Are Personality Tests a Good Predictor of Employee Performance?

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Personality tests have been around since the Roaring Twenties. Objective personality testing began with Woodworth’s Personal data Sheet in 1917. That test was developed to identify soldiers prone to nervous breakdowns during enemy bombardment in World War I (Gibby & Zickar, 2008). Researchers have come a long way since then and over time endured many controversies and debates. Even in today’s time, we are still debating about whether or not personality tests are good indicators of employee performance. There is much evidence that would indicate yes and/or no, which is one of the reasons why it is still such a popular subject in the Human Resources management. In 1930, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) was developed at a Midwestern mental hospital. Today, this test is administered to an estimated 15 million Americans each year and was originally intended for the mentally ill, but now given to a broad range of normal people, including doctors, psychologists, officers, firefighters, etc. (Paul, 2004). It wasn’t until about the 1940s that personality tests became much more established and commercially accepted (Gibby & Zickar, 2008). In 1940, Isabel Myers created an instrument called the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator which is still popular and used today in many companies. The first publication of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test was in 1962 and since then, the test is now given to 2.5 million people each year, and is used by 89 companies in the Fortune 100 (Paul, 2004). According to a 2011 poll from the Society for Human Resource Management, 18 percent of 495 randomly selected HR professionals are using some kind of personality test in the hiring or employee promotion process (Ellin 2012). Over time, and since the social acceptance of personality testing, more and more companies are choosing to utilize personality testing as a common practice in the hiring process. In 90 years or so, we now have hundreds of different personality tests that range from questionnaires, ink blots tests, stories, drawings, etc. With so many tests, how can we weed out the valid ones from the phony ones? How can a company trust the different vendors who are willing to design a test specifically for a company’s hiring use? Despite these questions, among many others, a number of different companies choose to use personality tests and just as they were controversial in the introductory years, they still remain controversial to this day. If companies decide to use personality tests, they should understand both the pros and the cons as there are many to consider.

PROS AND CONS
There are several pros and cons of personality tests and if they are a good predictor of employee performance. On the pro side, if personality testing is done properly it may very well help an employer find an employee that fits with their organization. Good employees that perform well are a key to any company’s success. If an employer can hire a good applicant that performs well for long term, they are saving money, time, and success. Additionally, pre-employment testing may also reduce the chance that an employer will hire a poor performer, or a potentially dangerous or even criminally inclined employee (Eisenbraun, 2006). Dealing with a poor performer can be very time consuming, stressful, and may lead to legal action if supervisors and managers aren’t careful. Dealing with a criminally inclined employee is worse and could have serious consequences. Being able to predict if someone has those behavioral patterns could save the company from a lot of trouble, which is why it is so important to select the right candidate when you have the opportunity to do so. Personality tests also help their employers reduce their business costs, from having to rehire over and over again. Employers are using them because they know personality matters. By using these tests, a company can avoid making mistakes when hiring, fit new hires to the correct job, and discern who will make the best managers in the company (Anonymous, 2005). Thirdly, traditional tools for hiring employees such as interviews and reference checks, while a vital part of the process, are largely subjective. One of the major benefits of standardized personality testing is that it adds an objective element that may help reduce bias in the hiring process (Ellin, 2012). Using the tests with other components is likely to increase the chances of gaining the full picture of an individual which leads to good hiring decisions.

On the other hand, even though there are quite a few pros, there are also many cons to consider. The first to consider is the reliability of personality tests. Are the test results consistent and replicable over time? “These tests may make Human Resources people feel that they’re doing a good job sorting the application pool, but because personality is situational and because these tests actually not very reliable in terms of their results, they’re not a good way to evaluate perspective employees” (Ellin, 2012). If the test is taken at a different time of day, or year, would the results be different? To be reliable, a test must produce the same results over time and that can be a major challenge for some of the personality tests that exist today. Secondly, validity of personality tests has always been in question. How do you determine if a test is valid? “A lot of these tests that measure aspects of personality don’t measure things that are particularly job-related. Let’s say someone uses Myers-Briggs and they are INFJ. That doesn’t necessarily tell you anything about how they’re going to do a particular job. There are values to tests like that, but I don’t see evidence that they will help you get better employees in the end” (Ellin, 2012). An employer must ensure that the personality tests that they are asking applicants to take relate to the job. In order to measure performance, each question must directly relate to job performance criteria. Very few job descriptions describe personality factors so employers need to be ready to prove how the test relates in case it is challenged in court. Thirdly, one of the major cons most commonly talked about with regard to personality tests is the self-reporting error, or the ability to cheat or fake on a test. It’s no surprise that people are likely to 'cheat' on personality tests (whether on purpose or subconsciously) for favorable results, especially if it is used as a performance measure. A study through the University of Colorado found more than half of top-ranked job applicants who submitted to personality tests had scores suggesting exaggeration. Job applicants had higher scores than those who were already hired but given the tests (Armour, 1998). Just like candidates tent to boost or beef of their resumes, they are likely to also do the same knowing that the results are going to determine if they have a shot at getting hired. It’s human nature to put your best foot forward to try and get the job (Armour, 1998). Although faking seems to be brought up over and over again when it comes to personality tests as predictors for employee performance, a study by R. Hogan, Hogan, and Roberts (1996) was completed and concluded that although the data clearly show that faking does not adversely affect the validity of personality measures for employment decisions, “the issue seems somehow unlikely to go away” (Hogan, Barrett, & Hogan, 2007). As the use of personality testing increases, it’s likely that there will be an increase in legal challenges to testing, which is also a major con. The issues that have potential to arise will probably include the reliability and validity of the tests, was the test focused on the skill set or duties required, was the test administer fairly to everyone, and/or was the test biased on discriminatory factors such as age, gender, or ethnicity. The nature of these tests do allow for some degree of flexibility in interpretation, so litigation may boil down to a battle of psychological experts (Eisenbraun, 2006).

