Pass or Fail on Personality Tests for Hiring? - Midmarket Clan Editor's Blog - Internet Evolution

When hiring a new software engineer, business analyst, or help-desk technician, midsize companies may depend on a combination of resume reviews, remote and in-person interviews, and personality tests to determine the best people for the jobs.

These tests are supposed to measure prospects' "emotional quotient" or EQ, thereby helping employers determine how well candidates will mesh with existing workers and succeed at the organization. Yet a 2010 review of academic literature found that personality tests accounted for only about 5 percent of an employee's success at work; the remaining 95 percent was due to factors unrelated to personality, according to Cornell HR Review.

That could, however, be a flaw in analytics -- not the tests. Or results could vary, depending on the type of job or responsibilities involved, experts argue.

So as a manager responsible for hiring new IT professionals into your department, are personality tests something you should use? Should you consider using them before promoting staff?

It seems a lot of your peers are opting to do so. Last year, personality testing was a $500 million market that was growing at about 10 percent annually. There were approximately 2,500 tests available, with new products from new companies regularly appearing, according to Psychometric Success. Some of the most common tests used on candidates include the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF); Dominance, Influence, Steadiness, Conscientiousness (DISC); and Caliper Profile and California Psychological Inventory, according to the Ladders. Myers-Briggs, which is based on the work of Carl Jung, is rarely used by human resource execs, the site said -- although that's the one employers have asked me to take.

(Source: DISC)

Fortunately for me, I apparently did well on the test. But not everyone does -- and companies increasingly face lawsuits based on their use of and reliance on personality tests. Some of these tests may even violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, cautioned

to NBC News. At least one

was filed as a direct result of these tests, ABC reported. And the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received 164 complaints based on these employment tests, including personality tests, between October 2011 and September 2012.

(Source: Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire)

Even though test spending is growing, the vast majority of human resource professionals don't use these tests. While 71 percent of HR staff polled said personality tests can be useful for "predicting job-related behavior and organizational fit," only 18 percent of them use these tools, found a 2012 study by the

.

(Source: Myers-Briggs)

Just as you don't exclusively rely on a resume, interview, or social media search to turn a candidate into an employee or a manager into an executive, don't depend solely on a personality test to decide whether someone is a good match for your organization.

— Alison Diana , ThinkerNet Editor, Internet Evolution

@dcawrey... It is very important. If it isn't found at the hiring process it will eventually come out. I think you should do what you can to see this when you interview as people can't hide their personality.

@shakeeb you have a very valid point. Falling to have clear mind set would lead towards minimizing the employee productivity. Hence it is important to look in to that aspect too.

@ dcawrey yes you are correct. The employee should fit the organization culture and failing to do so would lead towards different conflicts within the organization.  

I surprised by the statistics in this article. I would have presumed that personality plays a huge role in an employee's career. 

Every company has a very specific culture, and so I personally believe that fit is important. How can it not be?

Further not only the personality, most of the HR personnel sometimes pay their attention on identifying the backgrounds of their employees to make sure that they are in a clear mental state.

Also you will not need to have psychologist. Properly trained HR personal should have this ability in order to understand people during the hiring process.

@pcharles personality is important since people have to work together, sometimes if the personality won't match hey will not be able to survive in that company.  

Military always take extra steps vetting their candidates, although people tend to think they know their selection procedure, but still get surprised with the results. Many of my friends who didnt want tot go in military still gave the test just for the sake of experience.

When hiring a new software engineer, business analyst, or help-desk technician, midsize companies may depend on a combination of resume reviews, remote and in-person interviews, and personality tests to determine the best people for the jobs.

These tests are supposed to measure prospects' "emotional quotient" or EQ, thereby helping employers determine how well candidates will mesh with existing workers and succeed at the organization. Yet a 2010 review of academic literature found that personality tests accounted for only about 5 percent of an employee's success at work; the remaining 95 percent was due to factors unrelated to personality, according to Cornell HR Review.

