Here's a fact: half of all employees test better than the other half. My question is, which half do you have?
Testing job applicants and employees is one of my favorite topics in CEO and HR workshops. Because many companies don't use appropriate skill testing, those that do enjoy a measurable advantage.
Years ago, as I was leaving my litigation practice, a legal secretary (we'll call her Sue) came into my office wanting to sue the firm she had worked for. She had been a steady legal secretary at a neighboring law firm for 15 years. When another firm lost a secretary with only last-minute notice, an attorney hearsay-hired Sue after one lunch meeting because she seemed pleasant and had long experience.
Almost immediately after she started, the attorney expressed disappointment with her productivity. This went on for three months until he fired her without severance. Sue was a single mom with two children and no job; that's what prompted her to seek help.
I asked whether Sue and the attorney had discussed any performance benchmarks at their single meeting. They had not. A legal secretary types about half the day, and roughly half type above average while half type below average. Personally, I never hired a legal secretary who typed less than 100 words per minute. Sue thought she typed about 80 wpm based on an old self-test. None of her employers had formally tested her.
I tracked down the prior secretary, who had tested at about 100 wpm. The moral: the woman in my office was a failure on her first day of employment and nearly nobody knew it.
This raises a broader question: how many people walk into your company underqualified on day one and no one knows? It makes no difference who you are hiring — including technical specialists — without testing you are guessing about skill levels.
Both Dr. W. Edwards Deming and Peter Drucker argued that most people want to do a good job and that system failures, not motivation, account for many performance problems. Consider a law firm with two attorneys per secretary: two attorneys may manage well and two manage poorly. A secretary who types 80 wpm for an above-average manager may appear to outperform a secretary who types 100 wpm for a below-average manager, yet the underlying skill levels differ. That explains many misleading performance evaluations.
You can and should test for every essential skill set. For example, when helping a real estate investment firm hire a CFO we tested three categories: substantive accounting knowledge (GAAP), QuickBooks, and Excel. We used professional skill tests that cost under typical consulting rates, and we required top-percentile performance across all three categories to find an exceptional hire. Finding the right candidate took months, and in the interim we used temporary accounting help.
When you consider technology and the way work gets done, testing can also reveal gaps in platform or tool expertise; for an overview of technology's impact on brand and employee testing, see The Impact of Technology on Brand Interactions and Employee Testing.
Testing applies not only to employees but also to consultants and vendors. For example, when we built HR That Works on a SharePoint platform, the individual project manager from a Microsoft Certified Partner took a SharePoint skills test and scored highly, which justified our confidence in him. Don't assume organizational credentials mean every individual on the project is highly skilled — test them.
Testing results can also intersect with insurance and operational risk considerations; for more on that intersection, see Understanding Employee Testing and Insurance Considerations.
For many years I recommended one testing provider because they offered a broad, reliable library of skill tests. Organizations use providers for applicant screening, role-based testing, and to identify training needs. If you adopt a testing program, make it part of recruiting, onboarding, and periodic skills validation so training and promotions rest on objective data.
When you hire for leadership or financial roles, test for the specific competencies you need. If you are focused on building great leadership, see Attracting Leadership Talent in HR for related hiring considerations.
In short: don't trust skill claims alone. Test applicants, current employees, and third parties for the critical skills their roles require, and use results to guide hiring, pay, and training decisions.
If you want personalized help selecting appropriate tests or interpreting results, talk to an agent.
Frequently Asked Questions
What types of skills should I test for when hiring?
Test for task-critical hard skills (software, typing, accounting) and role-specific knowledge; use objective assessments tied to job requirements.
How often should current employees be re-tested?
Re-test when job duties change, after significant technology updates, or periodically (for example, annually) to verify continued competence.
Can testing replace interviews?
No. Testing complements interviews by providing objective measures of skill, while interviews assess fit, judgment, and communication.
Are skill tests expensive to use at scale?
No. Many professional tests are low-cost per candidate and can save money by reducing bad hires and directing training effectively.