The recent AD7 internal competition introduced a new cognitive assessment based on the SHL [1] General Ability Test.
While innovation in selection methods is not inherently problematic, the feedback received from candidates raises important questions about both the implementation of the test and its relevance for assessing experienced officials.
Prior to the examination, many candidates reported difficulties accessing the official practice environment. Some received confirmation from SHL that technical problems existed and were being investigated. Others found themselves unable to access the preparation platform shortly before the examination.
Although the issue was eventually resolved, doubts persist on equal access to preparation opportunities.
Candidates also reported translation and terminology issues in communications distributed by the competition secretariat. In multilingual administration, the quality and clarity of communication are not minor details. They are essential elements of equal treatment.
More fundamentally, many candidates questioned whether an extremely time-pressured cognitive test – with on average only 90 seconds available to respond to one question – is the most appropriate method for assessing colleagues, who have already demonstrated their abilities through years of successful service. In addition, many candidates reported that the test seemed to put a strong focus on numerical and abstract reasoning-type questions with no or few verbal reasoning-type questions which can be considered unbalanced.
Feedback given to Generation 2004 included reports of software freezes, unclear instructions, navigation difficulties, hidden information requiring additional clicks, and questions that appeared disproportionate to the time available.
Several candidates expressed concern that the test measured speed and familiarity with the interface more than professional competence.
The aim of organizing internal competitions should be to identify colleagues capable of performing successfully at a higher level of responsibility. It is therefore legitimate to ask whether a highly compressed reasoning exercise provides the best indicator of future performance for experienced officials who already have a proven track record within the institution.
Generation 2004 believes that candidate feedback should be carefully analysed before similar testing models are expanded further.
Innovation should improve selection procedures, not create new doubts about fairness, accessibility and relevance.