Forum home Commuter cycling forum Commuting chat

Cosmo Quiz

HeadhuunterHeadhuunter Posts: 6,494
edited May 2013 in Commuting chat
So who are you? I come up as a "Provider".... Apparently this is based on Myers & Briggs tests often used to test candidates' personalities and suitability for certain jobs or for team fit

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/ ... quiz.shtml
Do not write below this line. Office use only.
«1

Posts

  • supersonicsupersonic Posts: 82,708 Lives Here
  • il_principeil_principe Posts: 9,146
    MBTI is a crock of censored . I has absolutely no grounding in science and no evidence to back it up. Anyone that uses it as part of their recruitment process should take a long hard look at themselves.

    Edit - Quite irritated that the BBC even have this on their site under the banner of Science.
    2015 Canyon Aeroad CF SLX
    2020 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX
    2020 Canyon Inflite SL 7
    On the Strand
    Crown Stables
  • Paul EPaul E Posts: 2,052
    Ruler of the known Universe, apparently.
    bartman100 wrote:
    The OP is a troll = moron
    The OP actually believes this = moron
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 52,686 Lives Here
    Hah, supervisor.


    Oh dear.
  • ApplespiderApplespider Posts: 506
    I know I'm an ENTP in Myers Briggs. Apparently this type often questions the validity of the data.... no kidding sherlock!
  • Kieran_BurnsKieran_Burns Posts: 10,052
    MBTI is a crock of censored . I has absolutely no grounding in science and no evidence to back it up. Anyone that uses it as part of their recruitment process should take a long hard look at themselves.

    Edit - Quite irritated that the BBC even have this on their site under the banner of Science.

    So you ended up as the cynical whinge-bag then? :wink:
    Chunky Cyclists need your love too! :-)
    2009 Specialized Tricross Sport
    2011 Trek Madone 4.5
    2012 Felt F65X
    Proud CX Pervert and quiet roadie. 12 mile commuter
  • rubertoerubertoe Posts: 3,993
    I couldn't be bothered = Lazy git.
    "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got."

    PX Kaffenback 2 = Work Horse
    B-Twin Alur 700 = Sundays and Hills
  • HeadhuunterHeadhuunter Posts: 6,494
    MBTI is a crock of censored . I has absolutely no grounding in science and no evidence to back it up. Anyone that uses it as part of their recruitment process should take a long hard look at themselves.

    Edit - Quite irritated that the BBC even have this on their site under the banner of Science.

    So you ended up as the cynical whinge-bag then? :wink:

    Ha! One of our major clients, an enormous sovereign wealth fund uses something similar in conjunction with role plays and other things towards the end of the interview process (it's their decision to use it, not ours), so crock of poo it may be but some major employers out there use this sort of thing as part of the decision process....
    Do not write below this line. Office use only.
  • HeadhuunterHeadhuunter Posts: 6,494
    Hah, supervisor.


    Oh dear.

    The only difference between you and me apparently is that I'm ruled by my heart and you're ruled by your head... You calls [email protected]
    Do not write below this line. Office use only.
  • veronese68veronese68 Posts: 23,451 Lives Here
    Hah, supervisor.


    Oh dear.

    The only difference between you and me apparently is that I'm ruled by my heart and you're ruled by your head... You calls [email protected]
    And about 3 foot. Oh, I'm a peacemaker by the way.
  • msmancuniamsmancunia Posts: 1,457
    MBTI is a crock of censored . I has absolutely no grounding in science and no evidence to back it up. Anyone that uses it as part of their recruitment process should take a long hard look at themselves.

    Edit - Quite irritated that the BBC even have this on their site under the banner of Science.

    So you ended up as the cynical whinge-bag then? :wink:

    Ha! One of our major clients, an enormous sovereign wealth fund uses something similar in conjunction with role plays and other things towards the end of the interview process (it's their decision to use it, not ours), so crock of poo it may be but some major employers out there use this sort of thing as part of the decision process....

