Slashdot Log In
Personality Testing For Employment
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:48 PM
from the strongly-disagree dept.
from the strongly-disagree dept.
Thelasko writes "While I was in college, I had the opportunity to take an elective course in Industrial Psychology. One section of the course covered hiring practices and the validity of 'personality testing' to screen applicants (Google link for non-subscribers). The Wall Street Journal has a long article discoursing on how such tests are used in today's economy. While personality tests may be designed to uncover underlying personality traits such as honesty, critics claim that the tests instead reward cheaters." The article talks mostly about the tests' use in winnowing candidates for retail positions — deciding whom to interview. Anybody encountered them in an IT or more technical context?
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Not technical (Score:5, Interesting)
In high school I took one for an avation class. Apparently pilots are required to take them. (?) That was a test of my sanity and equally easy to figure out. It consisted of tests like "you just killed a man. Why?" and the trick was to admit equally to each of four possible psychological problems so you look balanced. God forbid a smart lunatic or a smart criminal take those tests.
Re:Not technical (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, so they end up hiring the either the balanced or the intelligent. Not a bad end for them.
Parent
Re:Not technical (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you misunderstood the purpose of the test.
Would you want to hire someone who couldn't even figure out how to lie convincingly during an interview for a position which would involve being in constant contact with the public?
A big part of dealing with customers is figuring out the "correct" answers. Basically, that the customer's concern is important to you, that the more expensive product really is a better choice, and that you really are going to be right back after checking the reserve stock section which really is located right near the break room.
If a simple test can filter out the applicants who are too honest or too clueless for a career in retail sales, why not use it?
Parent
Re:Not technical (Score:5, Interesting)
If a simple test can filter out the applicants who are too honest or too clueless for a career in retail sales, why not use it?
You raise an interesting point, unfortunately these tests are usually used to prevent losses due to employee theft.
My industrial psychology professor once told me a story about a group of nuns and monks that took these tests and failed. When they were asked questions like, "do you know anyone that abuses drugs," or, "do you know anyone who has committed a felony" they answered yes, and therefore failed the test. This group of monks and nuns volunteered at substance abuse rehabilitation centers and had answered the questions truthfully.
Parent
Re:Not technical (Score:5, Interesting)
I took one of these tests years ago for a role in a support helldesk.
The results came out that I was :
a) excellent at problem solving
b) crap at being in a team
c) crap at being micro-managed
When they fired me six months later, the reason given was "Despite being one of the best problem solvers (95% clean-up rate) I didn't fit with the team, and had a personality clash with the manager"
I told them that was the exact result from the test, and they said "Well, we assumed everyone lied on the test". Way to go...
Parent
Re: Personality Testing for Employment (Score:4, Interesting)
I was given a couple of these at a company I applied to some years ago (a hi-tech job). I took them on condition they'd show me the results, which they were fine with doing. Nice guys, but kind of a creepy outfit. Amusingly, I scored slightly above normal in the hostility department (my inward reaction to that was "Who you callin' hostile, m___f___r?"). But they took all that in stride and offered me a job, which I didn't take.
google does (Score:4, Funny)
Google makes you take a looooooong and in depth personality test just to apply for an IT position. It's really insulting.
P.S. Fuck you, Google. Didn't want to work for you anyway. Put that in your personality test.
Re:google does (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:google does (Score:5, Insightful)
I recently completed a postgraduate course on "organisational behaviour", which is the field from where the justification for these personality tests is supposed to originate.
It turns out that there is no objective justification for the tests. The texts were quite clear that little if any benefit can be derived from subjecting individuals to such tests, as the tests were only ever designed to measure populations. While the aggregate score across many people might have meaning, a single individual's results are meaningless. Being subject to such a test is a useful indicator that the prospective employer you are interviewing has a clueless HR department.
It was interesting doing a few job interviews with large companies after having completed the course. It was soooo tempting to answer each question with a page number from the text.
Parent
Re:google does (Score:5, Funny)
Why is the parent modded funny?
Oh you don't know? Moderation is secretly an indirect personality test for the /. readership. Someone just failed.
Parent
HR's recruitment process in a nutshell... (Score:5, Funny)
1. Put 400 bricks in a closed room.
2. Put your new hires in the room and close the door.
3. Leave them alone and come back after six hours.
4. Then analyze the situation.
a. If they are counting the bricks, put them in the Accounting Department.
b. If they are recounting them, put them in Auditing.
c. If they have messed up the whole place with the bricks, put them in Engineering.
d. If they are arranging the bricks in some strange order, put them in Planning.
e. If they are throwing the bricks at each other, put them in Operations.
f. If they are sleeping, put them in Security.
g. If they have broken the bricks into pieces, put them in Information Technology.
h. If they are sitting idle, put them in Human Resources.
i. If they say they have tried different combinations and they are looking for more, yet not a brick has been moved, put them in Sales.
j. If they have already left for the day, put them in Management.
k. If they are staring out of the window, put them in Strategic Planning.
l. If they are talking to each other, and not a single brick has been moved, congratulate them and put them in Top Management.
m. Finally, if they have surrounded themselves with bricks in such a way that they can neither be seen nor heard from, put them in Congress.
