Gowling WLG Behavioural Assessment

[DT89]

I just completed Gowling WLG's behavioural assessment which also included an aptitude test. I have mixed feelings about it. The assessment was a set of computer games and at the end of which I got the report. I am having second thoughts about whether I would progress to the next round because the report says, I am impulsive and make decisions by gut feeling rather than rational deliberation. It also states that I am passive and I do not prefer to work alone as opposed to being a collaborative team player. As someone who has studied psychology at the university, there is plenty of evidence to show that these personality tests are not reliable. The test provider asserted at the end of the test that the results were reliable as they were based on large data sets etc. My question is, how fair is it to use these personality or behavioural tests in screening candidates? You cannot gauge a candidate's fit to the firm atleast until they reach assessment centre or the interview stage in my opinion. What do you think?

 

[George Maxwell]

I just completed Gowling WLG's behavioural assessment which also included an aptitude test. I have mixed feelings about it. The assessment was a set of computer games and at the end of which I got the report. I am having second thoughts about whether I would progress to the next round because the report says, I am impulsive and make decisions by gut feeling rather than rational deliberation. It also states that I am passive and I do not prefer to work alone as opposed to being a collaborative team player. As someone who has studied psychology at the university, there is plenty of evidence to show that these personality tests are not reliable. The test provider asserted at the end of the test that the results were reliable as they were based on large data sets etc. My question is, how fair is it to use these personality or behavioural tests in screening candidates? You cannot gauge a candidate's fit to the firm atleast until they reach assessment centre or the interview stage in my opinion. What do you think?

Hi @DT89,

That's an interesting reflection which I think a lot of people agree with. I personally found these sorts of tests frustrating. They only give a very limited idea of how a candidate might act in a given scenario (on very limited evidence). This is why firms will not be replacing full in-person interviews with these tests any time soon.

However, I can see why firms use them. In some ways, I think it is purely a means for them to sift through applicants and find some differentiating factors between candidates. In theory, it is an efficient way for firms to identify, according to a given metric, preferable candidates.

I would not take your feedback too much to heart. For one, they are really based on a tiny snapshot of you as a candidate.

I would think and reflect on that feedback and perhaps keep it in mind in future. But try not to internalise or ruminate on it too much as I didn't personally find it particularly insightful.

Looking forward to hearing others' thoughts on this 🤔

 

[Kubed]

I completely agree and decided last year that I would avoid applying to firms again that have these sorts of tests. I personally don't think they're a reliable way of distinguishing between people and I don't understand what a firm gains from them in terms of learning about candidates. Maybe I don't know enough about the methodology or how they are interpreted 🤷‍♂️

I know that graduate recruitment do need some way to filter down the thousands of applications they get but I definitely prefer Watson Glaser or similar tests to the game-based stuff - I understand that they are working from large datasets but I don't see how they can generalise to such specific traits from a couple of activities. I can see how they might work out things like reaction time but judging whether I work well in a team or not seems a bit of a stretch.

 

[Jessica Booker]

One advantage of these assessments is that they are less likely to have adverse impact against under represented groups when compared to other forms of assessment. Considering many firms have diversity as a key part of their recruitment strategy, it is a major consideration for using these assessments over others.

 

[DT89]

One advantage of these assessments is that they are less likely to have adverse impact against under represented groups when compared to other forms of assessment. Considering many firms have diversity as a key part of their recruitment strategy, it is a major consideration for using these assessments over others.

I agree with you on that. But if the data they use to categorise personalities itself is not diverse, then it has a chance of being disadvatageous to other underrepresented group. AI is as good as the data you feed it.

 

[Jessica Booker]

I agree with you on that. But if the data they use to categorise personalities itself is not diverse, then it has a chance of being disadvatageous to other underrepresented group. AI is as good as the data you feed it.

Agree with the data. However these assessments are proving to have less adverse impact than other assessments, so no matter what data is going in, the outcome is more favourable than some other forms of assessment, especially those that have to have a low threshold to minimise/remove adverse impact.