That could, however, be a flaw in analytics -- not the tests. Or results could vary, depending on the type of job or responsibilities involved, experts argue.

So as a manager responsible for hiring new IT professionals into your department, are personality tests something you should use? Should you consider using them before promoting staff?

It seems a lot of your peers are opting to do so. Last year, personality testing was a $500 million market that was growing at about 10 percent annually. There were approximately 2,500 tests available, with new products from new companies regularly appearing, according to Psychometric Success. Some of the most common tests used on candidates include the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF); Dominance, Influence, Steadiness, Conscientiousness (DISC); and Caliper Profile and California Psychological Inventory, according to the Ladders. Myers-Briggs, which is based on the work of Carl Jung, is rarely used by human resource execs, the site said -- although that's the one employers have asked me to take.

(Source: DISC)

Fortunately for me, I apparently did well on the test. But not everyone does -- and companies increasingly face lawsuits based on their use of and reliance on personality tests. Some of these tests may even violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, cautioned

to NBC News. At least one

was filed as a direct result of these tests, ABC reported. And the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received 164 complaints based on these employment tests, including personality tests, between October 2011 and September 2012.

(Source: Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire)

Even though test spending is growing, the vast majority of human resource professionals don't use these tests. While 71 percent of HR staff polled said personality tests can be useful for "predicting job-related behavior and organizational fit," only 18 percent of them use these tools, found a 2012 study by the

.

(Source: Myers-Briggs)

Just as you don't exclusively rely on a resume, interview, or social media search to turn a candidate into an employee or a manager into an executive, don't depend solely on a personality test to decide whether someone is a good match for your organization.

— Alison Diana , ThinkerNet Editor, Internet Evolution

Business & military is a lot different.

In the military, people's lives are literally at risk everyday. They SHOULD take the extra step when vetting candidates.

Exactly, Alison.  I don't think personality tests can fully capture the IT capabilities, motivation, and overall performance.  The best prediction of the future is what the IT tech has been capable of accomplishing in the past.

DHagar

When considering a candidate -- especially if you've got it narrowed down to one to three people -- do you have any formal algorithms or other type of structured format you use to decide who is the best person for the job? Does one thing count more than others? And if so, what would that be for an IT position?

Exactly, pcharles.  Hiring should be based on skills, not "feelings" about things.  In regards to the test results, that is the problem, what most accurately predicts your behavior on the job - how you choose to act or how the test predicts you will act.

Tests can play a "minor" role, but are more valuable in training and development, as David points out.  I agree with Alison, they can provide insight, but should not be a pass or fail point for hiring.

DHagar

That is an interesting mix of responsibilities, David. There is something to be said for these tests but, as you say, only if they're a small part of an overall pre-hiring process. The problem lies in the fact that there are many tests out there, freely available, and people could be tricked into believing they can analyze valid psych tests without the outside assistance of those well-trained in analyzing the results. 

@pcharles I agree that mostly firms do not go that way by using psycologist as a permanent member of their hiring process but I think there is nothing to loose by addition of that. I think most of the military setups in the world are resorting to presence of psycologist.

Skills and personality tests are a great resource as PART of the hiring process.  Any company that relies on them for a decision is just looking for a crutch.  In many cases, tests help companies more with onboarding/training than they do with hiring. 

I have never been a strong supporter of testing (I have actually managed in IT and HR - a unique combo) but my current employer does extensive testing as part of an extensive interview process and from everything I have seen it has helped to create a great workforce.

Like any tool, used well tests are great.  Used poorly, the same tests are bad.

Funny thing is, my partner & I took personality test to "categorize" ourselves. We were honest. The results essentially depicted us as the opposite of what we thought we were like based on the 'results' of our answers.

What happens in that scenario?

OK that's understood. But I have never been in an interview where a psychologist is present. I don't think many employers would want/feel a need for this person in the hiring process.

When hiring a new software engineer, business analyst, or help-desk technician, midsize companies may depend on a combination of resume reviews, remote and in-person interviews, and personality tests to determine the best people for the jobs.