One question I still remember (Score:5, Interesting)
"If you found a stranger "making out" in the park would you inform the authorities?"
I answered "Yes" and that's what the hiring team wanted to hear. If I had answered "No," then this team would assume that I would engage in similar activity if I were in a place that I am not known.
"Making out" here, was intentionally phrased that way to keep it vague, but we all know what it means right?
I got the job, though I quit seven months later because this job was had began to run my life, something I loathed with a passion.
Re:One question I still remember (Score:4, Funny)
They didn't ask you what you would do you you were out in the desert and you found a turtle on its back roasting in the sun?
it's a hackneyed question.
Everyone knows you're hot helping because you're also a turtle on its back.
Parent
Sounds like pseudo-science woowoo. (Score:4, Interesting)
Given that these tests have if not methodological history, then atleast spirtual ancestry in stuff like the MBTI(tm) test, which is horribly flawed in it's concept and methodology, I'm pretty skeptical of these tests. these tests really only weed out the obscenely stupid or inept. Which I guess where they succeed, but I'm also wondering if they weed out honest and capable individuals. Although if you can't do some googling and get an answer in an IT context, maybe you shouldn't get that job as an admin or support rep.
Let's See... (Score:5, Interesting)
There was a "personality" test I had to take when I was a clerk for Radio Shack back in college... I remember the manager showed me the "results" and it basically said, "This person is either a very good person, or understood this test enough to give the answers we hoped for." But the questions were like, "Have you ever stolen from an employer" and "Should you swear at stupid customers" and the like. I'm not sure what it was supposed to ascertain other than, maybe how seriously applicants would treat a ludicrous and arbitrary test...?
When I applied at GoDaddy, I was given an intelligence test--Thurston? Thurstone? I'm sure it's on wikipedia somewhere, but anyhow when I was in a position to hire other people, I found that these scores were a significant part of hiring, and the fact that I had one of the highest scores in my department played a major role in my rapid promotion.
My father, a civil engineer, once worked for a Phoenix company that employed another kind of test--long, pointless, exhausting tests and interview questions for candidates, followed at the end of the day with one or two questions that were actually important. He, too, was in a hiring position, and informed that it was "all about wearing them down" so they would give honest responses at the end out of sheer impatience with the process. Put me in mind of the tests they put applicants through in Men in Black...
I've heard of others enduring myriad personality tests--the color test, the four-letter tests, I'm sure these all have very nice names which I'm disinclined to look up at the moment. All of these are a kind of personality testing. But in my experience, from both sides of the hiring process, they're pointless exercises from any perspective but a litigious attorney's (and I say that as a law student). The idea is to create quantified evidence that can be used to back up whatever ad hoc decision HR (or whoever) makes.
Rewarding cheaters may be a problem, but the bigger problem is that we're relying on suspect assumptions about the quantifiability of human relationships instead of the (more time consuming, costlier, but ultimately more effective) approach where you get to know someone before hiring them on a permanent basis.
When I was in a hiring position... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
They're usually boring (Score:4, Funny)
The one I really liked was the one in the movie "The Game"...
You just can't beat the Consumer Recreation Services' true/false test with items like "I frequently hurt small animals." and "I feel guilty when I masturbate."
Re:They're usually boring (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with ALL such "true/false" personality tests is that there are frequently good reasons for answering the "wrong" way, that the test-makers did not anticipate:
"I frequently hurt small animals... I was raised as a Buddhist, but I eat chicken and eggs."
"I feel guilty when I masturbate... because the wife is trying to get pregnant, but she is out of town today."
And so on. Maybe silly examples, but they are examples.
Parent
Last I heard they were still a crock... (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, my professors (and our course material) taught me that some corporations still use one or another form of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), or tests derived from it, for personality testing prospective employees and so on. In the words of one professor: "This test and similar tests were thoroughly discredited over 20 years ago. It is astounding that anybody would still give them credence."
But apparently some still do.
Some personality tests are easy to figure out, which indeed rewards cheaters. Others use various levels of trickery to try to combat cheating (multiple, modified forms of the same question scattered throughout the test, for example), which rewards the more intelligent cheaters. And so on. Often the tests are biased culturally, and some of them still in use are so old that their wording, assumptions, and scoring are questionable today.
