1

I have been through all the rounds of a hiring process with a company recently, initial screen, passed, coding challenge, passed, technical questions, passed and so I am one of the finalists and I get an MCore and EQi assessment to complete.

Is anyone familiar with them?

MCore is to identify my motivational drives. They could just simply ask me and they did, but I guess its a don't believe your lying eyes type of thing and EQi is just assessing emotional intelligence which that one I am not as much bothered by as I am not a sociopath, but just bothered by the fact that these are the final factors to be having or not having a job.

I did some research on this MCore and its probably a tool they use for assessing what motivates their clients and its being used for what motivates me. Not sure what to think about that.

EIQ is an emotional intelligence assessment.

Real bummed out about this because I was loving everything about them from initial screening, coding challenge, technical interview, meeting with the team.

How I feel about this latest route is a. it was not listed as part of the interviewing process, b. User8365 and MJ6 brings my point home on the issue I have with this as a final arbiter of my candidacy: Testing job candidates

And so again I am just asking should I share how I feel about this impersonal approach as a final arbiter to my candidacy prior to taking this assessment or am I just wasting my breath, take the assessment and let the chips fall where they may?

closed as off-topic by gnat, gazzz0x2z, scaaahu, Rory Alsop, Jim G. Dec 26 '18 at 12:37

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Questions asking for advice on a specific choice, such as what job to take or what skills to learn, are difficult to answer objectively and are rarely useful for anyone else. Instead of asking which decision to make, try asking how to make the decision, or for more specific details about one element of the decision. (More information)" – gnat, gazzz0x2z, scaaahu, Rory Alsop, Jim G.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    Seconded that. It is a very red flag. I'm not sure if my choice of flag colour might disqualify me from that job anyway. – gnasher729 Dec 23 '18 at 22:38
  • Do you know that the test results will actually be used as part of the decision making process? – dwizum Jan 3 at 14:31
2

I am not familiar with the MCore test, but it is important for a manager to know what motivates you, because he needs to understand what he can use to get a better performance out of you. If you are doing this for the money, he just needs to throw you a bonus. If you are doing it for a nice work environment, he will need to improve the office, work hours, etc. From my understanding, this is not necessarily about you having any psychological problems, but rather if the manager can offer you what you want so you can stay for several years. If they cannot offer you what you want, it is just a "deficiency" from their part or a bad match between the two sides; it does not mean that there is something wrong with you.

Bringing a potentially bad fit in the company for trial could have a negative effect on other workers in extreme cases. Maybe the reason that they are using the tests is that this already happened in the past.

It seems that it is just standard procedure and nothing personal. You probably risk losing the position if you complain about it and they will not change their process because of your protest anyway, you will just make a bad impression in my opinion. They will certainly notice with time if the test results are reliable or not and keep/discard the test.

Congratulations on reaching the final stage anyway and good luck.

  • pure bollocks! a good manager worth their salt can understand how people tick just fine without these tests. No, this is data gathering and profiling possibly just because they can or for the sake of gathering said data. OP is supposed to be a programmer, for crying out loud, not an undercover agent!! – DigitalBlade969 Dec 22 '18 at 18:53
  • @DigitalBlade969 I am not familiar with the test, and do not know the questions it contains. I am not sure what interest would the employer have in providing data of their own employees to a third party. Not every manager is a perfect judge of people. A test makes sense for long-term employment or in multicultural environments. It is important to justify risky hiring decisions to a superior, for example through a test. It sounds like they had a bad experience. If it was that easy to understand "how people tick", we would not need human sciences at all. – FlatronL1917 Dec 23 '18 at 6:45
  • I actually meant, the third party website that seems to be needed to take the test is probably a data broker.I would understand if OP is to be in a higher managerial position to have a more thorow evaluation but NOT for a code grunt as I assume OP is.They're a dime a dozen, can be let go easily and are not really risky or expensive (no offense to OP).I think psych tests are overkill in this case(indeed in most). – DigitalBlade969 Dec 23 '18 at 9:21
  • @DigitalBlade969 I misunderstood, I thought you implied that the management was somehow in on the data collection deal, which I found peculiar. You just meant it is an overkill from the management's side, which I understand and I probably agree with you in that (assuming that the company is not involved with the military, etc). I also agree that the trend of sharing our data with third party companies is not ok. But if he is a dime a dozen, he risks losing the position. Maybe the OP can share his concerns and ask if he can complete another personality test within the company instead. – FlatronL1917 Dec 23 '18 at 10:16
  • This way, he would be showing that he is willing to cooperate while also pointing out the real problem. He would look better than just saying "no" and it would not look like he was blaming the management. Of course, there is no guarantee this would be accepted, because somebody would have to spend the time to work on a new test just for him, etc. – FlatronL1917 Dec 23 '18 at 10:19
2