These tests are supposed to measure prospects' "emotional quotient" or EQ, thereby helping employers determine how well candidates will mesh with existing workers and succeed at the organization. Yet a 2010 review of academic literature found that personality tests accounted for only about 5 percent of an employee's success at work; the remaining 95 percent was due to factors unrelated to personality, according to Cornell HR Review.

That could, however, be a flaw in analytics -- not the tests. Or results could vary, depending on the type of job or responsibilities involved, experts argue.

So as a manager responsible for hiring new IT professionals into your department, are personality tests something you should use? Should you consider using them before promoting staff?

It seems a lot of your peers are opting to do so. Last year, personality testing was a $500 million market that was growing at about 10 percent annually. There were approximately 2,500 tests available, with new products from new companies regularly appearing, according to Psychometric Success. Some of the most common tests used on candidates include the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF); Dominance, Influence, Steadiness, Conscientiousness (DISC); and Caliper Profile and California Psychological Inventory, according to the Ladders. Myers-Briggs, which is based on the work of Carl Jung, is rarely used by human resource execs, the site said -- although that's the one employers have asked me to take.

(Source: DISC)

Fortunately for me, I apparently did well on the test. But not everyone does -- and companies increasingly face lawsuits based on their use of and reliance on personality tests. Some of these tests may even violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, cautioned

to NBC News. At least one

was filed as a direct result of these tests, ABC reported. And the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received 164 complaints based on these employment tests, including personality tests, between October 2011 and September 2012.

(Source: Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire)

Even though test spending is growing, the vast majority of human resource professionals don't use these tests. While 71 percent of HR staff polled said personality tests can be useful for "predicting job-related behavior and organizational fit," only 18 percent of them use these tools, found a 2012 study by the

.

(Source: Myers-Briggs)

Just as you don't exclusively rely on a resume, interview, or social media search to turn a candidate into an employee or a manager into an executive, don't depend solely on a personality test to decide whether someone is a good match for your organization.

— Alison Diana , ThinkerNet Editor, Internet Evolution

We're all looking for shortcuts -- but sometimes there really aren't any and we have to make that investment of time. Hiring the right person is crucial, so spending a few hours with a prospective employee isn't a bad way of using up a few hours. Better to find out now vs. later!

I remember talking about one question that always puzzled me: "I (often or sometimes, can't remember the exact wording) wake up really hungry in the morning" was on one personality test I took at a job interview (I was offered the job but didn't take it). Someone who is a recovering alcoholic told me that's used to see if someone is a heavy drinker; the thinking is you're boozing it up all night, forget to eat, and wake up starving. Don't know if that's true, but found it interesting...!

I find them interesting, on a personal level, but would be wary of them as a tool for hiring. Digging into the research, I'd caution anyone about using them without also hiring a firm that analyzes them and/or a psychologist to work out the meaning of the results. You can't just take one of the free tests online, hand it to a prospect, then try and figure out what the results mean on your own. That's a recipe for danger!

@kq4ym excellent point. I've seen supervisors hire new workers with similar personality types in the past. They didn't use a test but seemed to choose the same kinds of people with each new hire. 

I've never been a big fan of personality test and I've studied IO Psychology.  Any person with an internet connection can now search for the perfect terms to say.  I've found just sitting with a person one and one and professionally, but candidily shooting the "muster" can be worth wonders.

There may some cases where employers may be choosing personality tests consciously or uncounsciously so as to match an employee with their own personaltiy. We all like to be around those who are similar, and the use of these test would only compliment that factor of human behavior.

PaulS - Oh, no automated test can pick a job candidate -- for now. I wonder how that might change over the years. 

As for me: I don't know that I've ever gotten a job based on cold interviews. I've always gotten them because I've known someone. In the future, will there be personality tests even for networked referrals?

At one point I think this can be used by each individual to check on your personality by your own self. However you have to be open and honest for their self.

