https://16characters.tadaland.net/en/home
Why Personality Assessments Do More Harm Than Good
Wouldn’t it be great if there existed a magical tool that could peer into a person’s soul and tell you how well they’ll turn out if you hire or promote them? That’s pretty much what the nearly one-third of companies who use personality (psychometric) assessments believe they’ve found. But what if there are flaws in this magical tool? What harm could companies be unknowingly inflicting on people by basing hiring or promotion decisions on flawed data?
The Real Danger of Personality Assessments
The real danger of personality assessments is not that they don’t work at all, its that they work differently than advertised.
Most personality assessments come with a disclaimer such as, “This assessment should not be used as the sole factor in making employment related decisions such as hiring and promotion.” Instead, assessment makers advise employers to use personality assessments in addition to other screening methods. They explain that their assessment only provides “part of the picture” and the other screening methods will help fill in the gaps, like this:
That’s a poor analogy because it implies that personality assessments give an accurate representation of part of the picture. The reality is that personality assessments are more like a Picasso painting that shows the whole picture but a distorted version, like this:
Personality assessments over-emphasize some aspects of people’s personality and under-emphasize, misplace, or omit other aspects. Personality assessments don’t provide an accurate depiction of part of a person’s personality, they provide a distorted, misleading version of the whole picture.
Personality assessments don’t provide an accurate depiction of part of a person’s personality, they provide a distorted, misleading version of the whole picture.
Here’s why.
Lack of Context
Personality assessments attempt to discover aspects of your personality such as:
- Good communicator or poor communicator?
- Introverted or extroverted?
- Persistent in the face of adversity or give up quickly?
- Thinks through problems logically or haphazardly?
The problem is, we could be (and often are) all of these things depending on the situation. But an assessment can’t possibly determine how a person will behave in every given situation.
Take me for example. I fit the introvert profile almost perfectly. Put me in a social setting with lots of people and I become a wall flower. But put me on stage with a microphone in front of lots of people and I’m in my element. Would a personality assessment account for that slightly different circumstance? Not a chance. I’d be placed squarely in the introvert category and provided boilerplate personality descriptors based on that classification.
Here’s an example of how personality assessments, which can’t possibly grasp the full context of a person’s personality, can lead to potentially inaccurate, damaging conclusions.
Several years ago, I considered adding personality assessments to my service offering. As part of my research, I decided to take an assessment from a consultant who advises boards of directors on executive recruiting decisions. The results of the assessment indicated that I’m not very good at reading people and I therefore wasn’t suitable for an executive level position. That’s an interesting revelation given that I make my living by selling my services to, and advising, CEOs and other executives. I wouldn’t be in business if I wasn’t good at reading and responding appropriately to subtle cues. When I explained this to the assessor during the follow up interview, she refused to believe that I possessed the talent to read people. She was so convinced of the validity of her assessment that she created a no-win scenario for me to respond to in order to ‘prove’ her assessment was right.
Imagine if I took that assessment before I had irrefutable evidence to the contrary? I may have decided against pursuing my greatest career dream because an assessment told me I lacked a talent that is clearly one of my strengths. Now imagine if an employer was making employment-related decisions, such as whether to hire or promote me, based on that assessment. Those types of false negatives that result from an assessment’s narrow view of a person’s personality have the potential to ruin lives.
Not Reliable
A person who takes the same assessment six months apart will almost always answer the same questions differently. For example, one month after you take the Myers-Briggs, one of the most widely-used personality assessments, you have a 50% chance of landing in a different personality category. Although many assessments claim to have a higher reliability rate than the Myers-Briggs, no personality assessment is even close to 100% reliable.
When I mentioned this point to a friend of mine who administers a certain personality assessment, she acknowledged this fact and correctly observed that people change over time which will be reflected in their personality assessment scores. So even if personality assessments could reliably predict future performance, the predictions would only be useful as long as the person doesn’t change. Except, people do change. And those with the greatest potential change the most.
1. Which statement best summarizes the author's primary critique regarding the "part of the picture" analogy used by assessment makers?
A. The assessments focus on the wrong parts of a person's character, leaving the most important traits unexamined.
B. The assessments do not provide a clear slice of reality but rather a skewed interpretation of the individual's entire persona.
C. The assessments are too brief to capture the complexity of a human soul, necessitating more screening methods.
D. The assessments are intentionally misleading to encourage companies to purchase more comprehensive tools.
2. What does the author imply by using his own experience of being an "introvert" on stage versus in social settings?
A. Most people who claim to be introverts are actually closeted extroverts.
B. Public speaking is a skill that can be learned regardless of one's underlying personality type.
C. Fixed personality labels fail to account for the significant impact of situational context on behavior.
D. Introverts are generally better at performing on stage than they are at small talk.
3. In the anecdote about the consultant, what was the "no-win scenario" intended to demonstrate?
A. The consultant's commitment to finding the truth through rigorous secondary interviewing.
B. The assessor's confirmation bias and over-reliance on the validity of the test results.
C. The author's inability to handle executive-level pressure during a stressful interview.
D. The necessity of having irrefutable evidence before challenging a professional consultant.
4. According to the text, what is the "real danger" regarding the way these assessments work?
A. They are completely random and have no basis in psychological science.
B. They discourage candidates from applying to high-level positions.
C. They produce "false negatives" that can lead to life-altering, negative employment decisions.
D. They are too expensive for one-third of companies to use effectively.
5. The author mentions a 50% chance of landing in a different Myers-Briggs category after one month to highlight which flaw?
A. Lack of Context
B. Lack of Reliability
C. Distorted Accuracy
D. Assessment Bias
6. What paradoxical point does the author make about "change" at the end of the article?
A. People who change the most are the least reliable employees.
B. Assessments are only useful for people who never intend to grow or improve.
C. High-potential individuals are the most likely to render an assessment's predictions obsolete.
D. Employers should only hire people whose personality scores remain stable over six months.
7. Based on the text, what is the author’s tone toward the use of personality assessments in hiring? A. Ambivalent and cautious
B. Skeptical and critical
C. Outraged and aggressive
D. Objective and scientific
8. The author uses the phrase "boilerplate personality descriptors" to suggest that assessment results are:
A. Highly technical and difficult for the average manager to understand.
B. Customized to the specific needs of the company's culture.
C. Generic, standardized, and lacking in individual nuance.
D. Statistically significant and backed by rigorous data.
9. What is the primary logical flaw the author identifies in the "disclaimer" provided by assessment makers?
A. It assumes that other screening methods are more reliable than personality tests.
B. It falsely suggests that the "piece" of information provided is accurate in the first place.
C. It is rarely read by the HR professionals who administer the tests.
D. It contradicts the marketing materials that claim the tool is "magical."
10. Which of the following would the author most likely agree with?
A. Personality is a static set of traits that can be measured with enough time.
B. The use of assessments is a harmless way for companies to organize their staff.
C. A person's professional track record is a better indicator of ability than a psychometric test.
D. Myers-Briggs is the only assessment worth using because of its popularity.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/Westend61-824e013a3fb548fd99c90f773afd0260.jpg)
