Should you use tests when appointing a leader? The question usually comes up halfway through the process, when two candidates appear equally strong and instinct is not enough.
The answer is usually yes, but with caveats worth understanding before you order. Here we walk through what the two main types of test actually measure, what they do not capture, who is permitted to use them, and how the results should be weighted against the rest of the evidence.
The two main types
Almost everything used in Norwegian executive recruitment falls into two categories.
Aptitude tests measure cognitive capacity: how quickly and accurately a person takes in new information, sees connections and solves problems they have not encountered before. They typically consist of tasks involving numbers, figures and language under time pressure. The test says nothing about what the candidate knows, but something about how quickly they learn what has not yet been learned.
Personality tests map working style: how a person typically proceeds, collaborates, handles pressure and makes decisions. The reputable tools build on the five-factor model and give a profile, not a verdict. There is no correct profile, only profiles that fit a specific role better or worse.
Some processes also use integrity tests or situational judgement assessments. These are less widespread in Norway, but they follow the same principles.
What the research says about accuracy
Selection research is unambiguous on one point: structured methods beat unstructured ones. We have gone through the figures in the article on competency-based recruitment, so here we confine ourselves to the point that applies to tests specifically.
Tests are not meant to replace the interview. They are meant to complement it. A structured interview and an aptitude test measure partly different things, and the combination is more accurate than either on its own. Add a personality test that is relevant to the role and precision increases further, but the gain diminishes with each element you add.
It also means that a test used on its own is weaker than most people think. BI Business Review has written well about what candidates actually encounter in a testing situation and why the interpretation matters more than the score itself.
What the tests do not capture
This is the part suppliers are rarely clear about, and the one that determines whether you use the tests correctly.
- Motivation. A test shows capacity and style, not whether the person actually wants this particular job, right now.
- Values and integrity in practice. Self-reporting captures attitudes, not what people do when it costs them something.
- Context. The same profile can work excellently in one management team and grate in another. The test does not know the group the candidate is joining.
- Development over time. A result is a snapshot of a person who may have changed considerably over the past five years.
- Professional ability. No test measures whether the candidate is good at the specialist field the position requires.
In short: the test tells you something about preconditions, not about results. You find the results in the references and in what the candidate has actually delivered.
Certification: who is permitted to use the tests
In Norway, test tools are certified by DNV, which assesses whether the tool measures what it claims to and whether the documentation holds up. It is a quality scheme buyers rarely ask about, but one that says a great deal about the kind of tool being used.
In addition, whoever administers and interprets the tests must be a certified user of the tool in question. Certification is granted by the supplier and involves training in both administration and feedback.
So ask two things when you buy: which tool is used and whether it is certified, and who at the supplier will interpret the results and give the candidate feedback. If the answer to the second is unclear, that is a reason to dig further.
How the results should be weighted
Three rules make the difference between a test that helps and one that gets in the way.
Never on its own. A test score should never be the sole basis for rejecting or selecting a candidate. It is one of three or four equally weighted sources, alongside the structured interview, the references and the candidate’s documented results.
Tie the test to the requirements, not to instinct. Decide before the test which qualities are genuinely critical in the role, and look at those parts of the profile. Without that link, the report becomes a mirror for what you already thought.
Use the discrepancies as talking points. If there is a gap between the test profile and the impression from the interview, that is not a problem, it is an opening. Raise it with the candidate. The best clarifications in a process often come from exactly there, and they belong in the final assessment.
What a testing process looks like in practice
For the candidate it usually takes under two hours. For you, the interpretation and feedback take longer than the testing itself, and that is worth planning for.
- The requirements are set first. Which qualities are critical in the role? Without this the report is hard to use.
- The candidate is informed about what will be tested, why, and who will see the result.
- Digital administration, usually an aptitude test of 30 to 45 minutes and a personality test of 20 to 40 minutes.
- Interpretation by a certified user, tied to the requirements of the position.
- A feedback conversation with the candidate, where the profile is reviewed and the candidate can correct obvious misunderstandings.
- A report to the client as part of the overall basis for assessment, not as a separate conclusion.
Point five is the one most often skipped when time is short. It is also the point that gives the most, because the candidate’s own comments on the profile often explain the discrepancies you are wondering about.
Aptitude test or personality test: which matters most for leadership roles?
Both, but they answer different questions.
The aptitude test is the best single indicator when the role is complex, new to the candidate or marked by a great deal of change. The more unstructured the job, the more the capacity to handle new information matters.
The personality profile matters most when the role is relationship-heavy: a leader who has to turn a culture around, build a new management team or lead through other leaders. Here accuracy is more about style than capacity.
For most leadership positions the answer is therefore both, but with different weighting depending on what the real challenge in the role is. That judgement should be made before the tests are ordered, not when the report is on the table.
What the candidate is entitled to
Testing is processing of personal data, and the candidate has rights you must plan for.
- To know what the test will be used for before it is taken: which decision it feeds into, and who will see the result.
- Feedback on their own results. It is good practice that everyone who is tested gets a conversation about their profile, whatever the outcome.
- Access to the information stored about them.
- That the results are not kept longer than necessary. Test data from a completed process should be deleted once the purpose has been fulfilled.
The Norwegian Data Protection Authority has collected the rules on privacy in the workplace, including what applies in recruitment.
When testing is not worth it
There are processes where testing costs more than it delivers.
With very short deadlines there is rarely time to do administration, interpretation and feedback properly. It is then better to drop the test than to run it half-heartedly.
If you have no one who can interpret the results, the test gives a false sense of security. A report without qualified interpretation is numbers without meaning, and the risk is that it gets read as a definitive answer.
And if the role has requirements that are clearly technical and verifiable, a well-structured interview combined with thorough references may be sufficient.
How Habberstad works
We use certified aptitude and personality tests as part of the assessment in executive recruitment, always tied to the requirements of the specific position and always together with a structured interview and references. Every candidate who is tested receives feedback on their own profile.
If you want only the assessment and not the whole process, we deliver it as final interviews and final assessment. How testing fits into a full process is set out in the article on executive recruitment.
Get in touch if you are considering whether testing is right for the position you need to fill.
Frequently asked questions
Which tests are used in executive recruitment?
Usually an aptitude test measuring cognitive capacity, and a personality test mapping working style. Some processes also use integrity tests or situational judgement assessments. The tools should be certified by DNV, and whoever interprets the results should be a certified user of the tool in question.
Can you fail a psychometric test?
No. A personality test has no right answers, it gives a profile. An aptitude test gives a score that is compared with a norm group, but the score is one of several sources and should never be the sole reason a candidate is rejected.
Is the candidate entitled to see the result?
The candidate has the right of access to personal data about themselves, and it is good practice that everyone who is tested gets a feedback conversation about their profile whatever the outcome.
How long are test results valid?
Aptitude tests are relatively stable over time, while personality profiles can change with experience and life circumstances. Most people regard results older than one to two years as out of date in a new process. In any case, data from a completed process should be deleted once the purpose has been fulfilled.
Can tests be used on their own to choose a candidate?
No. Tests are most accurate in combination with a structured interview and references. Used on their own they are weaker than most people think, and they say nothing about motivation, professional ability or whether the candidate fits into this particular management team.
