Have you ever wondered whether those odd questions and tests you are sometimes asked at interview are actually legal and pertinent. The answers may interest you and are important for any interviwer to know. The taciturn Richard Morris once more puts his foot in the door.
Whatever Happened to the Job Interview
A high-flying IT developer who had a 'stellar reputation' in his field is claiming $250,000 in compensation over claims that he was 'seriously molested' and discriminated against during an interview for a job posted by a German owned software company based in California.
Nick Howe, a British born developer who has worked in senior posts for a number of IT firms in the last two decades, has told his lawyers to serve court papers on the company. These will say he was put through 'an auditioning nightmare' by the human resources team at the globally respected firm when they discovered he was English.
“ They hatched a
plot against me! ”
'They hatched a plot against me,' Howe asserts. 'I was given several tests which included quoting a speech in a variety of foreign accents, growling like a dog and eating from a basket of apples. Eventually I was physically thrown out of the company's building for not 'being tough enough' to stand up to the mental and physical rigours of the post.
'I immediately complained to the human resources director but he said it wasn't anything personal. Everyone had to go through the same tests.
' I approached a senior guy there I know and asked him about the firm's interview techniques. In response he told me that the company was undergoing a restructuring exercise and it was nothing personal but they wanted as few non-Germans at the firm as possible.
'I was very obviously qualified for the job I applied for but was dismissed out-of-hand because senior management wanted senior roles to go to those who either spoke German or had some sort of relationship with the country,' claims Howe.
The company denies the claims saying Mr Howe had been given a 'completely fair hearing and interview'.
'We totally reject Mr Howe's allegations of discrimination. There were aptitude and personality tests but they were conducted fairly. We are an equal opportunities employer and we will defend ourselves vigorously from Mr Howe's claims.
'We do have German roots but we deny that being German or having German language skills has in any way influenced staffing decisions. English is our working language. '
Whatever happens in this particular case, Angela Carr, author of a handful of resource manuals and a human resources consultant said Mr Howe's interviewers seem to broken the law merely by asking him to complete a psychometric test.
'Psychometric tests cannot be used for employment purposes in California and neither should interviewers ask what country the person is from. An employers' questions, whether on the application form, in the interview or during any legal test, must be related to the job that the candidate is applying for.'
It's All in the Mind
Assorted studies have shown that most people are cynical about the business of personality tests and questionnaires. Suspicion centres partly on the idea of personality being 'measured'; and some of the questions that are asked. In some people's minds they are about as accurate as a daily horoscope.
According to Dr Peter Lamont a Research Fellow in Psychology at the University of Edinburgh, logic dictates that quirks and affectations cannot correspond to lines on a graph., Tthere's no way of telling a person's warmth or humanity for example and though this may not be a critical asset to a person applying for a certain jobs, it helps if one can get on with one's colleagues.
But also there are serious doubts about the motivations behind using a psychological test. Why should employers need to know the masculinity rating of their staff if not for reasons of Orwellian snooping? There are some very odd psychometric tests around and candidates have little way of knowing if they are being tested with a reliable one and if in the UK, one set by a member of the British Psychological Society's Testing Centre (BTC).
'I've heard of some horrendous personality tests, ' says Paul Leach, who holds a certificate of competence from the BTC.
'One test I came across asked candidates to imagine what fruit they best represented. Needless to say anyone who said 'banana' was out the door and never invited back.
'The best way to check if the test has passed the BTC standard is to look for a 'quality mark' and if there is no such mark then get up and walk out of the test,' advises Leach
It is worth noting that employment tribunals take a dim view of apparent discrimination by based on exams that have been set by an unqualified person.
Once potential employees have sat a reliable test, however, it is often commonly acknowledged that it can produce a reasonable degree of accurate information about the person's character and, by extension, how they are likely to behave at work.
This sort of test only becomes a universal problem when an employer flouts the law by showing the results to unauthorised people, or if the test itself contained lewd or unreasonable questions relating to height, weight, sexual orientation or whether you favour one political party over another. This is now illegal in all member States of the EU since October 1998.
Angela Carr remembers the time she was working as a personnel consultant for a US-based IT hardware manufacturer and was called to the VP of Worldwide Training's office to answer questions he had about IQ tests.
'He told me he'd had a brainwave and said that from that point on he was to post all the results from an applicant's IQ tests on the company website. He believed it was a good way of only attracting the best candidates to the firm.
'I told him it was laughable, perverse and illegal. He was behaving like a bully and petty tyrant and he could very possibly face litigation. In the end, I managed to convince him that it wasn't a good idea. He was even going to use a photograph of the candidate next to their test results. And this was a guy who was assistant head of worldwide training!'
Carr maintains that psychometric tests should be used sparingly and questions should be job-related and not used to find out personal information such as whether your relationship in on the rocks, your race, religion, colour, national origin, birthplace, age or if you have a disability
.
“ That's serious powder-keg stuff ”
'There are similar reservations raised against using SAT examinations, in that they tend to favour one socio-economic group over others. I think it's reasonable to ask the company who sells the tests whether they have been defended in a court in the State in which the test is to be used.
If not there's a real risk of being taken to court if a person fails a job interview and believes that they've been discriminated against. That's serious powder-keg stuff. It could harm a company's reputation and put them out of business.'