In short, I would look at personality tests for pre-employment screening the same way I look at drug testing and standard polygraphs: If you are an "innocent" person, you should NEVER volunteer to do these things. They do absolutely nothing to help your situation, and all you can do is lose. Statistically, they are also biased toward false positives more than false negatives, and the odds are not in your favor. And finally, I thoroughly despise the "guilty until proven innocent" attitude that is firmly set by the use of these tests when there is no prior suspicion of wrongdoing or problems. It sends the wrong message to employees, and their families, and their children.
Re:Last I heard they were still a crock... (Score:4, Insightful)
And, as a follow up, these tests notoriously reflect a person's "self-image," not necessarily the way their personality actually functions and how they will interact with others. The indications a test determines must be carefully verified in an interview, not taken at face value like a piece of litmus paper.
The basic fact is that a single person's testimony is demonstrably unreliable, sometimes even (or in many cases especially) when it regards themselves.
--
Toro
Parent
Snake oil... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep... (Score:4, Interesting)
I was recently turned down by a recruiting company when they discovered that I had 2 DWIs (both of which were 10+ years old) and 2 weapon possession cases (one of which was legitimate, the other was total bullshit that I signed a plea-bargain on so I wouldn't have to sit out the time and lose my job).
Now, personality tests aren't a big worry to me. I'm pretty crazy (by "normal" standards) but intelligent and diligent, so not only do I make a good (if outspoken) employee, but I figured out a long time ago how to manipulate psychological tests. I did it as a teenager, when I was incarcerated in numerous state institutions. If I wanted out of the place, I just picked the answers that made me sound as sane and healthy as an indoctrinated drone. If I wanted to beat a criminal case on grounds of insanity (that's the shortened term for it), I simply picked answers that would make sense for the given situation.
Human beings are pattern-recognizing creatures by nature. And the more intelligent a person is, the more aware of a situation they are and the easier it becomes for them to manipulate a test.
A place that used IQ tests (Score:4, Interesting)
I was hired as part of a sort of package deal (they were stuck with me regardless of IQ, lol) but I found it incredibly scary that this company judged their employees by an IQ test.
For the record, the employees at this company were no brighter than at any other company I've worked for. I had lunches stolen by employees, and the top non-C-level earner in the company was a wreck, taking just about every medication in the book to keep up with the stress. In fact, the company was almost universally hated by the people who worked there, but the pay seemed to be sufficient for them to stay.
What the IQ test came down to was, the guy at the top who was administering the test was constantly reminding everyone in private that he hadn't met someone yet who had a higher score than him. He was defending his little piece of ground, pyschologically speaking. And he was the type that, had he met someone with an IQ higher than him, he probably wouldn't let that person alone until he found a deep character flaw or piece of trivia they didn't know about.
The company had previously gone through related lawsuits, so it's surprising that the collective ego of those at the top was so great that even such a poor hiring policy escaped scrutiny.
Personality testing strikes me as a rather good idea, but it also seems to indicate that corporations are firmly planted in afraid-to-fire-people land now.
Application of Information (Score:4, Insightful)
You do not ask an Idealist to proofread your financial documents, you do not ask a Pragmatic person to make long term strategic plans and you certainly are not going to get anything from a Realist if you ask them to brainstorm. Knowing how someone constructs their thoughts is _invaluable_. What does not do much good, however, is filtering your candidates to only one type. You are only asking for failure there, as every personality/thinking type has its vices.
Every single type.
Obligatory Classic Hacker/Admin Personality Test (Score:5, Funny)
I first saw this in the early 90's or so. Text included, to avoid melting the server (which I don't believe is canonical anyway)
http://kuoi.com/~kamikaze/Hacker/interview.php [kuoi.com]
* "How do you work in a team situation when all the other team members are fools and idiots?" /var/spool/mail only) can a Sun 600MP server serve simultaneously, and what relation does this have to angels and pinheads?"
* "How well do you program under the influence of hard drugs?"
* "Have you ever beaten or killed a co-worker?"
* "Give me a rough estimate of the maximum dollar amount that you've stolen from each of your previous employers."
* "Do you object to bullwhips in the workplace?"
* "Emacs or vi?"
* "You have a large network of Suns being used by secretaries for word processing in FrameMaker. Which GNU packages would you install for your own entertainment, and how would you justify them later?"
* "You see a wounded puppy bleeding and whimpering on the side of the road while you're running to work to fix a downed computer that tens of users are waiting for. Do you let the puppy die?" "Why not?"
* "How much of your workday would you waste by reading news?"
* "Recite the GNU Manifesto."
