october-2009

084
BUSINESS
THE CASE FOR…
THE CASE AGAINST…
CHARLES L.
SODIKOFF, PHD
Industrial psychologist with
Corporate Performance
Consultants and former
adjunct professor at Hofstra
University and Long Island
University
LEE H. IGEL, PHD
Assistant Professor at
the New York University
School of Continuing
& Professional Studies
GO GOO MAGAZINE MAG AGAZINE OCTOBER
E 2009 200 009
Successful hiring is based
not only on a person’s ability to do the
job, but also on the degree to which they
will fit in with the company culture, the
people they are going to work with and the
person they are going to work for. The
more information an organization has
about an applicant, the better off it is going
to be. Over the past 30 years, I have found
that personality tests, in combination with
interviewing, are an invaluable tool in gathering
this information.
When properly used, these assessments
can help a company identify a candidate who
not only has the skills necessary for the job,
but also the temperament needed to fit into
the corporate culture. For example, a large
health care distribution company I know
gives all potential candidates at the director
level or above a battery of four personality
tests (including the popular Myers-Briggs
and The Five Factor Model) to determine if
they possess the degree of team orientation
required by the company.
When it comes to hiring,
organizations have a tendency to give personality
tests more weight than they should.
Most companies will say these assessments
only count as 50% of the hiring decision,
but in reality, they usually have a far greater
influence on the process. In addition, the
predominant tests, such as Myers-Briggs
and The Five Factor Model, don’t look at the
whole person. This hurts both the potential
employee and the company because it overrelies
on the first impression created by the
test. This can diminish anything else the
potential employee may bring to the table.
The second problem is that most organizations
have not clearly defined what
it is they’re looking for in a candidate, or
they presuppose that what they’re looking
for is the right thing—when often it’s not.
For example, one privately held research
company used a personality test to screen
potential employees for all jobs. This organization
had defined very specific standards
as to what qualities an employee should
possess to best contribute to the business.
However, after several decades of using
the test, they found that although the field
They have been conducting this testing
for the past 10 years. The result is that they
are growing by leaps and bounds, their retention
rate is high and the people they hire
turn out to be a good fit for the organization.
For these tests to be successful, it is
critical that the company conducts them
in a professional way, including using ones
that have been researched and validated;
using a professional who is credentialed
to administer them; and using several tests
(rather than one) to pinpoint a bigger picture
of who the person is.
When all of these factors are in place,
personality tests can be extremely effective.
One study by Hogan, Hogan and Roberts,
presented in an article in American Psychologist,
made a strong argument for the use of
psychological tests in selection, screening
and training, saying that, “The data are
reasonably clear that well-constructed personality
measures are valid predictors of job
performance, and they can enhance fairness
in the employment process.”
of research had changed dramatically, the
type of employee they were hiring had not.
They were still screening for employees the
way they had for the past 20 or 30 years, and
they were hiring people who all thought and
behaved in a similar way.
Finally, when these tests are used in a
tough economy, applicants are more tempted
to try and game the system. A recent article
by Vanessa O’Connell in The Wall Street
Journal profiled retailers who are making
potential employees take a personality test in
order to qualify for the chance to get a job.
The more important the test became to getting
the job, the more people tried to cheat.
O’Connell found some applicants would
take the test several times, reviewing online
cheat sheets and comparing notes.
When you take the whole picture of
these personality tests into account, you see
that they, on their own, are not a good predictor
of how people will actually perform
on the job. Think of the student who scores
poorly on the SAT, but goes on to change the
world with his or her contribution, while
the one who scored a 2400 doesn’t realize
his or her supposed full potential.