    My current employer used it as part of my interview last year. I didn't agree a couple of points they quoted, so told them. Apparently my questioning it was what got me the job :)

    They still use it though as far as I'm aware...
    Commute: Chadderton - Sportcity
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 18,954
    msmancunia wrote:
    MBTI is a crock of censored . I has absolutely no grounding in science and no evidence to back it up. Anyone that uses it as part of their recruitment process should take a long hard look at themselves.

    Edit - Quite irritated that the BBC even have this on their site under the banner of Science.

    So you ended up as the cynical whinge-bag then? :wink:

    Ha! One of our major clients, an enormous sovereign wealth fund uses something similar in conjunction with role plays and other things towards the end of the interview process (it's their decision to use it, not ours), so crock of poo it may be but some major employers out there use this sort of thing as part of the decision process....

    My current employer used it as part of my interview last year. I didn't agree a couple of points they quoted, so told them. Apparently my questioning it was what got me the job :)

    They still use it though as far as I'm aware...

    For a start, you can see which way the options are steering you, so it would be very easy to fix. About as scientific as a tarot reading.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • HeadhuunterHeadhuunter Posts: 6,494
    rjsterry wrote:
    msmancunia wrote:
    MBTI is a crock of censored . I has absolutely no grounding in science and no evidence to back it up. Anyone that uses it as part of their recruitment process should take a long hard look at themselves.

    Edit - Quite irritated that the BBC even have this on their site under the banner of Science.

    So you ended up as the cynical whinge-bag then? :wink:

    Ha! One of our major clients, an enormous sovereign wealth fund uses something similar in conjunction with role plays and other things towards the end of the interview process (it's their decision to use it, not ours), so crock of poo it may be but some major employers out there use this sort of thing as part of the decision process....

    My current employer used it as part of my interview last year. I didn't agree a couple of points they quoted, so told them. Apparently my questioning it was what got me the job :)

    They still use it though as far as I'm aware...

    For a start, you can see which way the options are steering you, so it would be very easy to fix. About as scientific as a tarot reading.
    Are you doubting the validity of the cards? I foresee a difficult future for you...
    Do not write below this line. Office use only.
  • spasypaddyspasypaddy Posts: 5,731
    Peacekeeper.

    now considering i had an argument in the office just this morning and i refuse to back down. i dont believe this test is any good
  • veronese68veronese68 Posts: 23,451 Lives Here
    spasypaddy wrote:
    Peacekeeper.

    now considering i had an argument in the office just this morning and i refuse to back down. i dont believe this test is any good
    This could so often be me.
  • HeadhuunterHeadhuunter Posts: 6,494
    spasypaddy wrote:
    Peacekeeper.

    now considering i had an argument in the office just this morning and i refuse to back down. i dont believe this test is any good

    I think these are quite general categories though, it's not as if everyone fits neatly and squarely into each box and everyone else in that box is exactly the same... I am a Provider and so is a woman I used to work with. I don't regard myself as much like her but I can see similarities. Otherwise I thought that my category described my general personality fairly well - there I've said it!
    Do not write below this line. Office use only.
  • spasypaddyspasypaddy Posts: 5,731
    veronese68 wrote:
    spasypaddy wrote:
    Peacekeeper.

    now considering i had an argument in the office just this morning and i refuse to back down. i dont believe this test is any good
    This could so often be me.
    i do enjoy a good argument!
  • SketchleySketchley Posts: 4,235
    It's bit like horroscopes. You can apply the description to just about anyone. It's meaningless. That and the fact that several questions the answer, for me, would depend on the context or mode I was in at the time. Basically it's bollox.
    --
    Chris

    Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/5
  • HeadhuunterHeadhuunter Posts: 6,494
    Sketchley wrote:
    It's bit like horroscopes. You can apply the description to just about anyone. It's meaningless. That and the fact that several questions the answer, for me, would depend on the context or mode I was in at the time. Basically it's bollox.

    I think the BBC version is a much abbreviated version of the full test so not especially accurate but I really don't think you can apply "the description to just about anyone", in my view, each personality description is quite different. I would definitely not see myself as a "Supervisor" for example... The descriptions are definitely more specific and less generic than horoscopes in the daily rag....