* "How many clients (30% diskless, 60% dataless, 10%
Nothing new here - read The Organization Man (Score:5, Interesting)
These types of tests have been used ever since professional management was invented as a skill separate from actually being able to do anything economically useful.
I suggest that anyone who has to work in an organization that uses these types of tests read "The Organization Man" by William H. Whyte. Some key chapters are online here: http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/whyte-main.html [upenn.edu] However, what is not online is the Appendix, titled "How To Cheat on Personality Tests". The book was published in 1956.
Whyte doesn't suggest that you cheat on personality tests just because you are greedy, or because corporations are evil and you have to survive, or anything radical like that. It is clear from the book that Whyte is the kind of guy who presumes that most people are well-intentioned, that managers probably want to hire the best, and they need these scores to cover their ass, so people should give the correct answers on tests so managers can then pick the good guys and promote them.
Meyer-Briggs and Minnesota Multi-Phasic whatchamacallits have never been shown to be of any practical use, and their pointlessness has been known for decades.
"The Organization Man" is one of the funniest books I have ever read, but I think it is only funny if you have been exposed to Organization Men enough to recogize the traits he points out, and it is a kind of dry, no-punch line humour that I associate with old men who are constantly laughing at you inside. For the enjoyment of Slashdot I will reproduce here a couple of paragraphs from the "How to Cheat on Personality Tests" chapter:
"The important thing to realize is that you don't win a good score: you avoid a bad one. (...) Sometimes it is perfectly all right for you to score in the 80th or 90th percentile; if you are being tested, for example, to see if you would make a good chemist, a score indicating that you are likely to be more reflective than ninety out of a hundred adults might not harm you and might even do you some good."
"By and large, however, your safety lies in getting a score somewhere between the 40th and 60th percentiles, which is to say, you should try to answer as if you were like everyone else is supposed to be. This is not always too easy to figure out, of course, and this is one of the reasons why I will go into some detail in the following paragraphs on the principal types of questions. When in doubt, however, there are two general rules you can follow: (1) When asked for word associations or comments about the world, give the most convential, run-of-the-mill, pedestrian answer possible. (2) To settle the most beneficial answer to any question, repeat to yourself:
a) I loved my father and my mother, but my father a little bit more
b) I like things pretty well the way they are
c) I never worry much about anything
d) I don't care for books or music much
e) I love my wife and children
f) I don't let them get in the way of company work"
You know what is the saddest about these personality tests ? This guide to cheating on them was written just a few years after the basic ones became popular (they were developed in the 20's and 30's, came into use and were standardized (and also statistically tested and proven worthless) in the bureaucracy of WWII, and The Organization Man was published in '56), but the cheat guide works perfectly well even for tests developed long after the cheat guide was written.
You can take a computer administered test developed in the last few years by the best minds in modern management theory, and cheat it with a guide written over 50 years ago.
I own a consulting firm and I use these (Score:5, Interesting)
I own a small IT firm and in the past 10 years I have hired perhaps 40 people and interviewed hundreds. I try hard to be a good guy and part of that is hiring people who will be a good fit for our firm. Making bad hiring decisions is very painful - for me, for the other people who work here, for our customers and for the employee who is more than likely not enjoying himself. And you know, in our type of consulting, where everyone knows lots of passwords to lots of firms, you can lose some sleep over wanting to let go someone who might have bad feelings over the matter. Its important to get the decision to hire right in the first place for everyone concerned.
I have some pretty smart and experienced guys as coaches, guys who have built and run businesses with hundreds of employees - whose counsel I respect. And one day when I had had a particularly painful experience with someone who was not working out, I asked one of these guys "what did you learn in your 40 years about hiring". And they pointed me to one of these firms. And you know, believe it or not, the good firms out there(we use Caliper) can pretty much do what they say. While its by no means the only criteria, our experience has shown that the insight from these profiles can provide useful input to the hiring decision. I should add that I am a research engineer by training - and so I had historically approached these things from a perspective of extreme skepticism. Further, I would not stand up and count myself as a very good reader of other people - I mean after all, there's a reason I'm an engineer instead of a social worker or psychologist.
Before I started using this for hiring I paid to have three people already on staff fill out a profile. I knew these guys, we had worked together for at least a year. I was astonished by the detail with with the person interpreting the test could describe the personalities of our folks. Things like "Joe is a pretty smart guy but he tends not to over exert himself, and yet no-one ever gets mad at him because he is so charming.". Maybe you had to be there and maybe you need to know Joe but the description was spot on. And time has just proven this was not a fluke.
Our folks are all consultants, they have to be good problems solvers and good "people" people. Based on our experience, we have found that these tests can be helpful in understanding
These tests can help tell you if you are inclined to be a good sales person vs a good engineer for example.
