2003 IMTA Proceedings - International Military Testing Association

388
Results
At the career office
A first finding is that prospects on the whole looked back positively on their career office visit.
They referred to the visit in general positive terms. Spontaneously, the majority could not think
of any negative experience. When they were asked for specific experiences, the greater part was
enthusiastic about the career counselors’ attitude. The career counselor was described as a warm,
empathic person who showed interest in the prospect’s case. However, a number of negative
experiences were recurrently mentioned by prospects, applicants and trainees. Firstly, there was
a general agreement that the amount and content of feedback on the cognitive screening test at the
career office were unsatisfactory. Most respondents could not appreciate the fact that they did
not get any further explanation on their test score and the message that they had passed or failed
the test. Secondly, there was some disagreement about the appropriate amount of information
that career counselors should provide. Some respondents argued that they needed more
information in order to choose a specific military career. Others complained that they were not
able to process all the information they had received at the career office. Thirdly, looking back
on their visits, trainees criticized the unrealistic preview that was dished up at the career office.
The expectations that trainees had formed based upon what they were told and how they were
treated at the career office did not correspond with real military life. Fourthly, the duration of the
enrollment process was mentioned. Respondents did not understand why the enrollment process
had to be so cumbersome and extensive, although most of them were incorporated within one
month after application. Next, several comments were made on the test conditions at the career
office. Especially, the noisiness of the test environment was criticized. In some career offices the
test computers are located in the same room as where the information sessions take place and
where telephone calls are answered. Other frequently mentioned remarks referred to the lack of
supervision during test administration and the occurrence of computer breakdowns. Finally,
some respondents complained about the accessibility of the career offices.
At the selection center
It was striking to find that respondents (applicants, withdrawals, and trainees) spontaneously put
forward several criticisms about their visit to the selection center, and that the employees
involved in the hiring process openly acknowledged some of these criticisms. To begin with,
respondents recurrently labeled the personnel of the selection center as unprofessional and
unmotivated. In a related vein, most respondents found that the personnel had treated them in an
impersonal manner, “as if they were just a number” or “a piece on an assembly line”. Also
criticized was the interviewer’s presumptuous attitude towards the applicants. The trainees
mentioned that this perception of arrogance was strengthened by the impression the uniform
made on them at that time. Yet, few concluded that this lack of professionalism and human
treatment was symptomatic of the whole organization. The majority made a clear distinction
between hiring practices and the “real military”. According to most respondents, recruitment,
selection, and training were not really part of the military, and were “just things that one has to
plough through”. Most trainees were still enthusiastic about their new employer: On the one
hand, they appreciated that their visit to the selection center provided a realistic preview of life at
the training center, but at the same time they believed that “everything will be different once
training is completed”. Again, several remarks were made on the amount and content of
feedback on the selection outcome. Those who passed wanted to know why they were assigned
to a particular occupation; those who failed wanted to have more detailed information on what
went wrong. Several comments were made on the duration of the personality inventory (CPI). It
45 th Annual Conference of the International Military Testing Association
Pensacola, Florida, 3-6 November 2003