    I think a lot of people are hostile to things like this because they don't like to see themselves as a certain "type", everyone likes to think of themselves as an absolute individual, unlike anyone else out there but the reality is that there are personality categories and types. Working in recruitment I meet people day in and day out and have to assess personalities and fits with clients and after a while you get a sense for what people are like and who they would fit with etc. Unfortunately we're not all as individual as we'd like to be. For example I find it very clear that the people on this forum and in cycling are generally of a certain "type", very different to other groups of people I come into contact with.

    These categorisations and generalisations of personality type are used (for better or worse, whether you like it or not) across business by people in advertising (to target the right market), in recruitment (to make sure team fit and skill set is right) and many other areas.
    Do not write below this line. Office use only.
  • edhornbyedhornby Posts: 1,780
    Myers and Briggs were a mother and daughter team - the mother decided that people fitted into categories, so she wrote a paper and presented it, the response was 'yeah, like Jungian analysis but you've missed some categories...'

    as you can guess I'm not a fan either
    "I get paid to make other people suffer on my wheel, how good is that"
    --Jens Voight
  • SketchleySketchley Posts: 4,235
    Sketchley wrote:
    It's bit like horroscopes. You can apply the description to just about anyone. It's meaningless. That and the fact that several questions the answer, for me, would depend on the context or mode I was in at the time. Basically it's bollox.

    I think the BBC version is a much abbreviated version of the full test so not especially accurate but I really don't think you can apply "the description to just about anyone", in my view, each personality description is quite different. I would definitely not see myself as a "Supervisor" for example... The descriptions are definitely more specific and less generic than horoscopes in the daily rag....

    I think a lot of people are hostile to things like this because they don't like to see themselves as a certain "type", everyone likes to think of themselves as an absolute individual, unlike anyone else out there but the reality is that there are personality categories and types. Working in recruitment I meet people day in and day out and have to assess personalities and fits with clients and after a while you get a sense for what people are like and who they would fit with etc. Unfortunately we're not all as individual as we'd like to be. For example I find it very clear that the people on this forum and in cycling are generally of a certain "type", very different to other groups of people I come into contact with.

    These categorisations and generalisations of personality type are used (for better or worse, whether you like it or not) across business by people in advertising (to target the right market), in recruitment (to make sure team fit and skill set is right) and many other areas.


    Agreed. But it's a broad brush stroke, with marketing you are playing a numbers game trying to hit the big demographic for your product. That demographic might be blurred at the edges, people might fit into more than one, but as long as your hitting the sweat spot then the marketing will be effective.

    This test is similar. Sure there can be big difference between extreme categories, likewise you can read horroscope and say that just isn't right about me on one day, and say that's spot on another. The point being that the test hits the nail on the head sometimes, gets close in others and misses completely in others. To be sure about the validity of the test you would need a blind control test and some way of pre categorising the people first, which for this kind of test is extreemly difficult so unfortunatly they endure. Add that to the fact that I and many people would answer the questions on this test differently depending on where I was interviewing, plus the fact the from the outset it was always going to be a "mostly As, mostly Bs" type of test so in the test I might chose to adopt a scatter gun approach and distrbute my answer as close the evenly as possible so as to a best put me close to every category and aviode the extremes or invalidate the test so it isn't even considerd.

    From me the message here is that you simply cannot tell if someone will be ideal employee based on a CV, experience, education, interview, personallity test or any other method. The only way to really tell is to give them a job and see how they get on. The recruitment consultants on here may well disagree but before you do, how many of you have prepared a client for an interview, telling them what to and not to say, how to complete a test, questions asked to previous candiates etc etc..... However one things these test do do is give the recuitment consultant and recuriting manager a fall back of "well he/she passed the test" when it all goes tits up.

    /rant
    --
    Chris

    Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/5
  • HeadhuunterHeadhuunter Posts: 6,494
    Sketchley wrote:
    Sketchley wrote:
    It's bit like horroscopes. You can apply the description to just about anyone. It's meaningless. That and the fact that several questions the answer, for me, would depend on the context or mode I was in at the time. Basically it's bollox.