And its not mumbo jumbo that drives this. Its just freaking statistics. You do a lot of research characterizing lots of people and then you find a set of questions whose answers correlate the characteristics you have observed.
Having added this testing to our interview process, we have dropped our bad hiring decisions from 30% to less than 10%. Personally, again, I think its a courtesy to all concerned to do eve
Re:I own a consulting firm and I use these (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see points of bias in your tests already.
The exclusion bias.
You have no idea how many people with different personalities from those you know were excluded. Perhaps people who had personalities with more facets than the test could examine, or with facets none of "kennedy's wiz kids" (who designed the test the same way they ran vietnam) have ever seen.
The inherent inaccuracy of self-confidence.
self-confidence is a relative thing.
People who are interviewing for a job generally have their fundamental ability to eat and pay rent at stake. Those are much, MUCH higher stakes than "this is a new client, let's do a good job" and as such is subject to greater risk aversity.
Analytical capability:
Various positions require various levels of analysis, and my experience is those robotic tests do not provide adequate clues as to the level of analysis which should be applied.
And its not mumbo jumbo that drives this. Its just freaking statistics.
because we all know statistics cannot be manipulated, misrepresented, improperly gathered, etc.
Employment prospects are more like a scatter plot with high variance, and these tests are like the most simplistic best-fit regression lines. They WILL exclude wide swaths of excellent candidates based on arbitrarily placed limits. This is especially true for testing services contracted from outside.
o everyone a huge favor by helping to ensure that the people we offer jobs to will do well in them and be happy
Isn't that what interviews and training programs are for? acquainting them with company policy, teaching them the procedures, filling them in on how to do their job?
Parent
I would like to hear from a lawyer on this.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Companies that have formalized tests of personality might be opening themselves up for a discrimination lawsuit, unless there is a way to map personality type to a tangible requirement for the job. (IANAL.)
There are federal laws banning the use of polygraphs in interviews, but this type of thing is VERY similar.
These personality tests are, imho, worse then polygraphs.
Polygraphs only determine if you lie or feel discomfort, but these tests determine whether you conform to some arbitrary personality type.
"rejected from e-harmony" commercial anyone?
Apparently not being a blithe, extroverted yes-man on some arbitrary test now means you can't get a job.
Talk about social darwinism.
I've taken very similar tests on sites which give ME the results and it shows that, while I possess many good qualities, my reserved nature makes me hard for others to read, particularly in that my expression of happiness or enthusiasm are externally muted.
In fact, my personality type is represented by 0.003% of the population.
I'm a pessimist and an introvert. This does NOT interfere with my ability to put on a professional face and be friendly to clients, but it does cause a great deal of stress when a potential job is at stake. Further, being a pessimist, while many people frown on it, has many positive qualities in a work environment, such as a propensity to properly assess and prepare for likely hurdles on a project.
This doesn't matter though, as the slightest sign of discomfort or non-conformity is construed as some kind of black mark.
Job ad says "we need free thinkers", personality test says "sorry you don't meet the 99.99999999% match we require with our VP's personality." Interestingly the most brilliant and talented people tend to be eccentric. A classic example of mediocrity rising to the top... except now only mediocrity is allowed in the door period.
The academic equivalent would be someone being passed up who knows their stuff but doesn't test well, while an incompetent who's good at telling people what they want to hear gets top marks.
I would also like to know if this falls afoul of discrimination laws.
Your personality is far more deeply ingrained than your religion. You should not be disqualified because of it unless you are severely psychologically impaired.
Parent
Re:I would like to hear from a lawyer on this.. (Score:5, Interesting)
As a teenager, I was always passed up because I couldn't "pass" the personality test on BestBuy.com (for The Geek Squad), despite the fact that I already had my A+ and was on my way to a CCNA at the time. I talked to the employer at that local store and while he recognized that I probably knew my field I 'HAD' to pass that personality test. Needless to say I never got hired by them.
Parent
Re:I would like to hear from a lawyer on this.. (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was teen, I applied for sales job at a local computer store. I had to take one of these tests and failed. The manager made an exception and hired me. Of the people that passed the test and worked at the store, three were fired for stealing and the manager (who became an area manager) was fired for having an affair with his subordinate. Yeah, they work well.
Parent
Re:I would like to hear from a lawyer on this.. (Score:5, Interesting)
One summer I decided I wanted t work at a record store. I went, applied to one store in the area took the little test and never got a call back. I think I scored in the 80th-90th percentile on the test, because I'm actually pretty honest. I didn't try game the system, didn't do anything. Thought oh well, wasn't meant to be.
Week later apply for another position different store, this time no test just an interview. I got the job, wahoo! Talking to my new manager few weeks later and I asked him about the test, his response "Well, we used to use the test, but everyone we hired based on the test end up stealing from the store."
