Is Personality Testing of Limited Value - Case Study Example

Introduction Every individual behave variedly as what may be right for one person may not necessarily be for another while what an individual may consider an opportunity, to another it may be considered a threat (Barrick and Ryan, 2003). Different people have different personalities and aspects that are unique and peculiar to them, which does not mean that there are better or superior personalities only that different situations are handled differently by divergent personalities. Personalities are derived either through hereditary or they are shaped and influenced by past experiences and associations that an individual has with the environment one lives, interacts and works with (Ones, Dilchert, Visveswaran, and Judge, 2007). The genetics constitutes the sets of lower and upper levels of personalities while interactions with environment and experiences derived thereof, determines where within the range of personalities an individual is (I.L.O., 1993). Personalities are the traits, attributes of an individual that relates, and portray the consistent ways of thinking, feeling and behaving (Lanyon & Goodstein, 1997). In the recent past personality testing has gained momentum as business organizations seeks to select, recruit and retain the best of candidates to fill their labour force and guarantee increased quality in productivity (Ones et al. 2007). This means getting the right employee or human resource for the right job position based on the job description and specifications, with the right job qualifications that meets the job requirements and at the right costs (Furnham, 2008). This report seeks to explicitly discuss the research question- Is Personality testing of limited value. Is personality testing of limited value? The need for personality testing has overly enhanced as organizational management has realized that there is need to have an employee that not only has academic qualifications but also have other personality skills and abilities to help them solve problems. Moreover, such employees make efficient and effective decisions, are creative and innovative, become good team players, have the willingness to learn and are flexible enough to accommodate change, essential in modern turbulent business environments. Personality testing intends to define and depict aspects of an individual’s nature and attribute that remain constant in the individual’s life since they are not likely to change, a person’s pattern of thinking, conducting themselves and feeling (I.L.O., 1993). The value of personality testing is debatable although its enhanced value cannot be overemphasized (Lanyon & Goodstein, 1997). Personality testing offers an alternative selecting process for organizations and it provides an opportunity for them to identify and select the best fit of an individual that will be able to understand the mission and goals of the organization. In addition, results from personality testing gives the organization an opportunity to know what the prospective or selected employee is like and thus, identify and establish methods and techniques that will best suit to inspire, manage and develop the particular employee which ensures the employee becomes successful in executing their assigned duties, enhancing productivity and generating gains for the organization. In regards to Carly Fiorina’s case, personality testing revealed her, for who she was, aggressive, tenacious, enthusiastic, and energetic, a visionary and a go-getter (Tett & Christiansen, 2007). These qualities according to HP’s board were what the company were looking for at the time and therefore, that is why she was hired (Morgeson et al. 2007). Nevertheless, some reports indicate that she encountered resistance from employees and some of the board members about her style of leadership and they may have feared organizational cultural change, which Carly’s personality represented (I.L.O., 1993). Her dismissal was not based on her personality, but on her inability to produce anticipated profits. Nevertheless, this brings doubt on the accuracy and validity of personality testing, as Carly was hired primarily based on the two hours, 900 psychometric questions she had to answer (Lanyon & Goodstein, 1997). However, it is important to note that maybe, her personality did not match with what HP stood for in terms of organizational behaviour and culture and therefore, the personality testing should have warned the board from hiring her. The value of personality testing diminishes and is marred with speculations that an individual can lie and fake to hide their real personality. This influences the results of the test drawing a personality picture that is not a true indication of the person under scrutiny (Ones et al. 2007). The mere fact that results are determined by self-reporting puts doubts on the accuracy and reliability of results from personality testing, as people tend to present a better or even superior representation or image of who they are even when they are not (I.L.O., 1993). Reports indicate that personality testing has low validity in speculating job performance of an employee (Tett & Christiansen, 2007). However, using the right personality testing methods and