Too Much or Not Enough? Assessments in the Workplace

By: Katherine Davis, BGS Communications Associate


It's Saturday evening, you're at a dinner party and someone asks, "What do you think of personality testing?" More likely than not, you are going to hear quite a few uninhibited opinions. Respond by mentioning testing within the workplace, however, and you've opened up a whole new debate.

Author Annie Murphy Paul created something of an uproar in the psychological community when she debuted her book, The Cult of Personality, in 2004. In an article for Boston.com, she even compared personality testing to reading horoscopes.

"Personality tests are increasingly popular as management tools, yet many of them are no better than astrology at describing character or predicting behavior. Though we may regard personality tests as harmless fun, or an annoying nuisance, in fact important decisions may hang on their results—making their widespread use deeply troubling."

Paul criticized one of the most popular personality tests, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), claiming that the test, which is based upon four personality-linked descriptors, is not as accurate as its advocates attest.

"The Myers-Briggs, for example, claims to reveal to test takers their inborn, unchanging personality type, but in fact research shows that as many as three-quarters of test takers are assigned a different type when they take the Myers-Briggs again."

Donald F. Parker (BGS president, 1998-2000), Sara Hart Kimball Dean Emeritus from Oregon State University, studied tests like the MBTI and the California Psychological Inventory and often used them in his classes. Still, he is quite specific about the context in which such tests should be taken.

"Anyone who uses the test must be sure of what [he or she] is trying to measure. This is true for any test," explained Parker. "Also, by definition, if a test is unreliable, it cannot be valid. So, if we use a test multiple times and get essentially the same outcome, we can conclude there is some reliability."

Parker, who used personality tests with his students to help them develop career plans and focus more on "self-identification," believes those are the ideal purposes for such testing.

"I always told my students that it was about finding 'what makes you tick,'" he said. "If used properly, these tests are a self-assessment. If translated correctly, the information can provide useful insights about a person. That person can then determine how best to use what [he or she has] learned."

He expressed concern over such tests being used in a work environment, particularly in the context of measuring someone's work ethic.

"I don't really see how they would have much use in the workplace except for self-discovery," Parker said. "My observation is that hundreds of companies have used the MBTI, and many use it for purposes it was not intended to measure. For somebody who says, 'I'm going to use the MBTI to decide whether someone will be a good employee or not,' I'd want to explore exactly what they're doing and determine whether it is an appropriate use of the instrument."

Parker emphasized the qualifications for such personal psychological assessments.

"They should only be used in cases for which they've been validated and by people who have the knowledge, training and experience to use them appropriately."

Dr. Todd Harris, director of science with PI Worldwide, has been conducting research on and using the Predictive Index (PI) assessment for over 10 years. He mentioned the stigma associated with thinking of such psychological systems as "tests."

"I think anytime anyone hears the term 'test,' they're transferred back to sophomore year algebra class," Harris said.

"Because there's an unwritten meaning that a test implies a right or wrong answer, and our tests are not based on right or wrong. We prefer to call it an assessment or 'the PI system.'"

In terms of workplace use, Harris believes the PI assessment, which is based on three separate personality measurements, can be used to determine critical truths about a job candidate or employee as well as that individual's overall fit.

"It's a tool to really determine fit. We want to ask, 'How does someone fit within a job?' 'How does that person fit with the immediate manager?' 'How does someone fit within a team?' and, lastly, 'How does a person fit with the organization or company culture?'"

Harris points out that the PI System has existed and been researched since 1955, mentioning the importance of ensuring validity with such assessments. He believes that both large and small companies that need to hire and craft excellent teams should use a system like this as an objective tool.

"The research behind assessments such as this is pretty unequivocal. If you use a well-validated, well-measured system, you will make better decisions about employees than if you don't," Harris said. "It helps managers make as objective decisions as possible. The data or science-proven approach outperforms the gut-instinct approach over time, all the time."

He mentioned the importance of training clients to use the tests properly and understand their context.

"Mechanics-wise, we do require some certification courses. We want to make our clients as self-sufficient as possible, so they know how to use or to read the PI," Harris said. "We're not just trying to sell them a test. We want to work with them, and we want the information to live on and continue to be used. Perhaps it's initially used in hiring someone, but then that information should also be used as the employee continues to work, when the managers are thinking about promotions or projects—it should be continually leveraged over time."

Harris said he is conscientious of the importance in training managers to interpret and correctly use the PI. But he suggests that not every test will have as strict of a certification course or run by the same guidelines.

On certain occasions, personality tests have also received legal criticism.

