Assume you gave a general ability test measuring both verbal and computational skills to group of applicants for a specific job Also assume that because of severe hiring pressures you hired all of the?

Answer 1

Then there was no reason to give the test to any of the candidates other than for legal reasons. If you give the test to one candidate, you must give the test to all candidates.

What happens if you hire them all due to hiring pressures: If the test is a valid measure of a candidate's motivational fit, then those who scored high would be more likely to meet or exceed the job requirements and those who scored low would be less likely to be less likely to meet or exceed job requirements.

Those less likely to be successful will result in more time spent on managing performance, more cost on developing their skills, and what's more likely is the large expense of recruiting and selecting future candidates to replace those who were terminated.

Additionaly, job satisfaction may be lower in those who scored lower on the test, and that could ultimately result in a higer voluntary attrition rate, and all the associated costs of spending more time dealing with poor performance, employees calling in "sick", etc. Time = money so ultimately it will cost the company more money to pursue a hiring practice such as the one you suggest.

The ramifications of hiring people who aren't necessarily qualified for the position runs even deeper. Those who are competent may become resentful if they perceive (real or not) that those who aren't competent receive the same perks, benefits or pay, which in turn could lead to a higher attrition rate among competent employees as well as lower morale and lower job satisfaction.

The prime potential benefit of hiring all candidates is that you may be able to meet short term goals or deadlines by meeting numerical staffing needs. In the long-run though, it's not a recommended practice.