Are workplace personality tests fair? (article)

[Totenkindly]

Thoughts? Agreement? Disagreement?

Are workplace personality tests fair? - Yahoo Finance

The use of online personality tests by employers has surged in the past decade as they try to streamline the hiring process, especially for customer-service jobs. Such tests are used to assess the personality, skills, cognitive abilities and other traits of 60% to 70% of prospective workers in the U.S., up from 30% to 40% about five years ago, estimates Josh Bersin, principal of consulting firm Bersin by Deloitte, a unit of auditor Deloitte LLP.

Workplace personality testing has become a $500 million-a-year business and is growing by 10% to 15% a year, estimates Hogan Assessment Systems Inc., a Tulsa, Okla., testing company. Xerox Corp. says tests have reduced attrition in high-turnover customer-service jobs by 20 or more days in some cases. Dialog Direct, of Highland Park, Mich., says the testing software allows the call-center operator and manager to predict with 80% accuracy which employees will get the highest performance scores.

But the rise of personality tests has sparked growing scrutiny of their effectiveness and fairness. Some companies have scaled back, changed or eliminated their use of such tests. Civil-rights groups long focused on overt forms of workplace discrimination claim that data-driven algorithms powering the tests could make jobs harder to get for people who don't conform to rigid formulas....

....Job-screening personality tests are largely based on a psychological model developed in the 1930s. Until recently, job candidates often took the tests well into the hiring process, and the results were considered along with interviews and past experience.

As the hiring process gets more automated and employers begin incorporating more data into hiring, the tests are used more often and earlier in the process to winnow applicants for specific jobs...

Automated personality tests can "screen out the 30% of applicants who are least qualified" before an employer even looks at a résumé, according to Ken Lahti, vice president of product development and innovation at CEB, an Arlington, Va., company that provides pre-employment tests....

The article (from the NYT) is actually rather lengthy and includes various anecdotes / corporate examples.

 

[prplchknz]

I was told to lie on them and I was told that everyone lies on them. so I don't think they're that effective. people figure out what it's looking for and answers as such. it's just another game. so what it's actually testing you with is, how well can you manipulate the system to get what you want. which is the value corporate america teaches us, so in that sense it's fair.

 

[chickpea]

The onlin application for Target has a really long personality test with a lot of redundant questions. Me and my ISFP friend have both gotten rejected by them multiple times, both plenty qualified. But whenever I go there the employees seem... not all that bright. Makes me wonder what exactly they're looking for on that test.

 

[kyuuei]

Everyone lies on those dopey things anyways. If you seriously said what you thought no one would hire you. I don't think it's fair to hire based on personality.. because you THINK some personalities are shit for the job, then they surprise you.. and the charismatic, lovely-seeming dude that looks born to be a salesman is actually a sleeze ball lazy asshole.

 

[iHeartCats]

Fair or not fair, to be or not to be.........

Just use the cheat sheet like all the sensible people.
Unicru Answer Key

 

[Totenkindly]

Well, the "lying" definitely compounds things -- if you can learn to game the system, then you know how to answer based on the questions you are asked and the job you want.

To be fair, we already do this in "interviews," where you think of your answers ahead of time to probable questions you might be asked, put on your best face, and don't say anything that could get you excluded from the job even if you aren't completely honest.

I don't think the blanket answers here are always correct, here, though. I mean, if I was hiring for a high-end accounting job... sorry, but I'm probably gonna trust the guy who can actually press his suit, shows up on time, and seems to work within boundaries well versus the guy who looks sloppy, shows up late, and can't seem to give definitive answers and says he has trouble making decisions... those personality traits as expressed through his behavior actually seem relevant to traits that will help him succeed in the job, as long as both people are otherwise equal. So with some things, personality seems probably to be correlated to performance in the end.

However, there are many that are not (and sales could be one of those -- it depends on the job and the clientele as to whether a certain personality will do better or worse).

I also don't see the point in giving personality tests to lower-level McDonald's employees. You're just looking for a warm body to fill a position for low pay.

