Personality Testing and Job Performance - Essay Example

? Personality Testing & Job Performance Personality testing appears to human resource managers, industry specialists, and social engineers as an ideal way to match individual talents with employment opportunities. If psychologists can accurately determine the unique propensities, character, and personality traits of the individual, then the ability to match people with the job opportunities that they are best suited for according to natural talents and personality type would appear to become more efficient. In “Personality Measurement and Employment Decisions: Questions and Answers” (1996), Robert Hogan, Joyce Hogan, and Brent W. Roberts identified three main factors which support the use of these tests in human resources and industry. They are: “(a) well-constructed measures of normal personality are valid predictors of performance in virtually all occupations, (b) they do not result in adverse impact for job applicants from minority groups, and (c) using well-developed personality measures for preemployment screening is a way to promote social justice and increase organizational productivity.” (Hogan, et al., 1996) The key and critical part of the Hogan et al. (1996) assessment is that the personality tests must be “well-constructed” and without bias. The reason for this dates back to previous attempts by psychologists to perform this analysis across large segments of the population or social groups, and the recognized failure of previous tests to be able to accurately, reliably, and repeatedly produce consistent results in human personality analysis that is valid and honoring to the human individual. As the Guion and Gottier (1965) study established, early personality tests such as those used in industry in the 1950s and 1960s were generally flawed or limited in design, not accurately reflecting the full scope of the human personality in individuals, leading to false classifications of behavioral types, and engrained with institutional bias that frequently mislabeled individuals because of issues related to personal interpretation of the questions. (Guion et al., 1965) Hence, the pair concluded, “It is difficult in the face of this summary to advocate with a clear conscience the use of personality measures in most situations as a basis for making employment decisions.” (Guion et al., 1965 in Dupboye & Colella, 2005, p. 254) The Johnson, Wood, and Blinkhorn (1988) study entitled “Spuriouser and spuriouser: The use of ipsative personality tests” suggested a type of mathematical bias was prevalent in the tests that seriously undermined the validity and usefulness of personality tests in large institutions, social groups, and human resources. They wrote, “Employers are understandably attracted by claims that these quick and easy to administer tests will give valid insights into the personality of job applicants. However, the publishers and the promoters of these tests are either unaware of, or do not understand, or are choosing to ignore their limitations. This is not to say that ipsative tests have no utility but that the claims made for their validity and reliability and their applicability to interindividual comparisons are misleading. Failure to take account of the mathematical properties of ipsative measures leads users to treat them as if they are normative measures.” (Johnson, Wood, and Blinkhorn, 1988) Problems with the validity or interpretation of personality tests can be rooted in the very differences in human perception and ability that the tests themselves seek to measure. For example, psychologists generally build and administer these tests on behalf of industry leaders, corporations, or management groups, who wish to increase efficiency and profit in their organizations. The psychologists then must design a standardized test which in a short period of time will display an accurate and usable classification of the human individual by personality type. Yet, these personality types may not be existent in human consciousness or individual being empirically, which suggests that they may be projections of the psychologists and industry administrators themselves, or created in such a manner that they enshrine cultural bias. Educators have come to realize over time that human individuals may possess very different ways of learning, approaching written material and tests, interpreting information, and reacting to controlled situations. Thus, personality tests must be designed so that they contain a range of different approaches designed to support and balance all learning methods in the questions themselves, or risk creating a bias in the results. Others have emphasized the multicultural issues that are not widely supported within the limited framework of the personality tests and their structure or administration. (Campbell, et al., 2005) Ray (1990) conducted a review of literature and research studies in personality testing within the field of industrial psychology and human resources, finding significant evidence that bias existed within the tests and their results. (Ray, 1990) This bias was derived from the common patterns of response or attention that people typically generated when participating in the process. For example, he