What's your opinion on job assessment personality tests?

[Hexenspiegel]

Do you find them useful, accurate and trustworthy? Do you think those tests are flawed? How much credibility do you attribute to them?
Do you think that some types of those are more accurate than the other ones? If so, which ones and why?
This subject can obviously be theorized to infinity, but I'm interested in your own subjective opinion.

 

[muir]

I think they're a way for organisations to filter out people they don't want in their organisation

Most organisations probably don't want people who are going to question things too much

What do you think about them?

 

[Nixie]

Almost all tests are flawed to a certain extent. You cannot 100% quantify how a person will be, you can only make semi-accurate guesses about probable behavior and attitudes. I think that if a company actually USED the information (to do that would require understanding) rather than just stick the results in some kind of machine for a pre-printed outcome/result, such tests might have marginal value. As it stands, most truly problematic employees test and act perfectly fine until you hit the "unreasonable" and "unproductive" problems...most people are capable of leading with a good foot.

 

[this is only temporary]

Do you find them useful, accurate and trustworthy? Do you think those tests are flawed? How much credibility do you attribute to them?
Do you think that some types of those are more accurate than the other ones? If so, which ones and why?
This subject can obviously be theorized to infinity, but I'm interested in your own subjective opinion.

Oh, if you want a subjective opinion I've definitely got one of those.

Using these tests to hire people is ridiculous, and any HR douchebag who would hire or fire a person based on MBTI takes the whole thing way too seriously and should lose their job. People should be hired based on things like experience and ability to do the job in question; getting along with co-workers and generally behaving like a decent human being also helps. Anything else amounts to discrimination. It can be useful in understanding group dynamics once people are hired, and can be an interesting tool to explore personality. People who use it to screen others out are probably the same bigoted jerks who try to apply MBTI to entire races and cultures. Fortunately, they're rare.

Oh, and the short forms of the tests are not terribly accurate. And people trying to get a job are not going to answer 100% honestly: "Why no, I can't stand being around people. I'm sloppy, disorganized, and dislike most of the human race. Hire me?" Yeah.

 

[muir]

Oh, if you want a subjective opinion I've definitely got one of those.

Using these tests to hire people is ridiculous, and any HR douchebag who would hire or fire a person based on MBTI takes the whole thing way too seriously and should lose their job. People should be hired based on things like experience and ability to do the job in question; getting along with co-workers and generally behaving like a decent human being also helps. Anything else amounts to discrimination. It can be useful in understanding group dynamics once people are hired, and can be an interesting tool to explore personality. People who use it to screen others out are probably the same bigoted jerks who try to apply MBTI to entire races and cultures. Fortunately, they're rare.

They don't sit right with me either

Can i ask you why you think corporations persist in spending large sums of money on such programmes?

Also if individual organisations don't gather that much valuable intelligence from these screening tests then do you think they do it as part of a wider corporate culture?

 

[Gaze]

Oh, if you want a subjective opinion I've definitely got one of those.

Using these tests to hire people is ridiculous, . . . MBTI takes the whole thing way too seriously and should lose their job. People should be hired based on things like experience and ability to do the job in question; getting along with co-workers and generally behaving like a decent human being also helps. Anything else amounts to discrimination. It can be useful in understanding group dynamics once people are hired, and can be an interesting tool to explore personality. People who use it to screen others out are probably the same bigoted jerks who try to apply MBTI to entire races and cultures. Fortunately, they're rare.

Agree, they are being used as assessments when they were only meant to be inventories. And they claim to test fitness for a position but they are used to stereotype someone as a match or not based on whether they answer the questions using the best and most desirable choice. However, there aren't supposed to be wrong or right answers in personality tests because it's meant to be a profile not a decision maker. Too many jobs used them to judge fitness and essentially discriminate against individuals who don't choose answers which would work against their ability to be hired although they claim you should answer truthfully because the test will know whether or not you're telling the truth *rolls eyes*

And the results are often used to determine politics rather than job competence. It becomes more about whether someone fits into the job culture rather than whether they are capable of doing the job.

 

[muir]

Agree, they are being used as assessments when they were only meant to be inventories. And they claim to test fitness for a position but they are used to stereotype someone as a match or not based on whether they answer the questions using the best and most desirable choice. However, there aren't supposed to be wrong or right answers in personality tests because it's meant to be a profile not a decision maker. Too many jobs used them to judge fitness and essentially discriminate against individuals who don't choose answers which would work against their ability to be hired although they claim you should answer truthfully because the test will know whether or not you're telling the truth *rolls eyes*

And the results are often used to determine politics rather than job competence. It becomes more about whether someone fits into the job culture rather than whether they are capable of doing the job.

