The Paul Flowers debacle is generating something of a backlash against personality assessment, and in some areas against the HR function itself. It’s not the first time psychometrics and HR have taken a bashing in the national press; so how do we in the industry respond?
According to reports, Flowers was selected as Chairman of the Cooperative Bank purely on the basis of psychometric test results. I have a nagging feeling that not only are we not hearing the full picture, but that psychometric tools have become the proverbial ‘fall guy’ for wider and more complex failings.
This hits at the heart of what HR’s role should be in executive recruitment — to provide expertise on assessment processes that ensure rigour and fairness.
Some have even suggested that the MBTI instrument was used to recruit Flowers — a tool that should never be used in recruitment — and that those in recruitment routinely use it to screen applicants. Whether or not this is true, the speculation suggests a profound misunderstanding of how to use psychology in the workplace. People seem to be muddled not just about which assessments are relevant to use, but also the part that psychometrics should play in the process.
We can’t know for sure, of course, whether this tool was indeed used and how widespread its misuse is, but clearly this is an issue the HR and recruitment community needs to address. Tools that evaluate personality type are designed and validated to assess an individual’s type or pattern of personality preferences; they are not designed or validated to measure skill levels or competence.
Blame user, not tools
Using tools like this for recruitment is a serious error — it’s simply the wrong tool for the job. You wouldn’t use a hammer to dig a hole — and if you did, you can’t blame the hammer if your desired hole is more of a dent in the ground. Two people can have similar personality preferences, but very different levels of skill. Crucially, people can also develop skill in things that don’t relate to their personality preferences, which is why you’ll find people of all MBTI types succeeding in all professions.
To really understand how someone will behave in a job and how competent they will be, recruiters need to use tools that are validated on this basis. Instruments that are proven to predict behaviour can help potential employers get an accurate picture of what kind of leader or decision-maker a candidate will make. And HR should be safeguarding that only relevant and appropriately validated tools which measure applicable traits are used — especially when it comes to high-stakes roles — and to speak out where this is not happening. In this way, HR managers position themselves as influential experts and thought leaders.
However, all of this is irrelevant if you don’t get the basics right. The Co-op’s board members seem to have decided that personality was crucial in the chairman role, and that someone who could take strong leadership was needed. Indeed, it’s admirable to aim to then measure these qualities objectively using a psychometric assessment, rather than relying on subjective opinions (or old boy’s networks).
But assuming that a candidate’s personality is all that matters is a huge mistake. How about the technical skills and aptitude required for the role (measured by an ability test or work sample exercise)? How about their experience in the sector and understanding of, in this case, finance? If these things are not assessed, personality tests can only give a partial picture — the key is rather to integrate tests into a rounded recruitment process, where all the different elements that are important can be assessed.
In the Flowers case, a genuine assessment of real competence seems to have been decidedly lacking — and the danger is that such malpractice is widespread, especially where tests are wielded by those with little expertise. This is where HR must take the lead — in ensuring psychological insights are applied appropriately to the recruitment process, and in promoting fair selection methods that are proven to work. HR professionals should equip themselves with the right information and understand best practice — and then demand to be heard.
- From: http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/hro/fea...sychometrics-malpractice#sthash.DdetxOsh.dpuf
******************************
This is relevant to what I posted yesterday, but I think it brings up a lot of good questions (mind you, I think the example of Flower is far more complicated than just MBTI). I think it brings up the great point of how complex an individual is- personality is just one component of an individual, and one competency. I think there's certainly a place for MBTI in HR, but it should be coupled with a variety of other metrics.
According to reports, Flowers was selected as Chairman of the Cooperative Bank purely on the basis of psychometric test results. I have a nagging feeling that not only are we not hearing the full picture, but that psychometric tools have become the proverbial ‘fall guy’ for wider and more complex failings.
This hits at the heart of what HR’s role should be in executive recruitment — to provide expertise on assessment processes that ensure rigour and fairness.
Some have even suggested that the MBTI instrument was used to recruit Flowers — a tool that should never be used in recruitment — and that those in recruitment routinely use it to screen applicants. Whether or not this is true, the speculation suggests a profound misunderstanding of how to use psychology in the workplace. People seem to be muddled not just about which assessments are relevant to use, but also the part that psychometrics should play in the process.
We can’t know for sure, of course, whether this tool was indeed used and how widespread its misuse is, but clearly this is an issue the HR and recruitment community needs to address. Tools that evaluate personality type are designed and validated to assess an individual’s type or pattern of personality preferences; they are not designed or validated to measure skill levels or competence.
Blame user, not tools
Using tools like this for recruitment is a serious error — it’s simply the wrong tool for the job. You wouldn’t use a hammer to dig a hole — and if you did, you can’t blame the hammer if your desired hole is more of a dent in the ground. Two people can have similar personality preferences, but very different levels of skill. Crucially, people can also develop skill in things that don’t relate to their personality preferences, which is why you’ll find people of all MBTI types succeeding in all professions.
To really understand how someone will behave in a job and how competent they will be, recruiters need to use tools that are validated on this basis. Instruments that are proven to predict behaviour can help potential employers get an accurate picture of what kind of leader or decision-maker a candidate will make. And HR should be safeguarding that only relevant and appropriately validated tools which measure applicable traits are used — especially when it comes to high-stakes roles — and to speak out where this is not happening. In this way, HR managers position themselves as influential experts and thought leaders.
However, all of this is irrelevant if you don’t get the basics right. The Co-op’s board members seem to have decided that personality was crucial in the chairman role, and that someone who could take strong leadership was needed. Indeed, it’s admirable to aim to then measure these qualities objectively using a psychometric assessment, rather than relying on subjective opinions (or old boy’s networks).
But assuming that a candidate’s personality is all that matters is a huge mistake. How about the technical skills and aptitude required for the role (measured by an ability test or work sample exercise)? How about their experience in the sector and understanding of, in this case, finance? If these things are not assessed, personality tests can only give a partial picture — the key is rather to integrate tests into a rounded recruitment process, where all the different elements that are important can be assessed.
In the Flowers case, a genuine assessment of real competence seems to have been decidedly lacking — and the danger is that such malpractice is widespread, especially where tests are wielded by those with little expertise. This is where HR must take the lead — in ensuring psychological insights are applied appropriately to the recruitment process, and in promoting fair selection methods that are proven to work. HR professionals should equip themselves with the right information and understand best practice — and then demand to be heard.
- From: http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/hro/fea...sychometrics-malpractice#sthash.DdetxOsh.dpuf
******************************
This is relevant to what I posted yesterday, but I think it brings up a lot of good questions (mind you, I think the example of Flower is far more complicated than just MBTI). I think it brings up the great point of how complex an individual is- personality is just one component of an individual, and one competency. I think there's certainly a place for MBTI in HR, but it should be coupled with a variety of other metrics.
