Re: A Test to Select Competency

[John Gear <catalyst -at- PACIFIER -dot- COM>]

>I really bristle when I read about "compentency" tests. I can't think of
>anything more insulting. If you want to know about my work, read my writing
>samples; that should show you how I write. If you don't like my writing,
>don't hire me, but don't try make jump through some technical writing hoop
>either.

>I'm sure most companies wouldn't consider having an engineer do a "test"
>design of a toaster before they hire him/her.

>Give me a break.

Perhaps, but then *most* companies (not all, but most) hire either degreed
engineers or professional engineers (i.e., legally qualified to use the PE
designation and render opinions about engineered systems) for engineering
positions.

And many innovative companies *do* try to fit people to jobs through some
process more likely to yield relevant information about the person/job fit
than the interview and a portfolio review.

I'll not make any argument for standardized tests but I don't understand the
very widespread distaste and contempt technical communications people often
express for some form of competency testing, at least as far as establishing
some minimum, threshold level of "fit" between the person and the job
definition.  Obviously a poorly thought-out test will result in an
unreliable ("unfair" in some sense) result.  But is the current "dating
model" hiring process so superior that it merits defending?

The person above suggests that s/he should be hired based on their writing
samples.  In other words, this person's idea of a competency test is writing
samples that they select and submit, no doubt carefully culled to make the
right impression.  So this person seems to accept the idea of a competency
test, but only wants a certain one used.  But a portfolio of work done in
one set of circumstances may have little or nothing to do with how one may
perform in another, different set of circumstances.

And, since most people doing technical communications work in teams, it is
for many people a little disingenous to bring "your" work to an interview.
There are teams where the major contribution to the result is not from the
titular "author" or "leader."  Does everyone on the team put the result in
their portfolio and claim that the result reflects their capabilities?  And
what about the really above-average communicator who gets the really subpar
support from the company that doesn't value technical communications at all
(not that anyone on this list works in any of those firms)--is a mediocre
sample from this person reflective of a mediocre talent or a hero?

Let's face it; this is a quasi-profession, not a profession.  Technical
communications simply does not have all the attributes of a profession.  I
went to a new physician the other day.  I didn't ask any questions about her
professional competence or give her a little competency test because she's a
board-certified MD. (I *did* ask questions designed to elicit her views on
the doctor-patient relationship, the physician's authority, and the
patient's autonomy and right to be an informed participant in the
interaction--because the certifying bodies in that profession don't seem to
do a very good job in those areas.)

Nor did I give my Realtor (R) a little quiz.  She's passed an exam and
operates under regulations for conduct and the oversight of a broker who has
liability if the Realtor (R) screws up.

But I *did* ask a *lot* of questions before hiring my home inspector, since
that is another quasi-profession.  Essentially, anyone can call themselves a
home inspector.  Some even join one or two of the various professional
societies--but the prerequisite for joining most of them is having completed
a certain number of paid home inspections as a professional!

Which of those fields does technical communications most resemble?  And,
therefore, in which of those fields should we expect (and not necessarily
dread) those who wish to retain us to try and come up with some way to
assess our competence and suitability for the job they're offering?

I suggest that we're better off recognizing a legitimate need and helping to
design *good* competency tests than we are clinging to the "portfolio or
nothing" line.  Personally, I thought the toaster test had a lot of
merit--quick and easy, doesn't reward or punish non-relevant criteria, helps
get at creativity and audience awareness, cheap to administer.  Not bad at
all for a psychometric.
John Gear (catalyst -at- pacifier -dot- com)
"Business succeeds rather better than the state in imposing restraints upon
individuals because its imperatives are disguised as choices"--Walter Hale
Hamilton