Having, a very little bit, been on the other side of this table ...
Companies are buried with apps and/or resumes' when they are hiring. And there are two problems with every such pile: HR folk and hiring manglers have finite, limited time; many applicants are utterly unqualified, but some know relevant jargon. So there are screening processes:
* Obvious idiots' - the ones who can't conceal their lack of qualification - apps/resumes' get @#$%-canned with nothing more than a, "Thank you for applying, we didn't choose you," email;
* For the ones who seem possibly qualified there are online tests - basic job knowledge, doesn't-play-well-with-others, creativity; these are intended to screen out the unsuitable using means that will identify unqualified quick-studies, inflated resumes', and people unlikely to work well in work groups.
* The obviously probably qualified and the very few who pass the idiot-and-crazies-screening get call-backs with live people who are verifying that the applicant is a real person and who set up interviews with hiring managers; the obviously probably qualified usually go straight from resume' vetting to interviews with real people.
IOW, sg was not screened out as obviously unqualified, but was not regarded as a probable. The "personality test" - which was probably something more substantial, though not obviously so to sg - probably showed that sg "doesn't work well with others", lacked creativity, or had a poor work ethic.
No hiring process is perfect. In one of the hires in which I was involved - for an electronics test technician - the decision came down to two candidates. One had a relevant AA degree, the other had worked in a TV shop in Saigon. My vote went with the latter guy, due to his demonstrated ability to troubleshoot and fix unfamiliar stuff with less than adequate information. But the choice went to the guy with the degree. The guy that was chosen turned out to be a dud; another opening came up soon after and the repair shop guy got hired, and was great.