found that there was a typical response of “yes” to many questions that seemed to go across personality types, and may have represented a type of confusion of participants with the questions or boredom with the process. (Ray, 1990) If the individuals tested by these measures are not fully engaged, coherent, and aware of all of the subtle dynamics of the testing process, they may be mislabeled by the psychologists administrating the tests inadvertently. The consequences of mislabeling are dependent on the degree of weight that society places on these results. For example, if the social weight of personality tests is limited to a particular company or job position in industry, the results may simply determine if the person is to be hired or not for the job. If the social weight is such that the use of a standardized personality test is part of the permanent record of an individual, and determinant of the level or type of education received, the social role the person will serve in society, or the opportunities made available to that person, than the problem of bias in institutions and mass populations becomes more severe, as it can seriously limit the personal growth of the human being when misinterpreted as part of a social engineering program. If accurately constructed and administered, as the Hogan et al. (1996) study suggested, personality tests provide a means for individuals to be more efficiently matched with their ideal work position and career. Yet, because of the nature of human consciousness and the diversity of personalities in individuals, standardized testing will inherently fail for some individuals, represented as a “margin for error” in the tests themselves or the interpretation by psychologists. The use of different tests, repeated administration of testing for a balanced approach, focus on the construction of tests with representation for different learning styles, variation in the methods of approach, and the inclusion of multi-cultural differences in test structure can all be adopted to improve the validity of this process. However, even with advanced modifications and careful design, personality tests inherently risk the mislabeling of individuals with adverse social effects relating to the distribution of resources, training, and education facilities. Because of this personality tests can be considered useful in industry for limiting, excluding, or filtering individuals for different positions of employment, but the wider standardization of society according to the results of personality tests should be avoided due to the engrained bias that is inherently present in the results. The main reason that personality tests should not be universalized to form a basis of social engineering for mass societies is that they are fundamentally too limiting to the diversity of human individuality, and the consequences of this limitation is harmful and restrictive to people when operating as a form of social ordering. Therefore, personality tests should have a limited role in human resources, employment interviews, and job selection, but these tests must be balanced with other measures of assessment in order to produce socially valid results. References Campbell, John Paul & Knapp, Deirdre J.. Exploring the limits of personnel selection and classification. Routledge, 2001. Web. 9 Nov. 2011. ‹http://books.google.co.in/books?id=c1u1Zq-XJjwC›. Dipboye, Robert L. & Colella, Adrienne. Discrimination at work: the psychological and organizational bases. Routledge, 2005. Web. 9 Nov. 2011. ‹http://books.google.co.in/books?id=l4BAETveT9QC›. Guion, Robert M. & Gottier, Richard F.. Validity Of Personality Measures In Personnel Selection. Personnel Psychology, Volume 18, Issue 2, pages 135–164, June 1965. Web. 9 Nov. 2011. ‹http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1965.tb00273.x/abstract›. Hogan, Robert; Hogan, Joyce; and Roberts, Brent W.. Personality Measurement and Employment Decisions: Questions and Answers. American Psychological Association, 1996. Web. 9 Nov. 2011. ‹http://www.hoganassessments.com/_hoganweb/documents/Personality%20Measurement%20and%20Employment%20Decisions.pdf ›. Johnson, Charles E.; Wood, Robert; Blinkhorn, S. F. Spuriouser and spuriouser: The use of ipsative personality tests. Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol 61(2), Jun 1988, 153-162. Web. 9 Nov. 2011. ‹http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1988-37495-001›. Ray, J.J. ACQUIESCENCE AND PROBLEMS WITH FORCED-CHOICE SCALES. Journal of Social Psychology 1990, 130(3), 397-399. Web. 9 Nov. 2011. ‹http://jonjayray.fortunecity.com/forcho.html›. Saklofske, Donald H. & Zeidner, Moshe. International handbook of personality and intelligence. Springer, 1995. Web. 9 Nov. 2011. ‹http://books.google.co.in/books?id=tNMTKjUjuHEC›. Tett, Robert P. & Jackson, Douglas N. PERSONALITY MEASURES AS PREDICTORS OF JOB PERFORMANCE : A META-ANALYTIC REVIEW. Personnel Psychology (1991), Volume: 44, Issue: 4, Publisher: Wiley Online Library, Pages: 703-742. Web. 9 Nov. 2011. ‹http://www.mendeley.com/research/personality-measures-predictors-job-performance-metaanalytic-review-important-review-validity-personality-measures-per-sonnel-selection-guion-gottier-1965-concluded-it-difficult-face-summar/›. Read More