[moksly]

Unless a HR department is doing something wrong, the test results aren’t the point of the tests. It’s the conversation following, where possible employees are confronted with their answers and results that’s the point.

It’s just easier to get there when you use a disguised relationship tests from 1980ies magazines. Not only does it touch on relevant areas, most people that you’d use the HR resources on secretly love taking those things and then talking about themselves.

As with most things, it can obviously go wrong or get used in the wrong situations. HR is a department that’s there to help managers, but they really shouldn’t waste their resources testing people for a position as a software developer. If your company is doing that, something went wrong. Maybe HR found a way to keep themselves busy, or you’re not bolstering a management culture or people who can make hiring related decisions without consulting HR.

[feanaro]

Why wouldn't HR be testing software engineering candidates?

[moksly]

Because you don’t really need the full personality profile show when you are interviewing people who aren’t going to be managers.

It’s not an insignificant amount of resources you put into the process. Not only do you take up HR resources, the team that is helping you recruit is also going to need to spend time going over the results with HR and the candidate.

In my optics that is an unnecessary waste of resources. Not only doesn’t the process really show you anything team-related, you should frankly be capable of judging people from the conversations you have with them just as well.

The in-depth personality stuff only gets relevant when the people you hire have to manage other people.

[feanaro]

It depends on what you mean by a "full personality profile". I think a skillfully chosen selection of tests, which may sometimes include personality tests, can aid in the selection of the proper candidate.

I agree that the battery of tests used should not be the same in every case. It should be tailored to the situation and to the position you are hiring for.

> Not only do you take up HR resources, the team that is helping you recruit is also going to need to spend time going over the results with HR and the candidate.

I have second-hand experience that this can be made very streamlined and does not take much time at all. Especially when you have a large number of prospective candidates and will not be able to see them all in person, a pre-filtering done by a skilled HR person is better than a random draw.

[xwolfi]

Well because it's hard for them to come up with question and judge responses.

But I guess this means HR shouldnt skill-test anyone. We d all agree they shouldn't test a racecar driver, a CEO, a mathematician.

But the guy saying that probably doesnt work: HR never test anyone. They handle the process. He may be confusing it with wrong job posting that people attribute to HR (like N years xp in N-5 years old tech) which are usually the product of idiotic managers, not HR who doesnt give a fig what your team needs as long as you express it to them.

[moksly]

> HR never test anyone. They handle the proces.

Maybe we have different ways of defining things, or maybe my English isn’t good enough to convey the meaning.

But isn’t HR handling the process of personality testing, HR testing people? When we utilise personality testing, a HR consultant actually tests the candidates. It’s their test, they spend millions developing it and you have to be certified to perform it.

[feanaro]

Yes, that's what I observe in my locale as well. HR people are usually trained psychologists. Administering and interpreting psychological tests properly is one of the major topics of the profession.