes the time to meet me, and to talk to me, and I’ll work hard for them. But for the rest of my life I’ll work to make the absurd, counterproductive, and phony testing that you purvey a thing of the past.

  4. DAVID DELANEY says:

    WHY WOULD YOU CONCLUDE THAT THE TEST YOU WERE ASKED TO TAKE WAS A CRITERIA TEST .. I HAVE USED THERE TESTS AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO AND I AM PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT YOUR PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYER DID NOT ADVISE YOU THAT YOU THAT THE REASON YOU WERE NOT HIRED WAS BECAUSE A CRITERIA TEST DETERMINED YOU WERE NOT SUITABLE .. LOOK IN THE MIRROR YOUNG MAN

  5. jj says:

    “I have used THEIR tests”… as opposed to “THERE tests” would be correct

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>