Human Resources Individual Assignment
10 Pages2681 Words662 Views
Added on 2022-01-25
Human Resources Individual Assignment
Added on 2022-01-25
ShareRelated Documents
FULL-TIME MBA
2021-2022
Personality tests in hiring? Or
maybe just, astrology.
Course: Human Resources Individual Assignment
Professor: Koen Dewettinck
By: Ghekiere, Cyriel
Engaging in irregularities is severely sanctioned in correspondence with article 34 of the Examination rules.
We hereby declare that we have not engaged in any such irregularities.
2021-2022
Personality tests in hiring? Or
maybe just, astrology.
Course: Human Resources Individual Assignment
Professor: Koen Dewettinck
By: Ghekiere, Cyriel
Engaging in irregularities is severely sanctioned in correspondence with article 34 of the Examination rules.
We hereby declare that we have not engaged in any such irregularities.
Introduction
Over the years the use of personality tests has become more and more prevalent,
today around 22% of companies use them as part of their hiring process to estimate
whether the candidate is the right fit for the organization (SHRM, 2014). Over the
years a plethora of self-reported questionnaires have emerged, ranging from well-
established names like Myers–Briggs, Disc, and Big Five, to a multitude of cheap less
reputable tests like the Four-Quadrant. As corporations become more and more
aware of the importance of culture on the performance and retention of employees
it seems only natural that they look for ways to test their new hires’ compatibility
with that culture. However, the reliability of personality tests and their ability to
predict job performance remains a subject of debate among scholars (Morgeson, et
al., 2007; Tett & Christiansen, 2007). Despite the remarkable increase in the number
of articles and presentations on the subject (figure 1), there seems to be no
consensus on whether personality tests should be used in hiring at all. On top of that,
the increased use of personality tests has also raised some ethical questions as they
may bar people with certain disabilities from obtaining job opportunities (Claypool,
2021). In this brief article, we will touch upon the history and scholarly literature
regarding the use of personality tests in hiring. we will discuss why corporations opt
to use personality tests and some of their pitfalls Lastly, we will end with some
conclusion’s recommendations.
History of personality tests and scholarly debate
The study of personalities and attempts to categorize Caracter traits into personality
constructs dates back to de days of Hippocrates who formulated the four-
temperaments theory. However, the rise of personality tests in hiring practices finds
its origin in the 20th century where the world wars and increasing industrialization
pressured companies and governments to find ways to efficiently allocate people to
the right roles. Most famously the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) a 16-type
indicator test is based on Carl Jung's Psychological Types, was created during WWII
to help the large amounts of women entering the industrial labor force to identify
their ideal roles. However, in terms of academic credibility personality tests got off
Over the years the use of personality tests has become more and more prevalent,
today around 22% of companies use them as part of their hiring process to estimate
whether the candidate is the right fit for the organization (SHRM, 2014). Over the
years a plethora of self-reported questionnaires have emerged, ranging from well-
established names like Myers–Briggs, Disc, and Big Five, to a multitude of cheap less
reputable tests like the Four-Quadrant. As corporations become more and more
aware of the importance of culture on the performance and retention of employees
it seems only natural that they look for ways to test their new hires’ compatibility
with that culture. However, the reliability of personality tests and their ability to
predict job performance remains a subject of debate among scholars (Morgeson, et
al., 2007; Tett & Christiansen, 2007). Despite the remarkable increase in the number
of articles and presentations on the subject (figure 1), there seems to be no
consensus on whether personality tests should be used in hiring at all. On top of that,
the increased use of personality tests has also raised some ethical questions as they
may bar people with certain disabilities from obtaining job opportunities (Claypool,
2021). In this brief article, we will touch upon the history and scholarly literature
regarding the use of personality tests in hiring. we will discuss why corporations opt
to use personality tests and some of their pitfalls Lastly, we will end with some
conclusion’s recommendations.
History of personality tests and scholarly debate
The study of personalities and attempts to categorize Caracter traits into personality
constructs dates back to de days of Hippocrates who formulated the four-
temperaments theory. However, the rise of personality tests in hiring practices finds
its origin in the 20th century where the world wars and increasing industrialization
pressured companies and governments to find ways to efficiently allocate people to
the right roles. Most famously the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) a 16-type
indicator test is based on Carl Jung's Psychological Types, was created during WWII
to help the large amounts of women entering the industrial labor force to identify
their ideal roles. However, in terms of academic credibility personality tests got off
to an ignominious start as summarized by Guion and Gottier (1965) “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 about
people”. This proved to be the dominant sentiment up until the ’90s as personality
tests were regarded as too unreliable to provide any basis for a hiring decision.
However, during the ’90s with the coming of the new “Big Five” personality
dimensions (Extraversion, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness,
and Openness to Experience), and studies increasingly pointing at its predictive
power in terms of job performance, personality test gained a second wind as
researchers interest rose exponentially (figure 1) (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
Today much of the framework used for personality testing in personal selection is
derived from the Big 5 model. However, despite the huge increase in the application
of these tests and the large number of studies conducted, there seems to be no
consensus on the value of personality testing in the acquisition of new employees. As
proponents argue that that commercial self-report personality tests yield useful
validity in relation to job performance when used appropriately and the right
considerations are made such as personality scales which have been found to
correlate .26 with job performance (Tett & Christiansen, 2007). They further argue
that the mean validity likely underestimates the true validity due to factors such as
the advantage of narrow over broad personality traits, rudimentary job analysis, and
the use of a single personality trait scale. On the other hand, detractors argue that
the real validity remains low and will correlate around 0.10 with job performance,
they point out that the elevated levels of the opponents are due to overcorrections
(Morgeson, et al., 2007). They further highlight that the effects of faking on a self-
reported personality test are still unclear. However, they state that faking is to be
expected on any type of test, and correcting for it does not seem to improve viability.
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 about
people”. This proved to be the dominant sentiment up until the ’90s as personality
tests were regarded as too unreliable to provide any basis for a hiring decision.
However, during the ’90s with the coming of the new “Big Five” personality
dimensions (Extraversion, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness,
and Openness to Experience), and studies increasingly pointing at its predictive
power in terms of job performance, personality test gained a second wind as
researchers interest rose exponentially (figure 1) (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
Today much of the framework used for personality testing in personal selection is
derived from the Big 5 model. However, despite the huge increase in the application
of these tests and the large number of studies conducted, there seems to be no
consensus on the value of personality testing in the acquisition of new employees. As
proponents argue that that commercial self-report personality tests yield useful
validity in relation to job performance when used appropriately and the right
considerations are made such as personality scales which have been found to
correlate .26 with job performance (Tett & Christiansen, 2007). They further argue
that the mean validity likely underestimates the true validity due to factors such as
the advantage of narrow over broad personality traits, rudimentary job analysis, and
the use of a single personality trait scale. On the other hand, detractors argue that
the real validity remains low and will correlate around 0.10 with job performance,
they point out that the elevated levels of the opponents are due to overcorrections
(Morgeson, et al., 2007). They further highlight that the effects of faking on a self-
reported personality test are still unclear. However, they state that faking is to be
expected on any type of test, and correcting for it does not seem to improve viability.
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Myers Briggs Personality Test | Assignmentlg...
|4
|643
|20
Assignment on Process of Recruitment and Selectionlg...
|7
|2544
|19