 

[AvniD]

I just completed Gowling WLG's behavioural assessment which also included an aptitude test. I have mixed feelings about it. The assessment was a set of computer games and at the end of which I got the report. I am having second thoughts about whether I would progress to the next round because the report says, I am impulsive and make decisions by gut feeling rather than rational deliberation. It also states that I am passive and I do not prefer to work alone as opposed to being a collaborative team player. As someone who has studied psychology at the university, there is plenty of evidence to show that these personality tests are not reliable. The test provider asserted at the end of the test that the results were reliable as they were based on large data sets etc. My question is, how fair is it to use these personality or behavioural tests in screening candidates? You cannot gauge a candidate's fit to the firm atleast until they reach assessment centre or the interview stage in my opinion. What do you think?

I don't think any type of 'test', whether it's critical thinking or behavioural, can ever be fully fair to all candidates. Not everyone possesses the same instincts when it comes to these tests, and it's clear that some tests can be biased against those who haven't received a private education in the UK (this is based on what I've been told by a graduate recruiter). At the end of the day, they all serve the same purpose, which is to 1) filter through thousands of candidates and 2) identify those candidates who could 'possibly' be the best fit for the firm.

Like @George Maxwell said, I would not take the outcome of these tests to heart- it's one test's, one firm's limited perception of you that could totally be incorrect or misread. The best way to move forward would be to identify the firms whose tests/application process you think you could give your best in and be tested on most 'fairly' and proceed with your applications on that basis. Sometimes being this clinical with how you select firms plays out in your advantage by taking the pressure off how much you care about how firms perceive you🤷‍♀️

 

[Gloria]

I just completed Gowling WLG's behavioural assessment which also included an aptitude test. I have mixed feelings about it. The assessment was a set of computer games and at the end of which I got the report. I am having second thoughts about whether I would progress to the next round because the report says, I am impulsive and make decisions by gut feeling rather than rational deliberation. It also states that I am passive and I do not prefer to work alone as opposed to being a collaborative team player. As someone who has studied psychology at the university, there is plenty of evidence to show that these personality tests are not reliable. The test provider asserted at the end of the test that the results were reliable as they were based on large data sets etc. My question is, how fair is it to use these personality or behavioural tests in screening candidates? You cannot gauge a candidate's fit to the firm atleast until they reach assessment centre or the interview stage in my opinion. What do you think?

Hi, I need to take it too and I can totally agree with the sense of unfairness. Is there a way you could prepare for this test or find some practice tests on the internet? it sounds quite different from many others SJT that law firms use.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Hi, I need to take it too and I can totally agree with the sense of unfairness. Is there a way you could prepare for this test or find some practice tests on the internet? it sounds quite different from many others SJT that law firms use.

It sounds like it isn't a SJT as such but as games based behavioural assessment.

A situational judgement test will present scenarios you would find in a law firm as a trainee and ask you to select how you would deal with that scenario, sometimes by picking the best option and in some cases picking the most likely and least likely approaches you would take.

It sounds like Gowling are still using an Arctic Shores assessment games-based assessment. This will be very different to an SJT as it will feel more like a brain training game you might do on your phone rather than an SJT. There is some additional information here: Support For Candidates | Arctic Shores

You can find some free practice games based assessments here but they won't necessarily mirror the Artic Shores but it gives you a flavour of what you might experience. You will also get a practice test in your link from Arctic Shores that I would recommend doing.

Memory Cards - Gamified Assessment | Assessment Day

Here is a video of PwCs Arctic Shores game - I don't advise watching the whole video for an hour and a half, but gives you some indication again of the type of things you could come across:

PWC Game Based Assessment 2021 - YouTube

 

[Gloria]

It sounds like it isn't a SJT as such but as games based behavioural assessment.

A situational judgement test will present scenarios you would find in a law firm as a trainee and ask you to select how you would deal with that scenario, sometimes by picking the best option and in some cases picking the most likely and least likely approaches you would take.

