Donna Flagg

Personality Tests: A Precarious Tool
June 1, 2008

I have long had issues with personality tests. In fact ever since I learned about how they (along with hand-writing analysis) were being used in organizations to make hiring decisions back when I was in graduate school, I found the whole idea preposterous. Today, I still find them inherently restrictive because they box people into a set of definitions based on gross generalizations, which makes them about as effective and predictive as horoscopes.  

Think about it. What if they’re wrong? 

For those people who are believers in the utility of these tests, they have to know that the results can not be right one hundred percent of the time. That, in and of itself, is intrinsically risky. In addition, there is no way to measure the absolute effectiveness of these tools because it is impossible to know how many candidates, who may have proved to be valuable or even invaluable employees, were turned away based on “low” scores.  Lastly and perhaps the most important, is that these instruments don’t test facts. They test subjective knowledge which is variable by day and cognitive in nature. So what you are getting by administering these tests is what people think and feel at any given moment. They do not show you what someone can do, which matters more than anything when it comes to working. An audition that tests behavioral abilities would be better. 

Frankly, a good HR and management team should not need to rely on an impersonal and organizationally irrelevant test to help them decide what and who is right for their organization. They should know. 

Posted by Donna Flagg on June 1, 2008 | Comments (3)