    I think the BBC version is a much abbreviated version of the full test so not especially accurate but I really don't think you can apply "the description to just about anyone", in my view, each personality description is quite different. I would definitely not see myself as a "Supervisor" for example... The descriptions are definitely more specific and less generic than horoscopes in the daily rag....

    I think a lot of people are hostile to things like this because they don't like to see themselves as a certain "type", everyone likes to think of themselves as an absolute individual, unlike anyone else out there but the reality is that there are personality categories and types. Working in recruitment I meet people day in and day out and have to assess personalities and fits with clients and after a while you get a sense for what people are like and who they would fit with etc. Unfortunately we're not all as individual as we'd like to be. For example I find it very clear that the people on this forum and in cycling are generally of a certain "type", very different to other groups of people I come into contact with.

    These categorisations and generalisations of personality type are used (for better or worse, whether you like it or not) across business by people in advertising (to target the right market), in recruitment (to make sure team fit and skill set is right) and many other areas.


    Agreed. But it's a broad brush stroke, with marketing you are playing a numbers game trying to hit the big demographic for your product. That demographic might be blurred at the edges, people might fit into more than one, but as long as your hitting the sweat spot then the marketing will be effective.

    This test is similar. Sure there can be big difference between extreme categories, likewise you can read horroscope and say that just isn't right about me on one day, and say that's spot on another. The point being that the test hits the nail on the head sometimes, gets close in others and misses completely in others. To be sure about the validity of the test you would need a blind control test and some way of pre categorising the people first, which for this kind of test is extreemly difficult so unfortunatly they endure. Add that to the fact that I and many people would answer the questions on this test differently depending on where I was interviewing, plus the fact the from the outset it was always going to be a "mostly As, mostly Bs" type of test so in the test I might chose to adopt a scatter gun approach and distrbute my answer as close the evenly as possible so as to a best put me close to every category and aviode the extremes or invalidate the test so it isn't even considerd.

    From me the message here is that you simply cannot tell if someone will be ideal employee based on a CV, experience, education, interview, personallity test or any other method. The only way to really tell is to give them a job and see how they get on. The recruitment consultants on here may well disagree but before you do, how many of you have prepared a client for an interview, telling them what to and not to say, how to complete a test, questions asked to previous candiates etc etc..... However one things these test do do is give the recuitment consultant and recuriting manager a fall back of "well he/she passed the test" when it all goes tits up.

    /rant

    But tests like this don't claim to map personalities like DNA - specific to each individual giving an undeniable description of what type of person someone is, they are a designed to give a general idea of what someone is like. I don't think any recruiter or employer would use this test in isolation without first having seen a CV and/or interviewed the person. Tests like these are simply a tool in the box with which to work out whether someone would fit into a business or team.

    It's not at all like a horoscope which changes from day to day and from month to month and is supposed to predict how you feel at a given time, this is a test of personality, who you are fundamentally, not how you might be on a certain day if Saturn is in the ascent or whatever...

    If people choose to "adopt a scatter gun approach" and not answer honestly then of course the results are worthless! Just as if you put choose to put rubbish data into a computer model but what would be the point in that?

    Unfortunately simply hiring someone and seeing how they work out is simply not an option for most companies. Firstly it's very unfair on the individual concerned, they join a firm which has little long term commitment to them as they are simply doing a "suck it and see". It's blatantly messing with someone's feeling and emotions, you can't hire someone for a full time job when you're not convinced about them, give them a couple of weeks and then say "naaaah...."! It's not like buying a stereo or a fridge, you can't just send them back to the shop without some kind of repercussion!

    Continually hiring and firing people to a team in an attempt to find the right person destabilises the business, makes other employers concerned about their own future and does not create a harmonious, cohesive team environment.

