Since the early 1970's employment testing has been shied away from, especially by large companies afraid of lawsuits. There's a very famous Supreme Court case that every Human Resources student needs to learn, Griggs v Duke. You can't get a "C" without at least knowing that it is important. Basically Duke said that you have to "smart" as defined by this test to be promoted in their power plant. Well, the test had nothing to do with actually being able to do the job but was an attempt by the company keep blacks from getting ahead. Prior to Civil Rights legislation, Duke had actively and probbably very proudly discriminated.
Flash forward 35 years and big companies and small companies want to test. Hiring and promotion decisions are made every day that turn out to be very bad, for the company, the employee and the other employees. it costs a lot to get rid of the wrong hire and they tend to make mistakes that cost too. But what is the right test?
If you have to type it's obvious that you should be able to demonstrate that you can. If you have to solder part A to knob B, you should be able to show that you can. How do you test if you'll be a good leader? Well, any number of consultatns can answer that question. Just looking on Wikipedia, there's an article on it. The tests or inventories (the consultants like to call them inventories because they had the same HR profs that I did -- we're still afraid of Griggs v Duke) measure aptitude (whatever that might be), socialness, craziness (MMPI,) and more. My new personal fav is Raven's Progressive Matrics which measures abstract reasoning. I had to look it up and there's no definition on the Wiki, but there is "thinking about and cognitively manipulating events, things or concepts that are not in one's immediate presence of environment." I wonder if have this ability.






