From: stephen@sprunk.org   
      
   On 15-Sep-15 10:32, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:   
   > On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 7:28:12 PM UTC-4, Bolwerk wrote:   
   >> Maybe secondarily it has just gotten easier to detect such traits   
   >> in resumes with HRIS (HR information system) search tools, and HR   
   >> is the natural choice in a large organization for using such tools.   
   >> A likely source of problems is HR people using such systems to find   
   >> the wrong criteria in candidate profiles.   
   >   
   > The media has reported that employers these days require a battery of   
   > tests from applicants; tests that take up a great deal of time that   
   > applicants might not have.   
   >   
   > I can't help but wonder if some of this is coming from a "CYA"   
   > mindset, where employers are seeking legal cover in case they have to   
   > fire someone, or answer to failing to meet hiring quotas.   
      
   I'm sure at least some of the tests are legit and/or had a reasonable   
   origin.  But it's a lot easier to defend a discrimination suit if you   
   can point to some "objective" test that they failed, so it's to be   
   expected that such tests would proliferate.   
      
   > As an aside, SEPTA had a long legal battle over how it hired its   
   > police officers.  It had a demanding physical test that many (but not   
   > all) women failed, and women claimed it was discriminatory.  (It   
   > seemed to me a cop in an urban subway, with numerous steps and   
   > tunnels, would need superior physical capability).  I don't know how   
   > the case resolved, if it even resolved, it kept being appealed.  The   
   > point is that someone could come up with a supposedly objective   
   > measuring tool, and someone else will litigate it if they don't like   
   > the outcome.   
      
   I don't see many cases challenging the outcome of an objective test;   
   what I see is them challenging whether it measures something that is   
   relevant to job performance.  Police departments in particular are   
   notorious for having grueling physical tests for hiring that many or   
   even most of their currently-serving officers could not pass, which   
   raises the obvious question of how relevant the result is.   
      
   > The issue of "fitting in" to a particular workplace culture is very   
   > important, but I don't think H/R is qualified to judge that (again,   
   > unless the company is very regimented).  Any large organization has   
   > different cultures in different departments, indeed, even within a   
   > single large department there may be different cultures in sub-units.   
      
   Indeed; in some job types, it can even vary from team to team, which is   
   why it is so important that applicants be interviewed by their future   
   manager and teammates.  Sometimes, you end up taking someone who has the   
   skills but doesn't "fit" very well in hopes that they'll be moved to a   
   different team in the next reorg--and that you'll get someone who is a   
   better "fit" in return.   
      
   S   
      
   --   
   Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein   
   CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the   
   K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)