    As well as ethically doubtful, there are legal implications to hiring someone and also costs to the business itself - you hire someone for 2 months, spend money on training them, other employees have to spend their time working with this person (at a cost to the business) bringing them up to speed, getting to know them and integrating them only to see them fired. This has cost the firm money for 2 months (or however long you keep the person for) including recruitment agent fees etc and puts the business which is in need of another employee back to square 1.
    Do not write below this line. Office use only.
  • SketchleySketchley Posts: 4,235
    Wahoo slow down a bit... I was mearly saying that you can go through all the test you like but still find the person is wrong. I wasn't suggesting randomly hiring people until you find the right one.

    Trouble with testing "personality" and why I likened it to horoscopes, is that peoples personality change dependent on circumstance, that and the fact the the categories are open to wide interpretation. i have no doubt personality testing can work and if conducted and repeated over a significant time period it might even tend to accurate but in the context of an interview and selection process with the test taking place once is short time period, I remain sceptical.

    Plus I agree it is just a tool not the begging and the end, however most hiring manager wouldn't really undstand how the testing works, so will get the results and include or exclude people based on thier interpretation of the meaning of the categories. For example you come out as "Supervisor" so hiring manager says don't want them they might be after my job, judging only on a single level. Now if part of the hiring process you are going to employ a psycologist to test all the candidates and compare them to existing team in order to decide who will best fit in and be a good employee then again I'd give it more weight, but a simple 25 questions or 100 question in short time frame to determin something as complex as personality which is then going to be reviewed by someone who hasn't even study the subject in detail, is guess work at best. You might as well walk in a room, point and say you'll do. Or only employee Capricorns in January....

    I'd be interested in seeing any statistic you might have of average time in job by candiate for similar position against firms that do personality test and those that don't. Or better yets firm that have introduced it and with before and after. It would also be interesting to see Employee and Employer Satisfaction figures for similar.
    --
    Chris

    Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/5
  • SketchleySketchley Posts: 4,235
    Just read this from Cornell univeristy in the US said it better than I could.

    http://www.cornellhrreview.org/personal ... h-caution/
    --
    Chris

    Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/5
  • HeadhuunterHeadhuunter Posts: 6,494
    Sketchley wrote:
    Wahoo slow down a bit... I was mearly saying that you can go through all the test you like but still find the person is wrong. I wasn't suggesting randomly hiring people until you find the right one.

    Trouble with testing "personality" and why I likened it to horoscopes, is that peoples personality change dependent on circumstance, that and the fact the the categories are open to wide interpretation. i have no doubt personality testing can work and if conducted and repeated over a significant time period it might even tend to accurate but in the context of an interview and selection process with the test taking place once is short time period, I remain sceptical.

    Plus I agree it is just a tool not the begging and the end, however most hiring manager wouldn't really undstand how the testing works, so will get the results and include or exclude people based on thier interpretation of the meaning of the categories. For example you come out as "Supervisor" so hiring manager says don't want them they might be after my job, judging only on a single level. Now if part of the hiring process you are going to employ a psycologist to test all the candidates and compare them to existing team in order to decide who will best fit in and be a good employee then again I'd give it more weight, but a simple 25 questions or 100 question in short time frame to determin something as complex as personality which is then going to be reviewed by someone who hasn't even study the subject in detail, is guess work at best. You might as well walk in a room, point and say you'll do. Or only employee Capricorns in January....

    I'd be interested in seeing any statistic you might have of average time in job by candiate for similar position against firms that do personality test and those that don't. Or better yets firm that have introduced it and with before and after. It would also be interesting to see Employee and Employer Satisfaction figures for similar.

    Personality is definitely NOT something which changes on a day to day basis! Unless you're schizophrenic I suppose! Personality is the basic elements which make up you as a person, it's not mood or temper which clearly change on a daily or hourly basis.

    Personality defines how you will react to any given external stimulus, for example you're cycling to work and a car pulls out in front of you, your personality dictates how you deal with the situation - do you fly off the handle and bang on the car window, remonstrating angrily? Do you simply accept it as part of commuting in London? Do you cycle calmly up to the driver's window and try to begin a leveled discussion?