Classic.
Parent
Re:I would like to hear from a lawyer on this.. (Score:5, Funny)
So, judging from your post, you are for the personality tests, because they saved you from Geek Squad.
Parent
That reminds me... (Score:5, Interesting)
Their guy, who presented himself as a lead tech (and he might have been) called and said we would set up a telephone interview (he was many states away). I told him that was fine, but that if he was going to call me on that day, it was important that we keep to the schedule because I had an existing job, and my schedule was tight.
He called an hour late. Then, I was about halfway through the phone interview, when he interrupted me in the answer I was giving, spoke to someone where he was, then got back on the phone and said we would have to do this later, they had an "emergency" of some kind with a computer for a customer that had to be handled right away.
They were trying to stress-test me!
I explained to him, still calm and collected, that he could call me back on X day (the next day I think), but if he did he would have to be prompt that time, because I was busy at my job and did not have time to wait for him to call if he did not call on schedule.
He called an hour late again. I explained to him, as calmly and coolly as I could, that I really did want the job, but that I did not have time to talk to him. I explained that I had already told him once that I already had a good job, and was not willing to jeopardize that just so he could play transparent games in my "interview".
He turned completely cold. His voice turned cold, his responses turned cold, and he grudgingly said that they would get back to me.
Yeah, right.
Parent
Re:That reminds me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:That reminds me... (Score:5, Insightful)
He called an hour late again.
Remember: you're interviewing your prospective employer, too. This guy clearly failed YOUR test.
Parent
Re:I would like to hear from a lawyer on this.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Things are heading down to an employment singularity.
Remember the days where you could walk into a place and hand them the help wanted sign in the window, and after a few questions, you were hired? The interviews were usually on the spot with the manager on duty and you had your job right then.
Now-a-days, everyone wants to run background checks. Everyone drug tests. Everyone makes you fill out a pretty big application, and every job I've applied for had a basic personality exam. It asked questions like, "Do you steal office supplies?" etc
As employment gets harder and employers get choosier, even the faintest gray mark on your record will mean that you're going to have trouble finding work. Because there's a lot of people out there with totally clean records, or at least, a lot of people that can make their records look clean. The more 'dirt' they can weed out, the better.
One of the most difficult-to-obtain jobs that I had been in, that didn't require a lot of experience, just several interviews, ended up being very lacking in diversity. The same kinds of people..same attitudes..same personalities..etc.
In the end, assuming a sufficiently large pool of candidates, tests like this will only ensure that each pool of positions only hires a certain kind of person. Innovation will suffer at the hands of liability and perceived perfection. After all, who made the choice to hire the guy that scored 3% less on his personality exam? Looks like your hiring skill is fading..why didn't you just follow procedure?
Parent
Re:I would like to hear from a lawyer on this.. (Score:5, Insightful)
'jobs today have a higher technical requirement than back in the day, so while i don't agree that just turning up is enough to get the job'
Your average person turning up has a higher technical capability today than back in the day as well. Almost every position is trainable in any case. Personality checks, credit checks, drug tests, etc are all worthless garbage on the hiring front but what is worse is this obsession with trying to find the already perfectly qualified candidate.
I'm a technician. I work in the field, on a daily basis I encounter systems and software and must master them quickly enough to resolve problems encountered by people who work with those systems all day everyday for a living and make them think I knew more about it than them all along. I have been doing so successfully for years. Yet, despite this, I have been turned down for positions before because I lacked experience with a particular application, perhaps backup application, etc.
When did people lose sight of the fact that working a position within a single company generally involves a skillset that a competent fast learner can master within two months? The fact that two months of training is too much to invest in an employee these days says a great deal about the direction companies are moving in.
Parent
Re:I would like to hear from a lawyer on this.. (Score:5, Insightful)
'jobs today have a higher technical requirement than back in the day, so while i don't agree that just turning up is enough to get the job'
Your average person turning up has a higher technical capability today than back in the day as well. Almost every position is trainable in any case. Personality checks, credit checks, drug tests, etc are all worthless garbage on the hiring front but what is worse is this obsession with trying to find the already perfectly qualified candidate.
I'm a technician. I work in the field, on a daily basis I encounter systems and software and must master them quickly enough to resolve problems encountered by people who work with those systems all day everyday for a living and make them think I knew more about it than them all along. I have been doing so successfully for years. Yet, despite this, I have been turned down for positions before because I lacked experience with a particular application, perhaps backup application, etc.
When did people lose sight of the fact that working a position within a single company generally involves a skillset that a competent fast learner can master within two months? The fact that two months of training is too much to invest in an employee these days says a great deal about the direction companies are moving in.
Exactly!
