Personality tests can’t be relied on for recruitment

Probably the best-known of these tests is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). There are also many others, such as the Enneagram, Four Colours Personalities, and DiSC. The US Office of Personnel Management explains that they are “designed to systematically elicit information about a person’s motivations, preferences, interests, emotional make-up, and style of interacting with people and situations.” In a recruitment context, the aim is to identify how well a candidate will perform in a particular role and if they are a good fit for the workplace culture.

With so much discussion right now about attracting and retaining talent, the pressure is on to make sound selections. Plus, there is far more emphasis on soft skills, which can be tricky to establish during the interview process. That said, organisations have always found recruitment challenging, and it’s incredibly expensive when things go wrong: the cost of having to replace an employee can be as much as nine months of their salary (Society for Human Resource Management). It’s no wonder then, that using a framework which promises to identify “preferable personality traits” and reduce the risk of resignation seems like a smart move.

However, we need to tread with caution. Firstly, it’s worth noting that the Myers Briggs Company themselves say their test should not be used for hiring and selection, advising “people of many different types excel at the same job for different reasons,” and that “individuals should not be pigeonholed based on their personality preferences.”

On a practical level, many factors can affect the tests’ accuracy. It’s very common for people who take the same personality test twice to get different results, even when it’s done as little as five weeks later. This is largely because our personalities are influenced by our emotions and our moods. Personality is certainly not set in stone; we change our perspective daily. There is also the potential to deliberately skew the results when someone answers based on how they want to be perceived rather than being truthful. They may also feel pressured into providing a specific response depending on the job criteria.

Another major stumbling block is that personality profiling is not indicative of job performance or behaviour. Just because a person has certain preferences or capabilities towards skills, it doesn’t mean they will always do well in the role. It also doesn’t necessarily mean they have the passion or motivation; they could be good at something but have zero enthusiasm, creating problems down the line. Likewise, establishing someone’s current abilities doesn’t show their willingness to develop their skills. All of these aspects can lead to the wrong decisions being made.

Taking a look at the ethical implications, once an interviewer has seen the results of a personality test it stands to reason that they may be more biased in subsequent conversations. Indeed, personality profiling has come under increased fire for its links to discrimination, a topic that was explored in depth in the HBO Max documentary Persona: The Dark Truth Behind Personality Tests. Because the questions and assessments are developed by individuals influenced by their own background and social conditioning, there is concern that they could open doors to some groups of people while limiting others, based on things like ethnicity, background, and disability.

Another element to consider is what traits are deemed suitable or unsuitable for different roles. For example, extroversion is often celebrated for leadership roles, but this hugely overlooks the value introverted leaders bring to teams. The assumption that great leaders should exhibit a type of outward confidence or charisma can particularly affect women putting themselves forward for senior positions.

In short, there are many ways in which people could feel excluded and overlooked if they don’t fit the ‘company mold’ based on their personality type. Yet, that’s not to say personality tests don’t have any benefit for companies. The key is knowing where their value lies. They can be hugely beneficial when used among existing teams to enhance wellbeing and development in the workplace. Crucially they enable individuals to recognise their strengths, motivations, and responses, providing opportunities to work on their blind spots and improve their interpersonal communication.

When team members better understand their communication style and that of their colleagues, it creates smoother relationships and lessens conflict. Whereas there is no hard evidence that having potential candidates take a personality test before joining actually reduces turnover, we know employees are far more likely to stay in a job when their wellbeing is a priority and they are given opportunities for growth. Investing in personality assessments for staff, then coaching them by working together to develop a growth plan can improve employee satisfaction and positively impact the business.