You seem concerned about this ordeal in principle. My first suggestion is to consider: No matter how much you like the position or opportunity, based on your misgivings about the hiring process: is this truly an organization that you would be comfortable and satisfied working for.

  • I am concerned now, with this psych test, a. they don't mention a psych test on their list of interview steps, b. psych tests are someone else's interpretation of the person you are personally dealing with. You can get all you need to know via a 90 day trial, nothing far fetched about that, companies do it all the time. So again, do I let them know how I feel before I take this assessment or not say anything at all and take the thing and keep looking for work. I am also open to hearing from people who have gotten jobs based on psychological assessments. – Daniel Dec 22 '18 at 6:12
  • My suggestion was to conduct serious introspection, and decide then if this company is truly a right fit, even with a hiring practice you'd disagree with. If you decide to take the psych test, you should absolutely voice your concerns before the test. This would show integrity, vindication and leadership, in my opinion. – Konchshell Dec 22 '18 at 16:27
  • This is a good point you make and I am torn between that and what FlatronL1917 had to say regarding voicing my concern. To add another new piece of data that might affect everyone's answers. They also want to run a background check on me which is typical of when an employer has made an offer, so it seems like I almost got the job? Not sure. I was told the reason for the background check is because some of their clients require it. – Daniel Dec 22 '18 at 16:56
  • 1
    You need to separate the hiring process and the company culture from "almost having the job". What I am trying to communicate is that even if you get this job (in the short term, very exciting), you may find the company does things in ways that you don't agree with (like their hiring process) and you may not want to stay (very inconvenient in the long term). – Konchshell Dec 22 '18 at 16:58
  • A background check is not uncommon in my area (Germany). I agree with @Konchshell in that it is good to look at their processes for questionable elements. I just don't necessarily find this practice questionable, especially given that you loved everything else. You could pose a question about it if you wish, as long as you make it look like pure curiosity and not fighting the process. If you suspect foul play, you can just reject a position offer. Your test answers have no value, because they cannot be verified; you could just lie. It is more about justifying their decisions, I assume. – FlatronL1917 Dec 23 '18 at 7:00
1

Is it wise for a candidate to give an employer feedback on their hiring practices? In general, no. Telling an employer that you do not like their hiring practices communicates that, even before you are hired, you are prepared to tell them how to run their business. This will almost ensure that you will not be hired.

Before answering your question, I went to Psychology Today and took their motivational test and their EIQ test, and both did a very poor job of assessing me. I work in public service (never high paying) and the motivation test pegged me as being highly motivated by pay. The EIQ test (which presented photos and asked you to assign emotions) found me severely lacking because I kept choosing the response that I did not have enough information to assess their emotions. In the public service sector, we are immersed in conversation about privilege and the idea that we should not make assumptions about how others feel, but rather we should ask and we should listen.

