In this post you’ll learn about the unintended consequences of standardized testing in recruitment, particularly for creative industries facing rising unemployment. Despite the aim of objectivity, cognitive tests may stifle innovation and expression crucial for progress. Recent research questions their effectiveness and highlights the need to embrace creativity as a cornerstone for innovation and success in modern workplaces.

In Sweden, for the first time in several years, more creative businesses are expected to reduce their workforce than are planning new hires. The government’s forecasts indicate that unemployment will continue to rise in 2024, yet the challenges in finding competent personnel persist. In response, many recruiters have turned to early stage, time-constrained cognitive tests to sift through applicants in a fiercely competitive job market.

Unintended consequences of standardized testing in recruitment

While the intent behind these tests is to streamline recruitment and maintain objectivity, there’s a growing concern and awareness that the approach inadvertently stifles the very qualities that creatives bring to the table, namely innovation and expression. These qualities, vital for progress not just within businesses but for society at large, is compromised in the pursuit of standardized evaluations.

In a culture where productivity and efficiency are believed to be the answer to success, mandatory cognitive tests have become the norm. However, a critical examination of these tests, coupled with recent research, reveals unintended consequences that challenge their effectiveness.

Recent findings published in the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology shed light on the potential of cognitive ability testing to actually perpetuate social inequality and reduce inclusivity. Contrary to historical confidence in the validity of such tests, a re-examination of widely cited meta-analyses indicates a lower overall validity coefficient than previously believed. Cognitive ability tests, hailed as strong predictors of job performance, are now questioned in terms of their relevance, with the validity coefficient re-estimated as 0.31—significantly lower than the previous estimate of 0.51.

Conceptual weaknesses in the framing of differential validity evidence are identified, and a lack of systematic effort by psychologists to understand the contextual impact on the predictive effectiveness of cognitive tests is emphasized. The call to explore alternatives becomes imperative, especially considering the potential impact on diversity and social mobility.

An erosion of divergent thinking in modern workplaces

Scott Barry Kaufman, a renowned researcher on intelligence and creativity, defines creativity as the amalgamation of intelligence and imagination. Creativity, according to Kaufman, involves doing things differently—an aspect that recruiters overlook as creative teams are increasingly homogenized.

A 2004 Harvard Business Review article revealed that despite 30% of the workforce and 50% of income in the US is derived from the ”creative sector”, creativity is declining. And the trend is clearly mirrored in Sweden.

Renowned educator Ken Robinson’s TED talk from 2006 brilliantly argues that the Western education system stifles creativity by prioritizing convergent thinking, limiting divergent and generative alternatives, which are crucial components of creativity. Alas, businesses seem to be following suit, employing cognitive tests that further restrict the opportunities for innovative thinkers to thrive in the labor market.

Embracing Creativity as a Cornerstone for Innovation and Success

To foster long-term success, a shift towards measuring and encouraging applicants’ creative potential is essential. Traits such as big picture thinking, spontaneity, playfulness, resilience, autonomy, risk-taking, and even daydreaming, often misunderstood as impractical or rebellious, are in fact prerequisites for creativity and resilience.

Cognitive tests, with their focus on mathematical information processing under time pressure, in many cases end up testing niche stress endurance rather than creative or overall performance ability. And while stress resistance is undoubtedly valuable in today’s work environments, where open offices and digital communication channels abound, favoring methods that assess creative potential is crucial in order to add value to communication teams and foster innovation. Failure to do so risks compromising our most human qualities to think ahead and outside the box, ultimately hindering a healthy development of business and society.