As you can guess from Carr's stand, if you're interviewing an applicant and get the questions wrong it can mean an expensive trip to the courtroom and public humiliation.
The other area in which employers must tread carefully is interviewing people with a disability. For example, the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) makes it an offence to give a mentally ill candidate a personality test because, quite properly, the law sees mental illness (which includes depression) as a disability.
David Wilson, a human resources advisor to industry believes the ADA should be reviewed, and that properly selected tests have their place in selecting the right people for a vacant position.
'I do not subscribe to the view that all personality tests are dangerous or unlawful. The ADA is a great piece of legislation and if a person with a mental illness can do the job they've applied for then the ADA protects them. That's great.
'My point is that in IT, for example, there are sensitive jobs which have a lot of stress attached to them and if a person with a mental illness is subjected to high anxiety levels it could be dangerous for their employer, their colleagues and most importantly themselves. I think in some areas the ADA is actually a bad piece of legislation for vulnerable people.
'Given the notoriously poor reliability of interviews in predicting future job performance, all the evidence I've seen indicates that better tests, not necessarily psychometric ones, are relevant to the workplace.'
Where Wilson and Carr do agree is that the most important attribute any candidate can possess is intelligence - that innate quality which is not dependent on education - and which is regarded by some employers as an indicator of potential to succeed, whilst others dismiss it as meaningless.
But few jobs exist where just being very clever is enough. The dream employee is one who combines a high level of conventional intelligence with other attributes such as motivation, emotional intelligence and communication skills.
For some roles being too intelligent can be a disadvantage. Employers who are selecting with an eye to promoting effective teamwork look for a mixture of complementary skills.
It's generally acknowledged, for example, that the chair of group should not be the cleverest person, as such an individual would be likely to dominate proceedings. There's also an argument that the higher up you are in an organisation the less IQ matters.
Those in senior management positions need to be able to deal with change, solve problems and generally make difficult decisions. Intelligence could get in the way but sometimes just a little would help a great deal as the following case reveals.
How To Upset Your Colleagues
By early afternoon three years ago Jim Mosley (not his real name) a senior IT manager for one of Britain's multinationals was rather the worse for wear.
A boozy Christmas lunch, held at a City of London wine bar, wore on into an alcohol-fuelled afternoon, and the session had taken its toll.
According to witnesses, Mosley made his way back to work, staggered into the lift and triggered a series of events that led to a lengthy tribunal case in which he and his employer were accused of sexual harassment and victimisation.
When the 35-year-old reached his office he found someone waiting for him. This was Elizabeth Whiting, a young attractive single mother who was there to attend her final interview with Mosley for a post as database assistant.
A few minutes into the interview Mosley began taking photographs of Whiting and then, according to her testimony he began quizzing her about her private life. He then fell to the floor. The fall, drink and his modest familiarity with her prompted him to make observations about Whiting's chest and her sex life.
He told her she had 'a great cleavage' and offered her the job. Whiting then claimed Mosley asked her how she was going to juggle her new job and look after her 3-year-old son. Did she have a boyfriend? If she became pregnant again would she continue to work? Not surprisingly Whiting made a complaint to her new employer.
After months of legal wrangling, the affair was brought to a close when Elizabeth was paid a large sum by her employer (having stayed with the company) in an out-of-court settlement. Mosley was fired.
If the case had been in America, under the Civil Rights Act 1991, Whiting may have been awarded upwards of $300,000 for emotional pain and suffering, punitive damages, plus her legal fees and expenses of having to hire expert witnessess had she a need to call any.
The case paints a shameful picture of City culture. But it is happening elsewhere, too. Last year more than 2,000 out of 11,000 claims of sexual harassment and discrimination logged came from job-hunters. Courts in America recorded more than 100,000 similar complaints.
Laws banning sexual harrasment in the workplace (which include the taking of photographs at interviews of either sex) were introduced in 1975 in the UK and as long as forty three years ago in the US (Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act 1964) but many companies still fail to address the issues properly and are then taken to court.
Experts say that with the correct policies and procedures in place, companies should find it easy to defend themselves against crippling claims, many of which as we hav seen are made during interviews with many candidates citing discrimination of one type or another.
Legally, if a company can prove it has the recommended systems in place and did everything to prevent harassment or sexual discrimination, it will not be held liable. But few managers know this Alison Carr again: 'The first step is to have an equal-opportunities policy that clearly states the company's commitment not to tolerate discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion and age. An anti-harasssment policy should be attached to this.
Information on drawing up these documents is available from lawyers and some trade organisations. 'But having a policy is not enough,' Alison Carr says. 'Managers have to make sure that their employees understand the policy. It should be discussed in a meeting. Then twice a year a training day should be held so that staff understand exactly what bullying and harassment is, and that it won't be tolerated, especially during job interviews.'
Managers must also have a grievance procedure so that staff and job applicants know how to make a complaint. For example, it should identify the person to talk to and set a time limit on the company's response.
Experts say written, open and well-understood procedures for hiring, firing, promotion and pay are crucial to avoid or defend tribunal claims.
'When hiring or promoting, managers ought to have a clear job specification and a checklist of the required qualities,' adds Carr. 'Point-scoring interviews should be conducted and the best performer awarded the job. If everything is written down and clear, managers can easily defend their decisions.' Such rules may seem tedious, but as recent cases are proving, failing to get to grips with them can be costly.
More reading