|
potofgold
|
 |
« on: March 15, 2005, 11:33:20 am » |
|
I don't understand why work-related tests are not effective nor cost efficient? To give a secretary a spelling test, typing test, and dictation is the best proof that they can actually do the bare requirements of the job.
Part of the test I had for my current post was copy-typing a cabinet report - which in itself is not something I would do, but their would be occasions where it might be necessary and the speed/accuracy of completion would be imperative to my ability to do the job. Other tests included a diary-management exercise and also an in-tray exercise.
With the huge quantity of suitable applicants for most the senior posts here it is the most cost-effective way of reducing the log-list to a manageable number. In effect, the only candidates to be tested would be those on the longlist, which would thus be reduced to a shortlist after the tests (assuming all candidates tested had met the requirements for the job, then on average the top 5 would be interviewed).
It does not cost a great deal to ask an HR officer to give up a morning to run tests for 20 people. It would not be practical to interview all candidates by a senior officer, then test them all - by testing first the senior officer would then see less candidates.
----------------------------------
If you're using dc please visit - potofgold.awenet.org:420
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