It sounds like Gowling are still using an Arctic Shores assessment games-based assessment. This will be very different to an SJT as it will feel more like a brain training game you might do on your phone rather than an SJT. There is some additional information here: Support For Candidates | Arctic Shores

You can find some free practice games based assessments here but they won't necessarily mirror the Artic Shores but it gives you a flavour of what you might experience. You will also get a practice test in your link from Arctic Shores that I would recommend doing.

Memory Cards - Gamified Assessment | Assessment Day

Here is a video of PwCs Arctic Shores game - I don't advise watching the whole video for an hour and a half, but gives you some indication again of the type of things you could come across:

PWC Game Based Assessment 2021 - YouTube

Thank you Jessica, very helpful.

 

[James Carrabino]

I just completed Gowling WLG's behavioural assessment which also included an aptitude test. I have mixed feelings about it. The assessment was a set of computer games and at the end of which I got the report. I am having second thoughts about whether I would progress to the next round because the report says, I am impulsive and make decisions by gut feeling rather than rational deliberation. It also states that I am passive and I do not prefer to work alone as opposed to being a collaborative team player. As someone who has studied psychology at the university, there is plenty of evidence to show that these personality tests are not reliable. The test provider asserted at the end of the test that the results were reliable as they were based on large data sets etc. My question is, how fair is it to use these personality or behavioural tests in screening candidates? You cannot gauge a candidate's fit to the firm atleast until they reach assessment centre or the interview stage in my opinion. What do you think?

I completely agree and decided last year that I would avoid applying to firms again that have these sorts of tests. I personally don't think they're a reliable way of distinguishing between people and I don't understand what a firm gains from them in terms of learning about candidates. Maybe I don't know enough about the methodology or how they are interpreted 🤷‍♂️

I know that graduate recruitment do need some way to filter down the thousands of applications they get but I definitely prefer Watson Glaser or similar tests to the game-based stuff - I understand that they are working from large datasets but I don't see how they can generalise to such specific traits from a couple of activities. I can see how they might work out things like reaction time but judging whether I work well in a team or not seems a bit of a stretch.

I agree with @George Maxwell and @AvniD - it's not worth taking anything to heart here.

Ultimately, a firm can use a test like this if it likes. What I'm not sure I understand is how the kinds of tests used by different law firms can differ so much - surely the firms are not that different?

As already seen with @Kubed's approach; if you think the tests are unfair then you don't need to apply to the firms that use them. Some firms with even greater numbers of applicants will invest more in their graduate recruitment teams instead of filtering candidates using tests.

It is the firm's choice if they use tests and it is your choice if you apply!

 

[Jessica Booker]

I agree with @George Maxwell and @AvniD - it's not worth taking anything to heart here.

Ultimately, a firm can use a test like this if it likes. What I'm not sure I understand is how the kinds of tests used by different law firms can differ so much - surely the firms are not that different?

As already seen with @Kubed's approach; if you think the tests are unfair then you don't need to apply to the firms that use them. Some firms with even greater numbers of applicants will invest more in their graduate recruitment teams instead of filtering candidates using tests.

It is the firm's choice if they use tests and it is your choice if you apply!

Firms' preferences for what they value in candidates can differ massively and that's why recruitment processes rely on different assessment methods.

In the same way that firms ask different questions on an application form or ask for different methods of application, different forms of psychometric assessments such as SJTs or games based assessments will mean they are evaluating what is important to them in a method that works for that firm. Even the same assessment can then be evaluated differently, with different weightings placed on elements meaning you could have the polar opposite result with one firm even if you did the same assessment with another.

I think these differences are often what people struggle to get their heads around (and I completely understand why). Law as a topic tends to be much more definitive, rigid, defined and standardised, while the recruitment for it isn't. To make it worse, what is valued by individual firms is often opaque and rarely explained to an audience who want it explained so they can work out how best to demonstrate it.

From someone who has been doing this for far too long, every recruitment system has its flaws and can often be deemed unfair one way or another. Whether you throw more money or more people at selecting candidates, the flaws are still there. If someone came up with a completely fair, objective and attractive recruitment assessment, they would be living the high life. The issue is when you are dealing with people (which ultimately recruitment is all about) pretty much everything becomes subjective, open to interpretation and all about individual preferences.