In the 2009 case of Wilson vs. Johnson&Johnson, plaintiff Wilson won $4.7 million after proving to jurors that the company caused him irreparable damages of strain, unnecessary scrutiny and grief after multiple personality tests were administered to him in the workplace.

But, as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) points out, employers are legally allowed to hand out psychological examinations as long as those examinations are not deemed medical.

According to the EEOC website (EEOC.gov), "Psychological examinations are medical if they provide evidence that would lead to identifying a mental disorder or impairment."

Determining an examination to be medical only requires finding one medical factor within the test. Therefore, if an employer hands out a test, and there is even one question that measures "excessive anxiety, depression, and certain compulsive disorders (DMS-listed conditions)," it earns its respective medical title.

The official EEOC statement notes that measuring personality traits alone, without further medical implication, is still legally acceptable.

"On the other hand, if a test is designed and used to measure only things such as honesty, tastes and habits, it is not medical."

This means it can be difficult – and sometimes even impossible – for disgruntled employees to prove employer-encouraged personality tests were used unjustly, particularly if they adhere to EEOC requirements. Such cases typically call for expensive lawsuits, and most employees do not want to take the risk of losing. But exceptions, such as the Wilson case, do happen.

Parker and Harris both point out the importance of distinguishing between accredited psychological assessments and behavioral testing or review. Behavioral testing or interviewing typically determines how someone would act in an ethical dilemma or confusing situation with the intent of predicting how that individual would then behave in the workplace.

Bruno Hall (BGS 2007, University of Pittsburgh), owner of a manufacturing company, Agitan, and a past deputy CIO, believes that behavioral interviewing is a fad. Discussing his belief that HR's role is being "eroded" as companies need fewer employees and jobs are less exchangeable, he explained that many HR departments feel they must create value within their departments.

"Many are fighting for relevance and asking, 'How do I create value here?' Behavioral interviewing is relatively new and exotic, so it appeals to the executive suite and HR," he said.

Hall argued that predicting behavior relies upon the psychological theorem that "past behavior tends to predict future behavior." He thinks there is merit to such psychology and believes the theory behind such interviewing is good. But there are holes.

"When someone's asking about previous behavior, and they want to minimize lying or false answers, they say things like, 'Tell me about a time when there was a conflict and you had to find a solution,'" he said. "This implies that they want the person to tell a story about leadership or work ethic. My contention's that behavioral interviewing favors good storytellers. They're filtering out people who are poor at selecting stories and probably eliminating many people who would still be good at doing the job."

Hall has his own ideas for reviewing a job candidate's skills and work ethic.

"I think companies, especially larger ones, would benefit by having a probation period after a new employee's hired," said Hall. "But if they don't want to do this or want to follow a more conventional approach, they could actually see how that person works and interacts by bringing that person in and letting [him or her] do a day of work."

But even with all of the debate over the accuracy and impartiality behind personality testing and behavioral interviewing, there are still other forms of review that have job applicants worried.

Chris Lawson, president of the staffing agency the Eli Daniel Group, said that currently many companies are requiring credit checks on job candidates.

"Credit checks have been used by some financial service organizations as a character assessment, particularly for anybody who might have access to sensitive financial data or personal accounts. Or, if someone would be in a collections position, and yet they have debt themselves, the idea is that [he or she] probably won't be a great collector," Lawson said.

Lawson mentions, however, that only a few of his clients run these checks and that some of those companies are even willing to hear the story behind a candidate's financial debt.

"There's not a huge percentage of my clients that do this, but there are a few," said Lawson. "Some are willing to listen to the story behind a person's bad credit. Others aren't willing to because that means that individual doesn't meet the position's criteria. I'd say, you shouldn't be shocked if you're in the banking or financial services world and someone asks you for a credit check. It won't be every company, but there will be a few."

Credit checking alone has raised concerns, but recently many interviewees have also questioned social media checks. While Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter pages have been reviewed by employers for years, many are claiming that certain companies are now requiring their login information.

NPR's Shannon McFarland reported on Justin Bassett, a statistician who had been asked for the password to his Facebook account during an interview.

"Bassett, a New York City statistician, had just finished answering a few character questions when the interviewer turned to her computer to search for his Facebook page. But she couldn't see his private profile. She turned back and asked him to hand over his login information."

Bassett denied her access to his private account, but cases like this have started a debate over not only what is appropriate and legal in terms of social media privacy, but also with applicant "checks" in general.

PI Worldwide's director of science, Harris, has one last reminder for those currently hiring.

"There's always one thing to keep in mind. Whether it's an individual's score on a personality assessment, a score on a cognitive test or something else, you never want to put too much weight on one particular factor. Job performance is a complex thing. The more you can look at it in a reliable and valuable way, the more you'll tip the balance in finding a good candidate."