This is my major complaint. I graduated in spring 08 and can't find a job.
The reason?
I focused on the task i was supposed to: school!.. I took a double major and did well at both of them.
Apparently the capacity to focus and train two separate tracks at the same time means NOTHING.
They want "canned labor".
Training your workforce is something to do in india, where there will be none of this "cost of living" stuff.
I give it about 10 more years before they realize there's no such thing as a free lunch, and killing peoples' wages will kill revenues. (they should be learning it now, but the government is bailing them out >.)
Parent
Re:I would like to hear from a lawyer on this.. (Score:5, Interesting)
In tests, I usually use my meta-testing knowledge. And show it plainly.
For instance, those godawful "20 sentences starting with I am..." tests I start filling out from the bottom, putting "I am well aware you have started reading this from the bottom" and similar sentences. This makes my test results both very good and useless, which is just the way I like them.
In interviews, I am frank. I also tend to show myself in a slightly worse light; if they still accept me, it means that even on a bad day I will not step on too many toes. If they refuse me, it is probably for the better. For me, not for them.
I am rather good at what I do. That means that yes, I will argue with my superiors if the need arise. If you hire me for my expertise, then I shall damn well give it to you, whether you want it or not.
Incidentally, my current workplace is very much to my liking. Nearly all of the people working there are kind of like that, so we all do our jobs to the best of our abilities, and respect other people's expertise in turn. It all works out very nicely, even though I, for one, would most certainly not fit in a typical corporate monoculture.
Parent
Re:I would like to hear from a lawyer on this.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently not being a blithe, extroverted yes-man on some arbitrary test now means you can't get a job.
I was recently hired for a new job, and of my new bosses, while they've uniformly expressed pleasure in my technical abilities, they all say the reason for hiring me was my personality. One mentioned specifically that their job involves keeping clients happy, and who would you rather bring to meet the client: the arrogant jackass who's got a lot of technical experience, or the personable guy who is willing to learn anything he doesn't know and happy to admit that he doesn't know everything.
Your mileage may vary, but I just jumped $30k in salary during a recession.
Parent
Re:I would like to hear from a lawyer on this.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently not being a blithe, extroverted yes-man on some arbitrary test now means you can't get a job.
I was recently hired for a new job, and of my new bosses, while they've uniformly expressed pleasure in my technical abilities, they all say the reason for hiring me was my personality. One mentioned specifically that their job involves keeping clients happy, and who would you rather bring to meet the client: the arrogant jackass who's got a lot of technical experience, or the personable guy who is willing to learn anything he doesn't know and happy to admit that he doesn't know everything.
Your mileage may vary, but I just jumped $30k in salary during a recession.
Did any of them hear of "faking it"?
It's quite possible to "fake it".
it's also quite possible to have an adaptive and modular personality with a "core" that is "you".
I fall into this final category.
My mother thinks i'm one person, my friends think im another, my boss thinks i'm another.
Back in school, the motto was: if it's for a grade I can and will do whatever is necessary. This included phys ed. I'm by no means an athelete but I outperformed the jocks on the track when there was a grade attached to it.
Provide a great enough point of interest (compensation, subject material, a cause to work for, or please please please all 3) and I will adopt whatever demeanor and expertise are necessary to get the job done.
All the personality test does is weed out people like me.
It can measure the core, or whatever I THINK they might want, but without them telling me what they're looking for I can't adapt myself to their environment.
"we're going on a trip, we want a vehicle"
via which medium? microgravity? the ocean? land? the atmosphere?
what are you taking along?
what balance of efficiency or redundancy do you need?
do you value endurance or speed?
When faced with some automated test you can't ask these questions!
Parent
Re:I would like to hear from a lawyer on this.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Likewise, after my most recent hiring I was told one of the strongest factors in my favor wasn't my 15+ years of technical experience, it was the hiring manager's sense that I was a low-stress personality type who would not be driven to insanity by the high-stress nature of the job.
This wasn't based on any particular personality test, mind you, just the hiring manager's judgment call based on my performance in the interviews.
Since then I've seen potential candidates for other positions in my group who met the professional qualifications passed up because they seemed wound too tight for the work.
Parent
Re:I would like to hear from a lawyer on this.. (Score:5, Insightful)
These are heavily used in the service sector. My personal view, if used correctly in conjunction with an interview and the application/resume, they help give a fuller picture of the applicant. They should not be used as a pass/fail measure.
But, HR believes in it, so it must be golden. If only they knew how many managers had their own answer key tests hard copied onsite, and were used when they had applicants that they wanted.
People are too complex to be sorted out in 200 questions.
Parent
Re:I would like to hear from a lawyer on this.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I generally agree with just about everything you said, except for one of your last statements.