EVENTS/CASES
There are quite a few cases relevant to this topic, and as more and more companies choose to implement personality tests as a part of their hiring process, I predict that there will be many more. In one case, a woman applied for a job as a cashier, bagger, and stocker at Kroger, a supermarket in West Virginia. She was hearing and speech-impaired, and was not hired based upon her low score from a “Customer Service Assessment” (“CSA”) personality test. Those with higher CSA scores are supposedly more cheerful and friendly, and are better able to listen carefully and communicate well with customers than those with lower scores (Ellin, 2012). The women ended up filing a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The case is still pending today, and there is still question as to whether or not the case counts as discrimination. This case is a perfect example of a reoccurring question when thinking about personality tests as predictors of employee performance. Are the tests that are administered to potential candidates related to the actual job duties? In this example, does being hearing and speech-impaired have anything to do with the ability to bag groceries or stock supplies? If the job requires the person to be able to have certain skills that require speech and hearing, then maybe, but if not, then you are looking at an ADA violation perhaps. One of the major downfalls with companies adopting personality tests is that they have a high possibility to discriminate against potential employees which can be very costly and time consuming for the employer. Are discrimination law suits and bad publicity really worth using personality tests to predict potential employee performance? Some say yes, because the tests are proven to provide certain indicators which could prevent employers from dealing with poor performers, turn over, and time spent on managing. Others say no, because these tests aren’t reliable in terms of the results. In another case, and according to the Wall Street Journal, in July 2012, Leprino Foods, Inc. (a Denver-based mozzarella cheese maker and government contractor) had to pay $550,000 back in wages, interest and benefits to 253 minority workers who were rejected for on-call laborer positions between January 2005 and October 2006 because they failed the skills assessment test called the WorkKeys exam (Ellin 2012). It was determined that the test’s focus on math and observation skills had no relevance to the entry-level jobs that were available. The use of personality tests in the workplace is apparently becoming significantly more commonplace in many industries, as (among other things) the costs of severance packages and the costs of employee benefit plans continue to escalate (Eisenbraun 2006). Some employers may see testing as a way to avoid future problems in the workplace, but they should always be careful to ensure that the test applies to the job. Beyond the hiring stage, there was a case, Bogden v. Purolator Courier Ltd. in 1996 where the plaintiff alleged the he had been wrongfully dismissed. Prior to being hired, the plaintiff had been assessed by a psychological service that found the plaintiff “tended to lose objectivity and became defensive with criticism.” The company passed on the psychological profile to the supervisor who used that information against the plaintiff (Eisenbraun, 2006). The knowledge of personality test results may have an impact on the way others view people. If a personality test determines that an individual “tends to get upset easily” then others might start to treat that individual differently whereas they would not have before because they did not know.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, my personal opinion is that yes, personality tests can be good indicators of employee performance; however, with the combination or use of additional hiring tools such as interviews, background checks, common sense, etc. Employers should look carefully at each test before one is chosen and ensure that the tests are relevant to the job so that they can avoid any unnecessary legal issues. As a supervisor, I understand what it is like to have a “poor performer” on your team. It takes a lot of time, dedication, documentation, patience, and wisdom to effectively manage or fire an individual. Unlucky for me, I inherited my poor performers and did not have a choice, but if I ever get the opportunity to hire new staff on my team, I know that I would appreciate anything that would help predict a potential employee’s performance. Even if research has not fully proven personality tests are a good predictor for employee performance, I know that I would be willing to take my chances if it meant that there was a possibility of avoiding a future poor performer or worse a potential criminal!

References

Anonymous. (2005). Pros and cons of personality tests that employers should consider. HR Focus, 82(9), 8-9.
Armour, S. (1998, Jul 15). More job seekers have the profile of a liar applicants often stretch truth on personality tests. USA TODAY.
Eisenbraun, G. A. (2006). The pros and cons of personality testing in the workplace. Law Now, 30, 17-18.
Ellin, A. (2012). Woman sues over personality test job rejection. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Business/personality-tests-workplace-bogus/story?id=17349051.
Gibby, R. E., & Zickar, M. J. (2008). A history of the early days of personality testing in american industry: An obsession with adjustment. History of Psychology, 11(3), 164-184.
Hogan, J., Barrett, P., & Hogan, R. (2007). Personality measurement, faking, and employment selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1270-1285.
Paul, A. (2004) The Cult of Personality: How Personality Tests are Leading Us to Miseducate our Children, Mismanage our Companies, and Misunderstand Ourselves. 2004. Free Press. New York.