Predictors: Google Inc’s Job Selection Methods

Institution

Name

Introduction

Google Inc has established itself as a “recruiting machine” by establishing a ‘recruiting culture” that is yet to be replicated by other corporations. Because of this culture, Google funds its recruiting strategies to an extent where the practice is regarded as part of the organisation (Vella, 2012). Much of its successful recruitment function is largely credited to reliance on the use of predictors and psychological contracts to design its recruitment and selection strategies. Google considers recruitment and selection as consisting of prediction, where it has to forecast candidates who are likely to be successful at work based on psychometric tests. Because of its recruiting culture, Google finances its recruiting activities to the extent in which it has gone further to alter the ways in which employees work so as to attract and retain the best talents (Sullivan, 2005). This paper analyses several aspects of the company by drawing on the company’s use of psychometric testing in its selection and recruitment strategies. It is reasoned that the use of formals tests in its selection strategy is rested on the premise that the tests offer valid and reliable information on a range of relevant attributes. The underlying assumption is that the psychometric tests predict job performance and that those who perform excellently in the scores from the test perform well on the job.

Google uses psychometric tests to determine cognitive ability. The company has made increased use of the tests as a component of its selection process for job vacancies. Google has altered the distinct features of its hiring process. As a result, it no longer focuses on standardised testing scores and Grade Point Average (GPA) for candidates who have been out of college for more than three years (Nisen, 2013). The candidates are hired based on how the company can prove they are smart. The psychometric tests are designed to measure the personality, ability, traits and the required skill levels of the candidates considered for certain jobs.

Psychometric tests and assessment centres (ACs)

In using the psychometric tests as a tool for assessing skills, the company is able to save on the cost of having to train its staff or hiring external consultants to administer the tests. Because of the substantial costs involved, the tests are more likely to measure the skills that the company wants rather than those that it indicated in the job ad or that the candidates may have. In comparison to skill surveys, the use of information on psychometric test can serve as an approach to assess the changing skills demand in the job market. In conducting psychometric test, the company uses a variety of selection methods, such as interviews (Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007).

In using assessment centres, the candidates are made to feel that the company offers ‘extra’ care by appearing to train them and offer them career development opportunities. A range of predictors are used at assessment centres, including personality questionnaires and work samples, where candidates have to undertake a range of assessments that are intended to show whether the candidates will work effectively or fit appropriately in the job.

The extent to which the company uses psychometric testing and assessment centres is dependent on the types of workers it is recruiting. The company largely uses assessment centres for managerial vacancies, as well as when recruiting graduate entrants. The assessment centres are valid because of the large size of the firm and the large pool of candidates who send job applications.

Types of predictors used

In order to draw conclusion into the ability of the candidates, the company acknowledges that it is crucial to gain a lot of information on the candidate’s abilities. The predictors used in assessment centres and psychometric tests include cognitive ability tests, work samples, interviews, personality tests and integrity tests.

Cognitive tests

The whole idea of using cognitive ability test at the company is based on the perspective that mental ability is generalisable across various jobs. In which case, if an individual is efficient in solving a certain problem, they are also likely to efficiently solve other types of problems (Jenkins, 2001). The test is used in measuring the candidates’ numerical reasoning, verbal capability, critical reasoning and the capacity to comply with a sequence of consistent steps at an abstract level. For instance, the tests for technical staff such as programmers, customer care staff, managers and sale workforce may involves the fault-finding and technical checking skills. Critically, cognitive ability tests have predictive validity. This means that it can predict subsequent job performance. However, this is controversial, since employee performance also depends on motivation (Merwe, 2002). To address the controversy, Google provides lavish perks, high pays, job flexibility and paid time off to motivate recruited candidates.

Personality tests

The fundamental reason for using this group is since the company believes that there are some personality traits that can be measured, as well as those traits that influence individual capability and job performance appropriate for certain job groups. In assessing the individual’s personality, the company checks the ‘big 5’ taxonomy or personality traits, namely agreeableness, extroversion, emotional capability, openness to experience and conscientiousness (Jenkins, 2001). On critical analysis, cognitive ability tests have predictive validity, hence, can predict subsequent job performance.

Panel interviews

The panel interviews present the company with an opportunity to watch the candidates, seek answers from the candidate as well as inform the candidates of how well the organisation is structured and managed. Due to the interactive nature of panel interviews, the candidates are able fit themselves psychologically into the company. Hence, interviews lay grounds for formation of psychological contracts (Jenkins, 2001). The method has helped the company to evaluate the candidates on the basis of the work values, their integrity and honesty. At the same time, the company can use criteria bases on what it believes should make the candidates employable and that match with the organisational values.

Despite the advantages, panel interviews have certain drawbacks from the perspective of the employees. For instance, since the panel of recruiters, who are usually line managers, sit in front of the candidate, it may build pressure on the candidates (Merwe, 2002). Nevertheless, the company is confident that by building such pressures, they are able to assess whether the candidates can overcome the pressure and translate that ability with the pressures at the workplace. This is a major criterion the company uses to build psychological contract.

Panel interviews contribute most towards the creation of psychological contract on the side of the candidate, since one is presented with an opportunity to inquire from the interviewers such as the type of management structure or expected challenges. This is since it allows candidates to ask questions.

Conclusion

The psychometric tests that Google uses it is recruitment and selection method offer valid and reliable information that can predict job performance. Since the company views the job as a stable entity that must be filled by the most suitable candidates, the job performance can be predicted to some extent. The methods therefore seek to ensure predictive validity. By predictive validity, it means that the selection methods, the company uses in recruitment, can predict subsequent job performance. However, it is argued that the predictivist approach is inappropriate, since it is based on the assumption that individual differences of the employees can be evaluated accurately. Additionally, it overlooks the criteria for translation of decisions into actions. This is since rather than employee’s ability, performance on the job also depends on motivation.

References

Bergkvist, L. & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (2), 175-184.

Jenkins, A. (2001). Companies’ Use of Psychometric Testing and the Changing Demand for Skills: A Review of the Literature. London: London School of Economics and Political Science

Merwe, R. (2002). Psychometric Testing and Human Resource Management. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 28(2), 77-86

Nisen, M. (2013). Google HR Boss Explains Why GPA And Most Interviews Are Useless. Business Insider. Retrieved: <http://www.businessinsider.com/how-google-hires-people-2013-6>

Sullivan, J. (2005). A Case Study of Google Recruiting. Retrieved: <http://www.ere.net/2005/12/05/a-case-study-of-google-recruiting/>

Vella, M. (2012). Inside Google’s recruiting machine. Retrieved from Fortune website: <http://fortune.com/2012/02/24/inside-googles-recruiting-machine/>