techniques, one gets to have a deeper understanding of how one thinks, behaves, feels and relates with others, which is particularly important in evaluating the ability of the individual to easily integrate and assimilate with existing working groups (I.L.O., 1993). In addition, in a world that creativity and innovativeness forms the backbone of enhancing sustainable competitive advantage, such tests helps in assessing the ability of an individual to think on their feet, make constructive and productive decisions, and solve problems (Lanyon & Goodstein, 1997). At the same time, being creative enough to generate innovative ideas, which is necessary to strategically place the organization in a higher level or sustain them in a higher market position. Despite the numerous benefits personality testing offers to the users especially employment agencies, its value is heavily dependent on the content, design and criteria linked validity of the testing kit or questionnaire (Lanyon & Goodstein, 1997). In addition, internal consistency and test and retest dependability. This is because, a personality test that pose indefinite questions that one answers based on how one feels at the moment of testing, leads to situations that responses gathered today may change over time and place (Barrick and Ryan, 2003). In relation to Carly’s case, there are personalities that can be deemed too strong than others not that they are better than others but because people with such personalities are more of risk takers and adventurous (I.L.O., 1993). In addition, they see themselves as the best in the field, tenacious, authoritative, which sometimes borders dictatorial as depicted by Carly’s acts of hanging her portrait in HP headquarters next to the HP founders (Ones et al. 2007). They have over self-confidence that borders rudeness or cockiness (Tett & Christiansen, 2007). People with such strong a personality does not know when to stop and are more often than not, suffering from superiority complex. There are somewhat weaker personalities characterized by shyness, they are more democratic, submissive, are reserved and are more likely to let others take the initiative (Lanyon & Goodstein, 1997). It is safe to say Carly had a strong personality that compelled her not to pay attention to criticisms and even advice offered to her as illustrated by her refusal to back down from making HP acquire Compaq against the advice of Walter Hewlett, a shareholder and a son to HP co-founder (Barrick and Ryan, 2003). In addition, her adamant refusal to listen to advice given to her by three of the board members, to change her style, a month before she was fired from her position (I.L.O., 1993). Strong personalities can be a good and a bad thing, a good thing if it enables the person to make things be done competently and efficiently and a bad thing if it makes the person adamant to change and limits one’s productivity or their ability to attain anticipated performance outcomes (Lanyon & Goodstein, 1997). Carly’s aggressiveness, charisma, visibility among other of her personality traits were favourable traits for a firm such as HP, only that Carly used them to focus on herself, thus the ‘rock star CEO’ reference and her personality made stakeholders have over expectations on her capabilities and when she could not reach the high bar, they were disappointed. Many have endorsed personality testing for various functions have debated its usefulness and validity to predict job performance and therefore, rising doubts about its suitability in employment selection and recruitment process (I.L.O., 1993). Among common activities that make personality, testing unreliable and inaccurate when used in employment selection is its diverse availability through the internet, which makes it accessible to people who can take and retake varied personality tests and learn how to answer such questions effectively in order to generate desired personality results (I.L.O., 1993). This improves their opportunities to pass personality tests once used in selection and recruitment processes. Failure of HP to predict Carly’s job performance using personality testing cannot be used to devalue personality testing, the mere fact that during her tenure the revenues still rose, indicates that the company was not wrong to high her, personality testing would have been to blame if she accrued losses for HP (Morgeson et al. 2007). Arguments in favour of personality testing cites that personality testing is essential in understanding the needs and expectations of the employees vital in their training, motivation and development which in turn, generates high job satisfaction, high rates of retaining valuable employees thus, low employment turnovers (I.L.O., 1993). Personality tests validates information contained and collected in job application forms, CVs, and through interviews respectively during selection and recruitment processes as employers are able to make judgments about prospective labour forces based on the depicted personality traits (Lanyon & Goodstein, 1997). This is important in screening difficult, un-co-operative, rigid, unattainable and limited employees. Personality tests offers prospective employees a chance to showcase their cognitive abilities that would