Limited-time offer! Save up to 50% Off | Solutions starting at $6 each  

Human Resources Individual Assignment

Added on - 25 Jan 2022

Trusted by 2+ million users,
1000+ happy students everyday
Showing pages 1 to 3 of 10 pages
FULL-TIMEMBA
2021-2022

Personality testsin hiring?Or
maybe just, astrology.

Course:Human ResourcesIndividual Assignment

Professor:Koen Dewettinck

By:Ghekiere, Cyriel

Engaging in irregularities is severely sanctioned incorrespondence 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 around22% 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-
establishednames like MyersBriggs, 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
ofarticlesandpresentationsonthesubject(figure1),thereseemstobeno
consensus on whether personality tests should be used in hiring at all. On top of that,
the increased use of personalitytests 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 ofpersonality tests andscholarly debate

The study of personalities and attempts to categorize Caracter traits into personality
constructsdatesbacktodedaysofHippocrateswhoformulatedthefour-
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 MyersBriggs 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 situationsas 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,duringthe’90swiththecomingofthenew“BigFive”personality
dimensions(Extraversion,EmotionalStability,Agreeableness,Conscientiousness,
and Openness to Experience), and studies increasingly pointing at its predictive
powerintermsofjobperformance,personalitytestgainedasecondwindas
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
proponentsarguethatthatcommercialself-reportpersonalitytestsyielduseful
validityinrelationtojobperformancewhenusedappropriatelyandtheright
considerationsaremadesuchaspersonalityscaleswhichhavebeenfoundto
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.
desklib-logo
You’re reading a preview
Preview Documents

To View Complete Document

Click the button to download
Subscribe to our plans

Download This Document