 

[IZthe411]

[MENTION=7]Jennifer[/MENTION], are there Wawas near you?
I've noticed lately, everyone sees to possess a primary or seconday preference.
Either that or they are super energized.

While i'm like

I think it's good to have these tests for certain roles. If somebody cheats at them, it means (to me) they know what it takes to be competent at the job, and even if the cheater does not possess a preference, they at least know what it takes, maybe even have the ability to turn it on to do the job (if they want to keep it). Then it becomes less of a discriminiation tool and more of a qualification test.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Those tests piss me the hell off when I apply for jobs. I lie my ass off and I imagine at least half of the people who take the tests lie. Therefore, it defeats the purpose of having such tests. All it tells the employers is that the people who scored highest either fit their personality criteria or are good at pretending to fit said criteria.

 

[Totenkindly]

Jennifer, are there Wawas near you?

There's one down in Boise I've seen, and maybe some others; but I remember that chain more from my days of frequenting eastern PA (that was my college Kwik-E Mart!) and NJ.

 

[Bush]

Whole Foods Market Inc. stopped using the tests in 2007 after managers noticed that workers who cleared the personality-screening process sometimes lacked basic food-preparation skills. "For us, it just wasn't a good fit," says company spokesman Michael Silverman.

Yeah. It helps to test for the important stuff, such as the skills that are needed for the job.

Personality is important, but these personality screens only scratch the surface. Not only are they not useful in regard to hiring procedure, but also they're dangerous in that they're taken as describing the end-all, be-all of a person.

These tests will successfully vet in two cases. First, those who are dumb enough to self report that they hate doing work. Second, those who are unable to take the test because they are illiterate.

 

[highlander]

What model from the 30s are they using?

I generally hate the idea of this kind of thing. I can't stand the idea of basing hiring decisions based on someone's personality. It feels like it borders on unethical. I'm more of a fan of making these decisions based on evidence of behaviors associated with success in the particular job being applied for, intelligence level (for some jobs) and previous experience. Communications skills are important too.

I had to take a test for my first real job - it was a logic test to qualify me for being a computer programmer. Apparently there was a pretty high failure rate. I can see having a test in that case because it was tied to something pretty much related to what you were going to do on the job.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I also don't see the point in giving personality tests to lower-level McDonald's employees. You're just looking for a warm body to fill a position for low pay.

That's actually what the tests are looking for.... someone who is not ambitious, but who follows orders and is content with task-work (not requiring anything very challenging). As this article notes, this is supposed to reduce turnover, which costs money. I read about this many years ago, but I don't have the links to those articles anymore.

I've wondered if this is why retail workers seem to be getting stupider and ruder, or if I'm just getting older and like to complain more about how people are getting stupider and ruder. The success rates reported are problematic as how those are measured don't necessarily include customer satisfaction. For example, it may use how short a call is, which is supposed to relate to how quickly/easily a problem was solved, but it doesn't necessarily.

I've also noticed the bias for extroverts on those tests, but the employers who use those tests seem to end up with chatty workers who talk amongst themselves and are rude towards customers. It doesn't really work in reality, because the correlation between certain personality traits and certain work habits are not what people imagine. The tests seem to be rooted in the biases in people's imaginations too. They don't seem to be able to back that X trait means someone will be good at meeting Y requirement for a job.

The answers to the online tests are easy to find, and they generally make the right answer the extreme answer , ie., if it's a scale of 1-5, better to choose 1 or 5 than a middle number. Apparently, moderate answers are seen as "indecisive" or "unsure". Sometimes the answer you think would be right is not, especially if they are seeking those "warm bodies". They really don't want someone too smart with goals beyond a mediocre job and low wage.

 

[á´…eparted]

Not at all. Want an idea if a person is a good fit? Get a gauge via interview. These sorts of tests don't work, encourage lying, and are all around just a bad thing to do.

 

[Kierva]

I think an interview with unexpected questions would say more about you than a test could ever hope for.

 

[highlander]

This is a pretty interesting article out of Cornell about the subject.