    As for how these tests are used by employers, most of these tests are administered, marked and analysed by external companies hired specifically for the job. It's not some bod from HR chucking the paper in front of the candidates like a school exam paper and then marking it like a maths test.

    As I mentioned earlier, one of our clients uses these tests. As the headhunter, we are responsible for identifying and making an initial judgement on potential candidates based on their CV and an initial meeting, if we approve they then go through 3 or 4 separate interviews at the employer and then go off to a whole separate personality testing company which has them in for half a day and puts them through various tests. the external company then marks the tests and presents the results and analyses to both the employer and potential employee for discussion.

    You make these things out to be completely randomly and unscientifically administered, they are definitely not! Whether you believe the results is another thing but there's a whole industry around personality and psychological testing....
    Do not write below this line. Office use only.
  • HeadhuunterHeadhuunter Posts: 6,494
    Sketchley wrote:
    Just read this from Cornell univeristy in the US said it better than I could.

    http://www.cornellhrreview.org/personal ... h-caution/

    I haven't read the whole thing, haven't really got time at the moment but the conclusion doesn't seem to rule out the use of tests it just basically recommends that employers use them carefully....

    Even though an employer may be challenged in court for using personality and EQ tests in employee selection, the benefits of more successful employees far outweigh potential legal costs. The key is for employers to use valid, reliable, and legally sustainable tests in hiring employees, not only because this will reduce potential lawsuits but also because it is the only way that employers can scientifically identify the best candidates for the job. ℵ
    Do not write below this line. Office use only.
  • SketchleySketchley Posts: 4,235
    Here's a quote you may of missed.
    For studies published from 1952 to 1963, one paper noted that the studies indicated that personality had some predictive power, but not at a level that personality should be used for employee selection.[24] This same article concluded that

    “there is no generalizable evidence that personality measures can be recommended as good or practical tools for employee selection…. The best that can be said is that in some situations, for some purposes, some personality measures can offer helpful predictions. But there is nothing in this summary to indicate in advance which measure should be used in which situation or for which purposes. In short, it must be concluded (as always) that the validity of any personality measure must be specifically and competently determined for the specific situation in which it is to be used and for the specific purpose or criterion within that situation…. It seems clear that the only acceptable reason for using personality measures as instruments of decision is found only after doing considerable research with the measure in the specific situation and for the specific purpose for which it is to be used.[25]”

    So can you honestly say these external companies are doing that?

    As for your other point about personality determining who a person will react and not changing. I have to disagree with you completely, to use your example of cycling to work and someone pulls out in front of me, my reaction will vary greatly dependent on lots of factors, including time of day, am i late, did someone cut me up before, am I getting over the death of a relative, have a met a new girl, am I in love, am I on the way to job interview, is my boss harrasing me at work etc etc. Simple fact is I could take the test in the original link 10 time over the next 10 days at random times throughout the day and give honest answers base on how I feel then and I how I feel about myself and get multiple different answers. As the text above shows it's all about context, if you study over time how particular responses result in real term effect then the result maybe of some use, but what works for one combination of "personality", roll, team and company might get completely different results in another. Any I doubt very much the external companies are doing anything other than taking the companies money for what is at best snake oil.

    Also do you ever "prep" a candidate for a personality test? Telling them what and how to answer for the company concerned? After all you want your candidate placed as that makes you money? p.s. don't admit this on an open forum if it'll come back and bit you.....
    --
    Chris

    Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/5
  • HeadhuunterHeadhuunter Posts: 6,494
    Sketchley wrote:
    Here's a quote you may of missed.
    For studies published from 1952 to 1963, one paper noted that the studies indicated that personality had some predictive power, but not at a level that personality should be used for employee selection.[24] This same article concluded that

    “there is no generalizable evidence that personality measures can be recommended as good or practical tools for employee selection…. The best that can be said is that in some situations, for some purposes, some personality measures can offer helpful predictions. But there is nothing in this summary to indicate in advance which measure should be used in which situation or for which purposes. In short, it must be concluded (as always) that the validity of any personality measure must be specifically and competently determined for the specific situation in which it is to be used and for the specific purpose or criterion within that situation…. It seems clear that the only acceptable reason for using personality measures as instruments of decision is found only after doing considerable research with the measure in the specific situation and for the specific purpose for which it is to be used.[25]”

    So can you honestly say these external companies are doing that?