I understand why many people see the recruitment process as a reflection of the firm and try to align themselves based on that, but I'd encourage them to try to look past this, especially when assumptions have to be made about why it is designed the way it is.

 

[James Carrabino]

Firms' preferences for what they value in candidates can differ massively and that's why recruitment processes rely on different assessment methods.

In the same way that firms ask different questions on an application form or ask for different methods of application, different forms of psychometric assessments such as SJTs or games based assessments will mean they are evaluating what is important to them in a method that works for that firm. Even the same assessment can then be evaluated differently, with different weightings placed on elements meaning you could have the polar opposite result with one firm even if you did the same assessment with another.

I think these differences are often what people struggle to get their heads around (and I completely understand why). Law as a topic tends to be much more definitive, rigid, defined and standardised, while the recruitment for it isn't. To make it worse, what is valued by individual firms is often opaque and rarely explained to an audience who want it explained so they can work out how best to demonstrate it.

From someone who has been doing this for far too long, every recruitment system has its flaws and can often be deemed unfair one way or another. Whether you throw more money or more people at selecting candidates, the flaws are still there. If someone came up with a completely fair, objective and attractive recruitment assessment, they would be living the high life. The issue is when you are dealing with people (which ultimately recruitment is all about) pretty much everything becomes subjective, open to interpretation and all about individual preferences.

I understand why many people see the recruitment process as a reflection of the firm and try to align themselves based on that, but I'd encourage them to try to look past this, especially when assumptions have to be made about why it is designed the way it is.

@Jessica Booker's post is extremely useful for providing the perspective of the firms and graduate recruitment teams in question!

Do bear this in mind if you start becoming disillusioned, but at the end of the day if you find that the tests are too much effort then there is nothing compelling you to apply to firms which have them!

 

[Jessica Booker]

@Jessica Booker's post is extremely useful for providing the perspective of the firms and graduate recruitment teams in question!

Do bear this in mind if you start becoming disillusioned, but at the end of the day if you find that the tests are too much effort then there is nothing compelling you to apply to firms which have them!

Recruiters spend a good amount of time and effort working out what will be popular or not in a recruitment process - that will impact their application numbers and quality. It is always a fine balance between encouraging enough applications from a diverse range of candidates and assessing what you need as a firm! For every person who hates a game-based assessment, there is another who hates a video interview, another who hates the WG, and another who hates a long application form. All challenges again of individual preferences, this time from candidates' perspective rather than employers!

 

[James Carrabino]

Recruiters spend a good amount of time and effort working out what will be popular or not in a recruitment process - that will impact their application numbers and quality. It is always a fine balance between encouraging enough applications from a diverse range of candidates and assessing what you need as a firm! For every person who hates a game-based assessment, there is another who hates a video interview, another who hates the WG, and another who hates a long application form. All challenges again of individual preferences, this time from candidates' perspective rather than employers!

Very true - I know many a candidate who avoids video interviews like the plague!

 

[Lumree]

Very true - I know many a candidate who avoids video interviews like the plague!

On the topic of video interviews and against the backdrop of all we’ve discussed here about firm preferences, I’d be really interested to hear what (in general) firms are looking for at this stage? And by extension, what makes a candidate stand out at this stage?

My understanding is they’re looking to see you align with the firm’s values, you know the firm well, are motivated to work there, and can communicate these points clearly. However, I find that is difficult to display these things in such an artificial environment where you’re only given 60-90 seconds to answer. Is my understanding correct, and grad recruitment understand that this isn’t the most natural environment, and therefore factor that into the decision process? Or do those who excel at video interviews get passed this ‘artificial’ barrier in some way?

 

[Jessica Booker]

On the topic of video interviews and against the backdrop of all we’ve discussed here about firm preferences, I’d be really interested to hear what (in general) firms are looking for at this stage? And by extension, what makes a candidate stand out at this stage?