Punch line
- The tests are often based on the big 5 model
- Use is highly controversial
- Correlation between test results and job performance is somewhere between zero and five percent (95% of job success coming from factors other than what's in the test) though they don't appear to have high confidence in these numbers
- They also talk about emotional intelligence but don't reference how often those attributes are measured
- Fake answers are provided by 25% of applicants
- Legal considerations include the, "1) Title VII discrimination and 2) discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”)"; some cases have been won in court showing discrimination
- Companies are going to keep doing this because the cost of a bad hire is so high ($75K) vs. cost of lawsuits (at least today)

Interesting quote: "Research indicates that emotional intelligence has predictive validity “in domains such as academic performance, job performance, negotiation, leadership, emotional labor, trust, work-family conflict, and stress.”[37] While some contend that emotional intelligence and personality are the same, other studies reveal that emotional intelligence is measuring something apart from personality.[38] Specifically, when measuring emotional intelligence as a separate construct, it can be measured separately from intelligence and personality.”[39] "

How to "fake it"
"Resist the urge to be too revealing. The assessment is part of the job interview, not something for your own enlightenment. If you are curious about your psychological profile, take one of the tests out there on your own dime.
Be a social animal. If you need to lock yourself in a soundproof room to do your work, don’t admit it. These days, law firms are very keen on team work. Never mind that most of the big rainmakers tend to be solipsistic egomaniacs. The buzz word is ‘cooperation.”
Be sunny. Lawyers are paid to look at the worst-case scenarios, so they tend to be skeptical, if not pessimistic. Despite your inclination to look on the dark side, try to project a positive, ‘I’ll-find-a-solution’ attitude. That’s what clients want to hear.
Be cool. If you get angry or take criticism badly, don’t admit it. Grit your teeth and say you welcome criticism—and that you always learn from it.
Review math. Yes, there was a math section on the test that completely threw me. It might help to buy one of those SAT prep books.[43]"

 

[RedAmazoneFriendZone]

Unexpected questions yes, to avoid usual lies...

Seems in France we are not the kings of tests. I don't know how things work outside Europe.

I've just worked in other countries and find the system much more fair : People don't judge you because you are too much or not enough qualified !!

I think interviews should include graphology tests for some very specific jobs.
A good graphologist can guess some of your temper's subtleties that a good observer can't always see.

Unfortunately, graphology is not considered as a science but as a pseudo-science.

Society is focused on benefits and results, so personality remains most of the time in the background.

If the annual sales grows thanks to you, you are allowed to lie as much as you want.


Sad to say : pulling strings + diplomas work better than real skills and hard work. Without speaking of honesty...

 

[Bush]

This is a pretty interesting article out of Cornell about the subject.

Punch line
- The tests are often based on the big 5 model
- Use is highly controversial
- Correlation between test results and job performance is somewhere between zero and five percent (95% of job success coming from factors other than what's in the test) though they don't appear to have high confidence in these numbers
- They also talk about emotional intelligence but don't reference how often those attributes are measured
- Fake answers are provided by 25% of applicants
- Legal considerations include the, "1) Title VII discrimination and 2) discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”)"; some cases have been won in court showing discrimination
- Companies are going to keep doing this because the cost of a bad hire is so high ($75K) vs. cost of lawsuits (at least today)

I'd be interested in articles that discuss the overall trends in the use of personality assessments for hiring. Did they peak in, say, the late-'00s/early-'10s and then start declining?

 

[IZthe411]

There's one down in Boise I've seen, and maybe some others; but I remember that chain more from my days of frequenting eastern PA (that was my college Kwik-E Mart!) and NJ.

Ohhh thought you were still in PA

 

[highlander]

I'd be interested in articles that discuss the overall trends in the use of personality assessments for hiring. Did they peak in, say, the late-'00s/early-'10s and then start declining?

I get the sense that this is not declining. It is increasing. That's just an impression though.

 

[Chthonic]

Well if this kind of thing was used when I went for my last job I would have been unemployed for the past decade. Good thing that human's are adaptable and can leverage whatever they've got into any job they choose to become good at it. Equally good thing that some companies haven't forgotten that. Personality traits aren't a destiny, they are just a set of functions.