not have been captured during other selection methods while employers are able to have a comprehensive picture of who the applicant is, their way of thinking, perceiving things, behaving in varied situations (I.L.O., 1993). This is crucial in helping the employer best match particular employees to particular tasks and jobs, which helps employees be at ease in executing their assigned duties as their personality suits their job positions such as sales, marketing and management among others. Arguments against personality testing are that personality tests are not easy to quantify, standardize and it is difficult to categorize them (Barrick and Ryan, 2003). In addition, personality tests do place more focus and emphasis on personality over other significant determinants such as experience, training and inspiration (Ones et al. 2007). It is vital to mention that selecting an individual based on personality means that there is only one way of doing it, which is utterly false since the same job can be executed differently by varied personalities (Lanyon & Goodstein, 1997). It is common knowledge that personality is more likely to change over time and place through the influence of age and experience, environment and situations (Tett & Christiansen, 2007). Selecting employees based on their personality is faulty, as it may lead to having an entire labour force with people with similar personalities, which discriminates and stereotypes against other personality types, which contravenes anti-discrimination legislations and labour laws. Failure of Carly to fully, satisfy her employer cannot be blamed on her personality but rather on her skills and knowledge to develop and implement successful strategic plans that generates positive outcomes in terms of profitability, revenues and rise in HP’s share prices (I.L.O., 1993). Personality testing as earlier mentioned could only be valuable and useful when the particular test measures specific personality attributes that relates and matches the specific work behaviour ascertained. This is because work behaviour is influenced by other elements such as organizational cultures and ideals, changes in market conditions, team competence and technology (Lanyon & Goodstein, 1997). Productivity of Carly cannot therefore, be blamed on personality testing but it can be viewed from another perspective such as lack of co-operation and commitment from fellow workers, rigid organizational culture and behaviour. Conclusion Personality testing is the process of analyzing the individual aspects, behaviours and traits of a person that is not likely to change over time and space. Personalities are derived either through hereditary or they are shaped and influenced by experiences and associations that an individual has with the environment. In relation to Carly’s case, personality testing cannot be blamed and devalued by one’s un-productivity and low performance, which is easily, influenced by the organization culture, the environment and the commitment of the workgroup among other factors that influence job performance. The value of personality testing as discussed in the report heavily dependent on the content, design and criteria linked validity of the testing kit or questionnaire. In addition, internal consistency, test and retest dependability. Personality testing is additionally useful when the particular test, measures specific personality attributes that relates and matches the specific work behaviour ascertained. Through personality testing, employers are able to comprehensively, know the prospective employee’s needs and expectations in order to design the rights tools to motivate, train and develop them. In addition, personality testing help employer’s screen out individuals that are un-cooperative, un-trainable, rigid, limited and those that is difficult to integrate into existing workgroups. Therefore, personality testing is of value. References Barrick, M.R., and Ryan, A.M. 2003. Personality and work: reconsidering the role of personality in organizations. London: John Wiley and Sons. Furnham, A. 2008. Personality and intelligence at work: exploring and explaining individual differences at work. Upper River Saddle: Routledge. I.L.O. 1993. Workers' privacy: Testing in the workplace. New York: International Labour Organization. Lanyon, R.I., & Goodstein, D. 1997. Personality assessment. London: John Wiley and Sons. Morgeson, F.P., Campion, M.A., Dipboye, R.L., Hollenbeck, J.R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. 2007. Reconsidering the Use of Personality Tests in Personnel Selection Contexts. Personnel Psychology, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 683-729. Morgeson, F.P., Campion, M.A., DipBoye, R.L., Hollenbeck, J.R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. 2007. Are we getting fooled again? Coming to terms with limitations in the use of personality tests for personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 1029-1049. Ones, D.S., Dilchert, S., Visveswaran, C., & Judge, T. 2007. In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 995-1027. Tett, R.P., & Christiansen, N.D. 2007. Personality Tests at the Crossroads. Personnel Psychology, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 967-993. Read More