Yes, your personality is quite deeply ingrained. However, just like religion, it can also change, for better or worse.
Growing up, I was a very extroverted kid. However, I changed schools a lot and as high-school hit, I realized that I was a geek, and I started becoming more introverted and less inclined to be in social situations.
However, around freshman year in college, I started dating a non-geek girl. She was an extrovert, and over time, I started exhibiting some of her characteristics. Over the years, as I've gone through my career, I've moved away from the research/tech types to mostly the business/management types.
Result? I've become more outgoing, social and my personality has undergone a transformation. Now make no mistake - I'm still a geek at heart. I own (and read) more books than most people, enjoy scifi and fantasy, build Lego contraptions and solve puzzles for fun.
However, I feel that my horizons have broadened. I still like Asimov and Herbert, but I can now appreciate Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Neruda. I watch Stargate, but I also enjoy going to the ballet. I enjoy parties and socializing as much as solving puzzles.
Until a few years ago, I had always been called quite non-confrontational and very pacifist in nature. But just the other day, a girl I work with told me that I'm a hardcore Type A despite the fact that I've always thought that I was more passive aggressive. Surprising yet is the fact that my industry in general is filled with really aggressive Type A folks, so coming from them, it was a genuine shock to me.
Of course, sometimes it amazes me how much people stereotype. For instance, last week I overheard someone calling me a "suit", despite the fact that I still enjoy technology and am quite partial to it. Unfortunately, people equate dressing well and being extroverted and talking to business as being "suit-y". That is the sad reality.
Parent
Re:I would like to hear from a lawyer on this.. (Score:5, Funny)
Congratulations, you passed the test and have a great personality.
Disregard that, you failed, you irredeemable sociopath. A shame, you got so close :(. A little bit of extra effort and you can ace it the next time !
Parent
Re:I would like to hear from a lawyer on this.. (Score:5, Insightful)
'an intelligent person would understand that different sectors, firms within sectors, and departments within firms place different values upon divergent priorities.'
False. The intelligent understands that low level managers that accomplish work within the company do all of the above. The intelligent understands that this test is developed by corporate and marketing type droids and thus they should answer in a manner the corporate/marketing droid would like. Read the employee handbook or watch an orientation video at any company and express the attitude expressed in said video. ATTENTION! Do not give the answers that would actually best fit to accomplish the goals and ideals stated in said video, give the answers the fit the ATTITUDE expressed in the video with the solutions they stated and state the goals they state. Even if those things conflict.
'Efficiency is composed of accuracy and speed. How is each of these weighted?'
You don't weight them, you are superman and work both accurately and fast. Whatever option gives the most of both is what you want. Companies never want you to SAY you are willing to sacrifice quality for speed. If there is an option that says you will exceed goals ahead of deadline, pick that one.
'Work dynamic is composed of the independence vs the subordination of workers to the chain of command. How are those weighted?'
If you are applying for management you are absolutely a free thinker and worker who rigidly adheres to every letter of company policy. If you are applying to anything else you are a self starting management teetsucker. Clear enough for you? Most importantly, as anything other than management you listen to other employees every concern, never get angry, upset, or emotional, make friends easily, and never have confrontations with other employees.
Parent
Re:I would like to hear from a lawyer on this.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, even if you know the correct attitude or answers, you may still just be dealing with idiots. I was once censured at work for doing more work than anyone else and with a lower error rate. Because I did so much work, even with a lower error rate, I still had a higher total number of errors than anyone else. I was told that I had an unacceptable number of errors. I was then told that I should work more slowly and it would be ok to have the same number of errors as everyone else because "quality comes first"; ie I was told to work more slowly with more errors per unit of work and conform to the average all because some idiot didn't understand what a rate was (and that wasn't the only time I ran into that at that particular company). Even if you think you know all of the answers, the grader may still just be stupid.
Parent
Re:Sounds accurate to me (Score:4, Informative)
I've never seen one where which answer went with which "type" wasn't completely obvious.
Just pick how you want it to turn out, and answer consistently. Piece of cake. I'd be shocked if anyone with half a brain did anything other than that.
Surely even if you try to answer it honestly you're unintentionally favoring the answers that you want to be true (or the ones that you believe to be expected) rather than the ones that are true.
Parent
From an Industrial Psychologist... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is actually hotly debated amongst industrial psychologists.
Vendors of personality tests include items that "detect" patterns of responses that appear to be due to this kind of cheating. They then look at these cheaters (the ones who are purposefully answer how a "good employee" would answer instead of with their own tendencies) and check their level of job performance. Oddly enough, there is a correlation - people who pad their responses to look like a "good employee" also tend to have higher job performance ratings, at least as it appears to their supervisors.
Parent