I totally agree with what you've said here

What do you think the source of all this is?

 

[Tin Man]

They're very handy. Just research the company's profile and goals and give answers which mirror this ethos.

As a way for an organization to filter applicants, it's laughable.

 

[muir]

They're very handy. Just research the company's profile and goals and give answers which mirror this ethos.

As a way for an organization to filter applicants, it's laughable.

So whats it about?

Are corporations big dummies or are they doing all this for a reason?

 

[Gaze]

I totally agree with what you've said here

What do you think the source of all this is?

Not sure but personality profiling has become so popular that people think it's a science rather than an uncertain art, essentially subjective interpretation. Results are treated as facts about a person rather than reflecting only one aspect of a person. I've seen good, decent, great workers not considered for a job because of these personality tests. Additionally, I am also biased because I've lost out on jobs because of them. Honestly, some of these tests seem to judge how well you can twist the facts to get what you want by putting the answer they have predetermined as the best response for someone who is an ideal job candidate. This should reinforces what companies are looking for: someone who can manipulate facts to get they want which translates into employees who can get customers to sign up for services or purchase products and make a sale. It says pretty much, give us the answers we want or the responses we want to hear so that we know how capable you are of skirting around the truth to get an advantage. The more genuine and truthful you are on these tests, the less likely you are to be hired. So, that should tell you something about the real significance or reasoning behind the use of these tests.

Edit: I think if they are used, as someone already said, they should be used after hiring to help everyone learn more about how differently each person thinks or works to more effective work together as a team. But it should not be used to determine competence.

According to the logic, INFPs can't be good at sales, are too emotional, and can't excel at being good managers or leaders because they are too soft. This is how a personality test result would be interpreted and used to judge fitness. It would be wrong. This would imply that INFPs can't be tough, assertive, or decisive.

 

[muir]

Not sure but personality profiling has become so popular that people think it's a science rather than an uncertain art, essentially subjective interpretation. Results are treated as facts about a person rather than reflecting only one aspect of a person. I've seen good, decent, great workers not considered for a job because of these personality tests. Additionally, I am also biased because I've lost out on jobs because of them. Honestly, some of these tests seem to judge how well you can twist the facts to get what you want by putting the answer they have predetermined as the best response for someone who is an ideal job candidate. This should reinforces what companies are looking for: someone who can manipulate facts to get they want which translates into employees who can get customers to sign up for services or purchase products and make a sale. It says pretty much, give us the answers we want or the responses we want to hear so that we know how capable you are of skirting around the truth to get an advantage. The more genuine and truthful you are on these tests, the less likely you are to be hired. So, that should tell you something about the real significance or reasoning behind the use of these tests.

Can you spell it out for me? I mean are you suggesting to me that there is a culture of lying and deceit being pushed on us from the top down? ie compromise your integrity or you don't get to play in our sand pit?

Also what you are describing here sounds very much like the school system to me where we are told a bunch of stuff and then assessed on our willingness to make it stick in our heads and then regurgitate it in a test

That would be an assessment of our willingness to REPEAT things....so it would be an assessment of our willingness or ability to repeat things we are told

it wouldn't be an assessment of a persons ability for original thought or creativity or abstract thinking though....in fact those things would not be rewarded at the assessment stage

Interestingly Eienstein who was well known for his visionary intuitive leaps hated school. He found it very stiffling

These corporate personality tests are not really there to assess CEO's or board members so they are not there to assess the decsion makers they are there to assess the general workers.

So is it a stretch to say that these screening tests are there to filter out people who think autonomously and creatively and instead encourage those who will do as they are told or will repeat their training?

Also would it be a stretch to say that both at educational and at work levels of our society (which is currently economically bankrupt with 'zombie banks' at its heart) right brained creative thinking is being discriminated against and left brain repeater thinking is being encouraged?

Edit: I think if they are used, as someone already said, they should be used after hiring to help everyone learn more about how differently each person thinks or works to more effective work together as a team. But it should not be used to determine competence.

Surely a system that takes the results of such a test seriously would then just penalise that person on the basis of the belated test?

According to the logic, INFPs can't be good at sales, are too emotional, and can't excel at being good managers or leaders because they are too soft. This is what a personality test will say, and it would be wrong. It would say, INFPs can't be tough, assertive, or decisive.

That sounds like a system that sees people as robots to me....as cogs in a machine

My final question would be that would such a system be discriminatory towards such MBTI types as INFP's and INFJ's as more right brained thinkers and is this approach creating a nice society?

 

[Tin Man]

So whats it about?

Are corporations big dummies or are they doing all this for a reason?

