Psychometric Testing

[youngboy]

I've had experience in the past of interviewing for positions just using the original system of basic Maths and English followed by an interview.

I don't know how long the rail industry has used the procedure it uses now but do you more experienced rail workers think this has improved the quality of employees or had a negative effect ??. Basically what I'm saying is does the old fashioned way of gut feeling interview deliver a worse employee than all the cost of psychometric testing ??

 

[reapz]

I've had experience in the past of interviewing for positions just using the original system of basic Maths and English followed by an interview.

I don't know how long the rail industry has used the procedure it uses now but do you more experienced rail workers think this has improved the quality of employees or had a negative effect ??. Basically what I'm saying is does the old fashioned way of gut feeling interview deliver a worse employee than all the cost of psychometric testing ??

railway has been using the same tests for 20 years with little variation to them lol

 

[RJ]

I've had experience in the past of interviewing for positions just using the original system of basic Maths and English followed by an interview.

I don't know how long the rail industry has used the procedure it uses now but do you more experienced rail workers think this has improved the quality of employees or had a negative effect ??. Basically what I'm saying is does the old fashioned way of gut feeling interview deliver a worse employee than all the cost of psychometric testing ??

I don't know what kind of roles you are thinking of but I think it's the way forward for customer facing roles. Suitability for certain roles is dependent on aptitude as well as personality.

 

[TOCDriver]

I've had experience in the past of interviewing for positions just using the original system of basic Maths and English followed by an interview.

I don't know how long the rail industry has used the procedure it uses now but do you more experienced rail workers think this has improved the quality of employees or had a negative effect ??. Basically what I'm saying is does the old fashioned way of gut feeling interview deliver a worse employee than all the cost of psychometric testing ??

they both have merit to them as far as I'm concerned. You either have it in you or you don't. No amount of practice can make you pass the psychos if you haven't got the natural ability in terms of concentration, coolness when under pressure, perception and logical thinking.

 

[Beveridges]

Thats interesting to read, so if thats true then maybe all the practice I did for the psychos was a waste of time, because I probably would have just passed them anyway.

 

[Silv1983]

railway has been using the same tests for 20 years with little variation to them lol

It can't be that far back surely? I've had a few "old hands" confess to me that they wouldn't pass the current system.. and looking around the mess room on a busy day I believe them!

.... LOLZ
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thats interesting to read, so if thats true then maybe all the practice I did for the psychos was a waste of time, because I probably would have just passed them anyway.

We'll never know so let's not re-ignite that debate.

 

[youngboy]

I asked the question because it's the first time I've ever been in this sort of process as an applicant and not an interviewer.

I remember the HR dept at the company I worked for changing the system because they said it would weed out all the people that couldn't do the job to an acceptable standard, this was pre 2000 and they started calling all the newbies our operator 2000's because they expected better.

True we got many people employed with degrees, some ex teachers, the salary was over £30000 in the late 90's so was decent money. The downside was from the point of view of a shift manager, the pre 2000 employees were grafters who clocked in,worked hard and clocked out. The post 2000 employees, didn't like getting their hands dirty, they wanted the salary they didn't want the shi.t that went with it, but would certainly rather spend hours attending teamwork meetings etc etc than actually working the shifts and doing the job.
Unfortunately the company got brainwashed by experts and would willingly give 'shifts off' in order for some people to attend meetings to improve things, but that left the rest of the lads to cover them shifts and do the 'dirty work' which quickly caused animosity and argument's.

Obviously this is only the experience I have of changing things to accommodate psycho testing but it certainly didn't work for that company, they folded within five years, 250 redundant.

 

[FlamTap]

It can't be that far back surely? I've had a few "old hands" confess to me that they wouldn't pass the current system.. and looking around the mess room on a busy day I believe them!

I did them back in '94, so they've certainly been around for the past 19 years!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

they both have merit to them as far as I'm concerned. You either have it in you or you don't. No amount of practice can make you pass the psychos if you haven't got the natural ability in terms of concentration, coolness when under pressure, perception and logical thinking.

That may be true when you're out in the real world. However, the tests themselves (apart from the CBI) are certainly practicable and achievable through practice. Any single repetitive task (like the GBT) can be learnt. Even monkey's can learn to master simple, repetitive tasks for reward. And, no, I'm not suggesting a monkey could master the GBT or drive a train - but you get the idea.

Users of forums such as RailUK know that the reward for mastering the GBT (and a few other basic tests) is you might get to drive a train. Perhaps that is why they're all practicing like the proverbial monkey!

 

[Cab2Cab]

I asked the question because it's the first time I've ever been in this sort of process as an applicant and not an interviewer.

I remember the HR dept at the company I worked for changing the system because they said it would weed out all the people that couldn't do the job to an acceptable standard, this was pre 2000 and they started calling all the newbies our operator 2000's because they expected better.

True we got many people employed with degrees, some ex teachers, the salary was over £30000 in the late 90's so was decent money. The downside was from the point of view of a shift manager, the pre 2000 employees were grafters who clocked in,worked hard and clocked out. The post 2000 employees, didn't like getting their hands dirty, they wanted the salary they didn't want the shi.t that went with it, but would certainly rather spend hours attending teamwork meetings etc etc than actually working the shifts and doing the job.
Unfortunately the company got brainwashed by experts and would willingly give 'shifts off' in order for some people to attend meetings to improve things, but that left the rest of the lads to cover them shifts and do the 'dirty work' which quickly caused animosity and argument's.

Obviously this is only the experience I have of changing things to accommodate psycho testing but it certainly didn't work for that company, they folded within five years, 250 redundant.

I second this comment totally.

From my experience i have witnessed this, i was one of the last trained apprentices for a nationalized company and then privatization kicked in, many years down the line the company had a massive recruitment drive and 90% that became employed were not interested in the job but came just for the money and always looking for excuses to get out of work, they were labelled BIF's (bone idle f*****s) or gained the nickname toenails.

The frustration that HR dept's/managers go through just to get the right people in the job. At least recruiting within you know roughly what your going to get but that just leaves a massive hole for the next manager down the line to get the right staff in the job they are applying for.

Messy!!

 

[youngboy]

I second this comment totally.

From my experience i have witnessed this, i was one of the last trained apprentices for a nationalized company and then privatization kicked in, many years down the line the company had a massive recruitment drive and 90% that became employed were not interested in the job but came just for the money and always looking for excuses to get out of work, they were labelled BIF's (bone idle f*****s) or gained the nickname toenails.

The frustration that HR dept's/managers go through just to get the right people in the job. At least recruiting within you know roughly what your going to get but that just leaves a massive hole for the next manager down the line to get the right staff in the job they are applying for.

Messy!!

BIF's, exactly the term we used also I know for years the rule of thumb in a lot of companies came down to nepotism, there's a lot to be said for nepotism.
I worked with a family of lads who all got the job through already having the grandad there, I also got my job through an uncle,the pressure of working there and not letting family members down kept that company running well for over 70 years...!!!