Not only were the assessments incorrect, the tests were upsetting:

  • They felt too personal, invasive, soul depleting... my beliefs simplified to a Lickert scale.
  • Many questions lacked context and the choices were sometimes insufficient. How often can we really say "always" or "never"?
  • Many questions had obvious best answers. People will answer what they think the employer wants to hear. Measurement, generally speaking, is an effective tool for changing behavior and often an ineffective tool for impartial assessment.
  • The testing industry is a money-maker. Testing companies are selling the illusion that there is a magic formula to finding the best employees.
  • Employers need to be able to demonstrate that what is being measured is required for the job. Using these kinds of test in pre-employment may be a bit dodgy legally (in the US anyway).
  • The tests have the potential for screening out people with ADA-protected mental health issues or autism (again, US).

In an article for SHRM, HireVue CEO Kevin Parker states that many organizations are being plagued by a high candidate drop-out rate during the application process.

"I was talking to a customer recently who said, 'We don't know we are getting top talent. We only know we're getting the talent that will take our assessment,' " Parker said. "They had a 50 percent applicant drop-out rate during the assessment phase because it was seen as cumbersome and a hurdle by applicants. Top candidates with multiple job options will turn their nose up at an onerous assessment."

HireVu's process apparently is to video record the applicant responding to questions and to use AI to assess culture match. Yikes!

In the end, I would say share your opinion if you are planning to drop out of the process altogether. Alternately, take the tests and then decide how you feel about the company. Maybe it's a really great company that has taken bad advice about hiring. Maybe it's a small company that doesn't have a strong HR department and is trying to outsource a basic function.

  • 1
    Thank you for responding to my request to chime in to my post MJ6. All of you have given knockout answers. I took the first assessment so far, I don't find the results offensive, but its more the idea of a third party telling you about me, when you can just get it from me, yet employers put weight on LinkedIn when that platform is no different than a resume. I respect more peer reviewed platforms such as Stack Overflow and Indorse. The difference is the psychological tests is someone else's interpretation of what makes me tick as a human being and no one can know that better than me. – Daniel Dec 23 '18 at 22:24
  • 1
    By the way, I did not just quietly take the assessments, but I did not just complain about this part of their process, instead I put it more in the form of a question. How would these emotional and motivational assessments assist them in making their final decision about me? I also came the conclusion that an employer would not care to have me tell them about how to run their hiring process. At the end of the day, we are all human beings and in my experience, most human beings don't like to be told about what needs improvement in their lives and it puts them on defensive. – Daniel Dec 23 '18 at 22:31
-1

You have reservations and I suggest to trust your gut feeling,
this company is too nosy, disingenuous and more hassle than worth it in my opinion.

Never ever have I nor would I do such a test.

It seems quite extreme in nature and sneaky considering they haven't informed you upfront.
(it shows they know it's going too far and want to trap you into doing it since these are the only tests left to being considered for the position)

From a quick websearch I gather this MCore is a test you need to fill out on a third party website.

A major privacy red flag, you don't know what happens with all that sensitive information about your psyche and who will be allowed access to it (quite likely for a purchase fee).

Even if not, personally I don't think an employer in IT needs or potentially has the right to (depending on country) this kind of information they get from both tests.

Point out the afforementioned concerns and remind them that your professional qualifications are in line with the job offer and that you'll have to respectfully withdraw your application if they require you to do a psych test for a programming position.

If you want to strengthen your argument have a look at the law in your jurisdiction to see if they even are allowed to demand this kind of information.

  • After taking such a test, the company would have no personal information about me - because there is no reason for me to answer truthfully. Most people will either say what makes it most likely to get the job, or what is most likely to upset the testers. The problem is that the might give out private misinformation about me, which is likely worse than private information. – gnasher729 Dec 24 '18 at 0:17
  • @gnasher729 sounds like one more reason not to do these tests.Psychological tests provide very private and revealing information if truthful and are a goldmine for all sorts of shenanigans either way.Quite frankly, I wouldn't want to work at a company that pulls these kinds of stunts.Professional information is either enough or they can go procreate with themselves...unless one is in desperate need of that particular job I guess...people are way too careless with private data... – DigitalBlade969 Dec 24 '18 at 11:03

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.