Both. These sort of tests have become more popular over the years. Unless you're in a specialized field, it's difficult for a company to know whether someone is suitable for their organization. Unfortunately they don't do much research on these tests and so don't realise that they're not a viable means of testing an employee or applicant's personality. They're just looking for a quick and easy way to put people in boxes.

 

[muir]

Both. These sort of tests have become more popular over the years. Unless you're in a specialized field, it's difficult for a company to know whether someone is suitable for their organization. Unfortunately they don't do much research on these tests and so don't realise that they're not a viable means of testing an employee or applicant's personality. They're just looking for a quick and easy way to put people in boxes.

Ok

Where does it come from though?

Do line managers just individually just decide 'hey you know what...i think i'm going to give prospective employees a personality type test'. Or does it come from somewhere else?

 

[Gaze]

To be fair, managers need a criteria to determine who to hire based on experience, skills, qualifications and/or education, and drive. I do think personality is an important element but not as much as attitude. I think personality is being confused for attitude. Of course, I don't think managers should feel sorry for everyone who comes thru the door and just hand them the job just because they are nice or seem like a good worker. Yes, they do need to filter their choices especially if the positions are few. However, my concern (maybe because I'm an NF/ Idealist ), would be the fairness not just efficiency of the criteria being used for eligibility. Of course, fairness is not necessarily a priority for companies who are seeking to find the most likely candidates who they feel sure can move in to the position quickly without much training understandably. They are a business, of course they want to keep labor and production costs low. Consequently, anyone with traits which would delay the process is not going to be considered. However, ethics still matters as naive as that sounds. And if someone is ready, willing, and able to do the job, the they should be given a fair chance, and not stereotyped based on a test which wasn't meant to be test at all. All's I'm sayin'

 

[toska]

I think they are often used to weed out those troublemakers who have "anger issues." You know, people who won’t blindly follow all orders and have the audacity to get angry when they are harassed or bullied or see it happening to someone else.

 

[muir]

I think they are often used to weed out those troublemakers who have "anger issues." You know, people who won’t blindly follow all orders and have the audacity to get angry when they are harassed or bullied or see it happening to someone else.

Well they've got an answer for that too

Oh yes they have another screening method: the DSM. Under that categorisation such 'anger issues' can be medicated

Beyond that they can use NSA technology to screen everyones emails, phone calls and internet activity.....just make sure you don't say any key words that might indicate that you are talking about anything they don't want you to talk about!

''to find out who rules over you, find out who you can't criticise''

 

[Radiantshadow]

Do you find them useful, accurate and trustworthy? Do you think those tests are flawed? How much credibility do you attribute to them?
Do you think that some types of those are more accurate than the other ones? If so, which ones and why?
This subject can obviously be theorized to infinity, but I'm interested in your own subjective opinion.

It really depends on the test. Some have been scientifically verified and are reliable indicators of what they're actually trying to measure. The MMPI - info found here - is one such, and is used by the CIA and other high-stress government agencies as a screening device. As with any tool, corporations need to not only know what tests measure but also what they are not measuring, how well they do each, and understand how the variables under scrutiny truly manifest in one's behavior. Moderation is key, as with most things.

I remember having to take a standard personality test when I first applied for a job. It might've been the MBTI, but I don't remember. I gave the answers I knew they wanted and got the job. Then, I researched the efficacy of the test and the importance of its variables (e.g, extraversion) in the workplace, and cross-compared tests to find a better one for the company to use. I got my managers to sit down for a half-hour and explained what the test did and did not do, its weaknesses, a superior substitute, and provided a solid handful of studies to back everything up. Policy changed and overall productivity has since increased =)

@muir

The DSM was never meant to be used as rigidly as it is. It's a book of guidelines, nothing more.

 

[muir]

@muir

The DSM was never meant to be used as rigidly as it is. It's a book of guidelines, nothing more.

Sure so what do you think went wrong?

 

[Radiantshadow]

Sure so what do you think went wrong?

My opinion on hyper-diagnosis and excessive medication falls beyond the boundaries of this thread. If you really want it, visit my blog, "A Shade of Many Colors", and we can discuss it there. Or you can make a separate thread devoted to the topic.

 

[muir]

My opinion on hyper-diagnosis and excessive medication falls beyond the boundaries of this thread. If you really want it, visit my blog, "A Shade of Many Colors", and we can discuss it there. Or you can make a separate thread devoted to the topic.

Yeah...i don't tend to pay so much heed to those arbitrary boundaries because the reality is that all of these things are inter-related

I also think there is an inherent danger with dialogue being constrained within narrow perimeters as this leaves perceptual awareness in the same predicament as a horse with blinkers on

But i'll respect your wish. if you are willing to answer the question in your blog i would be interested to hear it