This article in Time, Guys Just Want to Have Fun, by Barbara Ehrenreich, the author of Nickeled and Dimed, suggests that though women are achieving higher than men academically, they are being bounced out of business jobs due to their scores on personality tests.  Do you buy it?  Do you see it? Is it right or wrong?

-Susan

I assume we are talking about Myers-Briggs or similar tests.  The argument that women, while academically performing well are somehow less likely to get a career position because they are labeled an introvert through such assessments is severely flawed.  First, their are a wide range of personality assessments that are regularly used by employers,  Some more elaborate than others and some having greater veracity than others.  Where the argument goes wrong though is where it suggests that women are more often found to be introverts than men.  This has definitely not been the case over the last thirty years.  International assessment organizations that monitor and certify assessments have found that  in regards to typing,  there is no longer a disparity present between genders.  The other flaw in the argument is that assumes that "introverts" (Myers-Briggs) or "reserved" (Serengeti Assessment Process) has less value than does an "extrovert" (MBTI) or "adventurous" (SAP).  Currently, the largest number of positions open on the market are introvert friendly.  Sectors such as healthcare, financial, engineering and information systems are all predominately populated with who would score as an introvert or reserved personality.  Employers are using personality and preference assessments to determine fitness into a variety of roles and into their company's culture.  Both Myers-Briggs and the Serengeti Assessment Process (www.gorillas-gazelles.com) and others like them serve both the employer and career candidate.  By decreasing the number of bad hires, it saves the employers money and by increasing the likelihood of a good job fit , it increases the candidates likelihood of career success.  Lastly, personality assessments are rarely used as a stand alone delineator by employers.  Assessments that speak to preference orientation, skill/competencies and intellect are often used in conjunction with one another to support hiring decisions.

Wow.  You certainly have read up on formal assessments!  Or is this your line of work?  I thought the article was provocative.  I don't believe Ms. Ehrenreich said that women more often score introvert than men, but she did imply that the weeding out was unfair to both women and introverts (which does group the two).  I was talking about the article with a friend of mine who is male and in business school.  I asked him if Ms. Ehrenreich's premise was flawed in respect to the position for which she was applying.  For example, if she had trained in computer design, and scored introvert, would she have had a better chance of getting the job due to a personality test than someone who scored extrovert with similar training?  My friend answered that he thought it was a mistake to think that success in the business world favors extroverts.  I found this table on the Myers-Briggs site that breaks down MB types in a field called "managers, administrators, supervisors" and it looks like their data suggests that about half of this field is introvert and half extrovert. 

Well, if there's one thing that you can say is valid that comes from that article, it's how rejected people feel when tests are used, at least in part, to disqualify them from jobs.   People who have talked about it online on this board seem to feel that being disqualified for something for which you can't prepare is unfair.  It is a bit of a shock to the American ideal of "if I work hard enough, I can get be anything" to be told that there is something fundamental about YOU that takes you out of the running.  Don't you think?

-Susan

I think that we are more likely to hear negative perspectives about the use of assessments by those who were not hired, for whatever reason.  It would be interesting hear from people who were assessed and hired.  I have won positions and lost positions that I applied for, but did not make an assumption that the determination was based solely on being assessed and not fitting some singular criteria.  I doubt that many employers let stand alone assessments dictate there hiring decisions unless those assessments dealt with areas such as high-risk behavior or ethics.   That's a good thing too as I don't believe there are any stand alone assessments out there that should be used in and of itself as the reason to hire or not hire an individual.  As for not being prepared or blind-sided by an assessment, most employers inform individuals of their hiring process and that they may include some form of assessment.  Besides,   if the person taking them is honest and forthright, then the outputs of the assessment should reflect that person's personality or preferences.  In the past, I headed up research group that among other things performed cognitive studies and vehicles for assessing traits, preferences and behaviors.  My opinions are a result of that work, albeit sometimes dated.  I believe there are a few companies that over-emphasize the use of assessments within their hiring scheme, but I have to believe that most are more comprehensive in their hiring practices.  It seems it's never out of fashion for test-takers to blame the test.

Actually, I've taken a few tests and have never been told in advance of the interview.  One test disqualified me, and from it I learned that they were defining an area of skill quite differently than I was!  The test actually gave me the opportunity not to get in over my head.  I'm confident that my lack of desire to steal a shedload of office supplies or use the company copier to print a thousand copies of my memoirs would come through in a personality or ethics test.  But what about the person who's been out of work for a long time, or someone whose last interview was during the Reagan administration, or otherwise really nervous about the interviewing experience?  Do you think, from your experience, that a personality test could unnerve that person and make him/her appear less able than they really are?  Or the opposite?  Could the test work in their favor? 

You said:

In the past, I headed up research group that among other things performed cognitive studies and vehicles for assessing traits, preferences and behaviors. 

