We often say we want to hire “the best person for the job”. But if we are honest, many hiring decisions are still based on:
- How well new talents “fit in” with the existing team;
- Where someone worked before;
- How confident they seem in the interview.
This is human and understandable. But it is also how we lose diverse, strong candidates before they even have a chance to show what they can actually do.
Skills testing is a simple way to change that. Not magic. Just an honest starting point.
But why CVs and interviews not enough?
If you work in recruitment, you already know the typical pain points:
- “Experience” often means “someone has already given this person a chance” – not that they are better than others.
- CVs are not standardised. Some are written by professionals, some by friends, some in a rush at midnight.
- Interviews reward people who speak well under pressure, not always those who think deeply or work reliably.
This is how bias quietly enters the process. We do not plan it. It just happens in the noise.
If we want more inclusive hiring, we need a way to compare candidates on something real and fair.
This is where skills testing comes in.
Can skills testing change anything?
A good skills test is a short, practical way to answer a simple question:
Can this person handle the real work they will face in this role?
For agencies and HR managers, skills testing helps to shift focus on – who actually can deliver and do the job. It is great if we have time to get to know the person, but in reality there is no time to discover hidden talents. In real work simulation or case study tasks it can be done in fair way.
In conversations with agencies I often hear that it is hard to get good quality KPIs from clients and then explain the decision on choosing candidates. IT systems give well structured data and suggestions on evaluation and KPIs. In case, if KPIs change it evaluates candidates upon renewed criteria and it shortens the cycle of evaluation and client communication.
This does not remove the professional judgment but gives data supported base.
When tests can be harmful for the hiring process?
Skills tests can also be done badly and be unfair. Mainly it happens when tasks are too long and feel like free work for the company. Then the motivation drops for applicants as uncertainty about getting the job is still there. But certainty about evaluation criteria can change it, just add transparent KPIs for the candidate.
Context and systemic failures also can ruin the process. For example – unclear questions test reading skills more than job skills and difficult accessibility of the platform can lead to candidate drop-off before you know that they were there.
Then we are back where we started just with extra steps.
To keep skills testing inclusive, it helps to follow a few simple rules:
- Keep it short and relevant by focusing on 2–4 key tasks that mirror real work situations.
- Make the expectations clear and tell candidates how long it will take, what you will evaluate and how the results and answers will be used.
- Use the same structure for everyone in the same role to reduce bias and compare results.
- Combine in evaluation written and spoken answers as some people express themselves better in writing, others in short video or audio answers.
- Evaluate against clear criteria and decide your evaluation criteria before you see the names and CVs.
Skills testing will not solve every problem in hiring. But it can fix one important thing:
Instead of asking “Who looks like the safest choice?”
we start asking
“Who shows they can actually do the work?”
But for many candidates and for more inclusive teams it can be the difference between being seen and being invisible.
If you want to explore how this could work in your agency or company you can learn more and register here: