A reader writes:
I recently was interviewed for a sales managment position. The company uses Caliper, a personality assessment tool to make hiring decisions. It’s the first time I have ever had to take a test in over 15 years of sales managment. I was amazed how strongly this company felt about the tool as opposed to face-to-face interviews, references, and experience. While I met with three people, the interviews were NOT assessing whether my experience and the job was a good fit. I filled the gaps by offering up my experience and probing for information to determine exactly what the position entailed. I found the process a bit offensive. How can a test really provide anyone with what could be gained in a well-conducted interview?
As it happens, last month I spent an hour talking with Patrick Sweeney, Caliper’s executive vice president of marketing. He makes a pretty compelling case for the importance of testing when it comes to assessing the ability of a sales professional to fit into any given sales organization. The reasons that companies don’t always trust interviewing if I understand correctly, are:
- Most people can’t interview worth beans. How many times have you been asked a bonehead question like “what’s the last book you read?” or “what’s your greatest weakness?” Since the “correct” answers to those typical interview questions are available all over the web, it would probably make sense just to print them out and hand them to the interviewer at the beginning of the interview.
- Sales success doesn’t always transfer. It’s a myth that really great sales reps can sell for virtually anybody. Somebody who’s been a “hunter” for a high tech firm is highly unlikely to be a good “farmer” for a social services provider. Even in similar sales environments, sometimes one’s success is more dependent upon management coaching and the lead generation process, rather than on a rep’s sales skills.
- First impressions are highly unreliable. Great sales professionals usually present themselves well and make a great first impression. Unfortunately, so do a lot of other people, including con-men, shirkers, and other assorted deadbeats. Job interviews are inherently artificial situations. While an interview can help assess whether you can sell yourself, it doesn’t really tell an employer much more than that.
- Most of the information is already available. With the advent of the Internet, there’s usually a wealth of information already available about a company, its business model, its culture, and so forth. Because of this, the traditional “let’s talk about where I fit in” discussion is more or less a waste of time. You should already know most of what you need to know about them, and they’ve already checked your LinkedIn profile.
- The job may require a non-interview sales style. Sales professionals typically think of a job interview as a “sales audition,” with the (logical) assumption that if they demonstrate how well they sell themselves, they’ll show they’re talented at sales. But the company’s business model may require a completely different kind of selling (like long-term account development), in which case the “audition” is wasted effort.
Sweeney claims that his testing methodology is based upon some pretty heavy-duty science. While I’m naturally skeptical of psychological research, I have no particular reason to disbelieve him. So I’m afraid that I think your irritation may be misplaced. In all probability, the company in question has discovered that testing is a better way to recruit successful sales employees than the standard interview process.
Of course, I could be wrong about the effectiveness of testing, so I’m curious what you guys think. Have any of you had experience with this kind of thing? Did you get a job (or not get one) because of a profiling test? And do you think this kind of testing is a good idea?