@pcharles you have a very valid point. It could just to get in to the job. However I think it is the HR duty to identify different person attitudes since they work with a lot of people.

When hiring a new software engineer, business analyst, or help-desk technician, midsize companies may depend on a combination of resume reviews, remote and in-person interviews, and personality tests to determine the best people for the jobs.

These tests are supposed to measure prospects' "emotional quotient" or EQ, thereby helping employers determine how well candidates will mesh with existing workers and succeed at the organization. Yet a 2010 review of academic literature found that personality tests accounted for only about 5 percent of an employee's success at work; the remaining 95 percent was due to factors unrelated to personality, according to Cornell HR Review.

That could, however, be a flaw in analytics -- not the tests. Or results could vary, depending on the type of job or responsibilities involved, experts argue.

So as a manager responsible for hiring new IT professionals into your department, are personality tests something you should use? Should you consider using them before promoting staff?

It seems a lot of your peers are opting to do so. Last year, personality testing was a $500 million market that was growing at about 10 percent annually. There were approximately 2,500 tests available, with new products from new companies regularly appearing, according to Psychometric Success. Some of the most common tests used on candidates include the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF); Dominance, Influence, Steadiness, Conscientiousness (DISC); and Caliper Profile and California Psychological Inventory, according to the Ladders. Myers-Briggs, which is based on the work of Carl Jung, is rarely used by human resource execs, the site said -- although that's the one employers have asked me to take.

(Source: DISC)

Fortunately for me, I apparently did well on the test. But not everyone does -- and companies increasingly face lawsuits based on their use of and reliance on personality tests. Some of these tests may even violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, cautioned

to NBC News. At least one

was filed as a direct result of these tests, ABC reported. And the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received 164 complaints based on these employment tests, including personality tests, between October 2011 and September 2012.

(Source: Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire)

Even though test spending is growing, the vast majority of human resource professionals don't use these tests. While 71 percent of HR staff polled said personality tests can be useful for "predicting job-related behavior and organizational fit," only 18 percent of them use these tools, found a 2012 study by the

.

(Source: Myers-Briggs)

Just as you don't exclusively rely on a resume, interview, or social media search to turn a candidate into an employee or a manager into an executive, don't depend solely on a personality test to decide whether someone is a good match for your organization.

— Alison Diana , ThinkerNet Editor, Internet Evolution

This is an interesting article and which has to be paid more attention on. Personality matter a lot when it comes to working with people.

@pcharles agreed that personality tests are so effective as they give you a hint about a person before you have any interaction with him. I have witnessed many persons who mentioned wrong things in their tests and when interview is taking place (offcourse in the presence of a physcologist, at least in my case :)) every thing seems to be falling in place. You cannot hide truth and if you have mentioned wrong things then you are only responsible for your down fall.

I totally agree, pcharles.  They are how people either "feel" or wish to present themselves, neither of which are accurate predictions of how people may choose to act.

I think they are an unreliable source of assessment of candidates.  Plus, who is going to tell you they blow up under pressure?  Or don't take direction well?

DHagar

Personality tests are so subjective. It all depends on just how honest you as a candidate are willing to be. I might answer a question differently because I want to impress my potential employer. So the results may not be an accurate depiction of me.

This is interesting. I can see this aiding in picking the correct candidate but not all by itself. It might be beneficial to have the results of the test analyzed before an interview so you can have the results in mind when you conduct the interview.

That's promising.

Often when employees fail to work out, managers will remember some small thing on the interview that was a signal of trouble to come. But the manager missed it. Seems like the type of thing that analytics might catch.

So far, research indiciates they are not very useful. However, some advocates believe big data and improved analytics could actually find more value in personality tests by doing a better job of analyzing the results of tests than anyone's been able to do to date. That was something I found fascinating: That people are saying, yes, they're not doing that great of a job -- but we think it's because we haven't been able to do a good job of analyzing the results. In other words, it's not the tests; it's the analysis that's been lacking.