Was this experience in relation to the hiring process?  Sounds interesting.

-Susan

 

Great question!  First, I think that it is important to clarify the purpose and nature of the assessment of which we are speaking.  Some tests are meant to measure competencies, skills and abilities, or even intellectual capacity, while others, particularly personality assessments, are meant to determine individual preferences.  If a person has been out of the workplace for a considerable time, they may well be challenged in meeting a criteria based on technical or process knowledge.  In terms of preferences though, their resulting profile should be a good indicator of that person's preferences.  You raise a good point in asking whether nervousness or unfamiliarity can decrease the accuracy of an assessment.  What is important here is that the user knows: 1. Why they are taking an assessment  and 2. The degree to which it is valued within the hiring process.  It's also important to consider what is the record and known veracity of the assessment.  Most corporation's HR and legal departments make an effort to ensure that the assessment used meets or exceeds industry standards.  If an assessment is used as a stand alone tool and does not include an analytical process (eyes on-not algorithm-based) ,then there is some risk that a person may be incorrectly categorized.  Once again though, the key here is to not use a stand alone assessment tool that does not include an eyes-on analytical process, particularly when speaking to personality assessments.  There are many people who will remember some of the unfortunate reads provided to professional sports teams that were using an assessment to determine whether a college quarterback had the intellectual wherewithal to perform at the professional level.  Making a decision, based solely on an algorithm-based assessment is indeed risky business.  One thing that I would point out though is that assessments that measure a person's preferences can be particularly valuable to both employers and career seekers.  People have a tendency to be good at what they like to do even more than what they are able to do.  We all know of the kid in school who was good a math so his counselor told hem to go to college to be an account,  Just because he had the ability to do math, didn't mean that he want to spend 40+ hours a week doing math.  Human beings can learn most anything as long as their brain is wired to do so, but that doesn't translate to anything is something about which they can be passionate.  Individual preferences can actually be the best indicator of prolonged high-performance.  I hope that this response is helpful.  I'd be curious to hear from others.

Ive read her book "Bait and Switch" and checked it out to let my mom read it.  I think she wrote a great book.  But it would'nt get read.

 Seems more often than not when that said company is transitioning to the size or corporate style of makeup that brings along these "tests" that the same individuals in "management" just fell in line and accepted to be a great tool that must be used because every other speaker at every other corporate pep rally were being paid $$ to sell the virtues of these tests to weed out the intangibles that we all bring to the table. Introverts need apply and don't be afraid to do your thing and don't let an extra like me keep you distracted from finishing up early and finding the parking lot!!

I took a "behavioral assessment" recently for a position with a University Hospital system.  I've taken these assessments numerous times and have never had negative comments.  So, I was shocked to discover the following message in my inbox one morning:

Thank you for your interest in employment at U Hospital and Clinics.

Unfortunately, your score on the behavioral assessment, which is valid for one (1) year, did not meet eligibility requirements for further consideration at this time. At the end of this one year-period, we encourage you to re-apply.

Thank you again for your interest and we wish you much success in your employment search.

Sincerely,

U Hospital and Clinics

I have tried very hard to remember what the questions on the test were, but I took it quickly and don't remember many specifics.  I guess I don't understand the rationale behind this black/white hiring policy.  What do they expect a job candidate to do in one year that could possibly remedy such a supposed (serious?) personality flaw?  I feel almost as if I were branded a criminal, needing rehabilitation.

I've never spoken to anyone from this organization's HR department, and I don't even know that they looked at my resume.

The biting irony of the situation is that I worked at one of the country's leading cancer institutes for almost 7 years and have nothing but positive reviews from my supervisors and coworkers there.

Has anyone else had such an experience?  Would it benefit me to stop by this organization's recruiting office and inquire as to where I went wrong so I don't make the same mistake twice?  Or should I let bygones be bygones?

It did occur to me that I may not have answered an ethical question as definitively as they would have liked.  However, I am not one to compromise ethics, and always follow policies as set forth in company handbooks, etc.  I strongly disagree with judging anyone's values or abilities based on questions that only allow one to respond with "strongly agree, slightly agree,not sure/in between,slightly disagree," or "strongly disagree."  Are these behavioral assessments really that accurate?  My qualifications were not even considered.  This was an online assessment that was emailed to me moments after I submitted my resume.  It was clearly used as a standalone tool that has excluded me from ANY position at this organization.  This is incredibly frustrating to me as this is one of my community's major employers.

I have my current position (in which I am underemployed but not unemployed) as a result of scoring very well on one of these assessments.  I work for a major retailer was hired 5 days before the grand opening in August.  The interviewer told me that 5000 people had applied for work at this particular location, so I asked him why he chose me for an interview.  He told me that I'd scored extraordinarily well on the online assessment.