My understanding is they’re looking to see you align with the firm’s values, you know the firm well, are motivated to work there, and can communicate these points clearly. However, I find that is difficult to display these things in such an artificial environment where you’re only given 60-90 seconds to answer. Is my understanding correct, and grad recruitment understand that this isn’t the most natural environment, and therefore factor that into the decision process? Or do those who excel at video interviews get passed this ‘artificial’ barrier in some way?

I'll be honest, I don't think they are as deep as that.

They are a great way of ensuring that someone can present themselves clearly and concisely, both are vital skills for communicating with clients or colleagues. I don't necessarily see it as an artificial environment - in many ways it is quite similar to leaving a voicemail for a client with clear instructions in a short period of time.

Depending on the questions firms ask, it helps to verify elements like motivation, commercial awareness or alignment to the firm's values - but all of those are subject to the question the firm asks.

In a day when anyone can write your application for you, it is a great way to verify an applicant. It ultimately tends to improve the number of candidates who are successful at the face-to-face interview stage, as you have whittled out those who cannot back up what they have said in their application in person.

Video interviews are also a great way of having to rely less on other criteria. I implemented video interviews for a firm in 2014 because they had shocking diversity statistics, and video interviews meant that rather than shortlisting 100 candidates to face-to-face interview stage and relying on really strict grading criteria like module grades, we were able to shortlist 300 candidates and give a greater range of candidates an opportunity to present themselves in person. It transformed the diversity of their intake because the initial sifting criteria wasn't overly harsh.

 

[Lumree]

I'll be honest, I don't think they are as deep as that.

They are a great way of ensuring that someone can present themselves clearly and concisely, both are vital skills for communicating with clients or colleagues. I don't necessarily see it as an artificial environment - in many ways it is quite similar to leaving a voicemail for a client with clear instructions in a short period of time.

Depending on the questions firms ask, it helps to verify elements like motivation, commercial awareness or alignment to the firm's values - but all of those are subject to the question the firm asks.

In a day when anyone can write your application for you, it is a great way to verify an applicant. It ultimately tends to improve the number of candidates who are successful at the face-to-face interview stage, as you have whittled out those who cannot back up what they have said in their application in person.

Video interviews are also a great way of having to rely less on other criteria. I implemented video interviews for a firm in 2014 because they had shocking diversity statistics, and video interviews meant that rather than shortlisting 100 candidates to face-to-face interview stage and relying on really strict grading criteria like module grades, we were able to shortlist 300 candidates and give a greater range of candidates an opportunity to present themselves in person. It transformed the diversity of their intake because the initial sifting criteria wasn't overly harsh.

That’s very helpful to know, thank you!

 

[James Carrabino]

On the topic of video interviews and against the backdrop of all we’ve discussed here about firm preferences, I’d be really interested to hear what (in general) firms are looking for at this stage? And by extension, what makes a candidate stand out at this stage?

My understanding is they’re looking to see you align with the firm’s values, you know the firm well, are motivated to work there, and can communicate these points clearly. However, I find that is difficult to display these things in such an artificial environment where you’re only given 60-90 seconds to answer. Is my understanding correct, and grad recruitment understand that this isn’t the most natural environment, and therefore factor that into the decision process? Or do those who excel at video interviews get passed this ‘artificial’ barrier in some way?

There is a lot of luck involved in video interviews, but being really well prepared (but not scripted) and knowing a lot about the firm is the only thing I think I can say with certainty will help you excel in them!

 

[mariellax]

I just completed Gowling WLG's behavioural assessment which also included an aptitude test. I have mixed feelings about it. The assessment was a set of computer games and at the end of which I got the report. I am having second thoughts about whether I would progress to the next round because the report says, I am impulsive and make decisions by gut feeling rather than rational deliberation. It also states that I am passive and I do not prefer to work alone as opposed to being a collaborative team player. As someone who has studied psychology at the university, there is plenty of evidence to show that these personality tests are not reliable. The test provider asserted at the end of the test that the results were reliable as they were based on large data sets etc. My question is, how fair is it to use these personality or behavioural tests in screening candidates? You cannot gauge a candidate's fit to the firm atleast until they reach assessment centre or the interview stage in my opinion. What do you think?

what was the aptitude assessment section?