    As for your other point about personality determining who a person will react and not changing. I have to disagree with you completely, to use your example of cycling to work and someone pulls out in front of me, my reaction will vary greatly dependent on lots of factors, including time of day, am i late, did someone cut me up before, am I getting over the death of a relative, have a met a new girl, am I in love, am I on the way to job interview, is my boss harrasing me at work etc etc. Simple fact is I could take the test in the original link 10 time over the next 10 days at random times throughout the day and give honest answers base on how I feel then and I how I feel about myself and get multiple different answers. As the text above shows it's all about context, if you study over time how particular responses result in real term effect then the result maybe of some use, but what works for one combination of "personality", roll, team and company might get completely different results in another. Any I doubt very much the external companies are doing anything other than taking the companies money for what is at best snake oil.

    Also do you ever "prep" a candidate for a personality test? Telling them what and how to answer for the company concerned? After all you want your candidate placed as that makes you money? p.s. don't admit this on an open forum if it'll come back and bit you.....

    I'll have a look through that report thing when I get time and have a browse of the internet. I'm not necessarily "for" these tests by the way, I just don't think they're something you can dismiss as complete and utter rubbish akin to horoscopes...

    As for your example of how "personality" changes, that is not personality. Each of the things you cite are things which you take on board and your personality then dictates how you react to them and them in combination with other things. So if you have recently met a lovely woman and fallen in love and a car pulls out in from of you you react one way and another way if you have just broken up with some woman, but these reactions are based on how your personality type reacts to external stimuli. They are not elements of your personality, I think you're confusing what personality/psychological profiles actually are!
    Do not write below this line. Office use only.
  • HeadhuunterHeadhuunter Posts: 6,494
    Sketchley wrote:
    Here's a quote you may of missed.
    For studies published from 1952 to 1963, one paper noted that the studies indicated that personality had some predictive power, but not at a level that personality should be used for employee selection.[24] This same article concluded that

    “there is no generalizable evidence that personality measures can be recommended as good or practical tools for employee selection…. The best that can be said is that in some situations, for some purposes, some personality measures can offer helpful predictions. But there is nothing in this summary to indicate in advance which measure should be used in which situation or for which purposes. In short, it must be concluded (as always) that the validity of any personality measure must be specifically and competently determined for the specific situation in which it is to be used and for the specific purpose or criterion within that situation…. It seems clear that the only acceptable reason for using personality measures as instruments of decision is found only after doing considerable research with the measure in the specific situation and for the specific purpose for which it is to be used.[25]”

    So can you honestly say these external companies are doing that?

    As for your other point about personality determining who a person will react and not changing. I have to disagree with you completely, to use your example of cycling to work and someone pulls out in front of me, my reaction will vary greatly dependent on lots of factors, including time of day, am i late, did someone cut me up before, am I getting over the death of a relative, have a met a new girl, am I in love, am I on the way to job interview, is my boss harrasing me at work etc etc. Simple fact is I could take the test in the original link 10 time over the next 10 days at random times throughout the day and give honest answers base on how I feel then and I how I feel about myself and get multiple different answers. As the text above shows it's all about context, if you study over time how particular responses result in real term effect then the result maybe of some use, but what works for one combination of "personality", roll, team and company might get completely different results in another. Any I doubt very much the external companies are doing anything other than taking the companies money for what is at best snake oil.

    Also do you ever "prep" a candidate for a personality test? Telling them what and how to answer for the company concerned? After all you want your candidate placed as that makes you money? p.s. don't admit this on an open forum if it'll come back and bit you.....

    I've never prepped a candidate for a personality test because I have no idea what the personality tests consist of... As I said they are set and administered by an entirely separate company. We explain to the candidate the basics of what the test will consist of - ie an exam followed by 2 role plays or whatever - then we hand the candidate over to the testers. We don't get any more information. We don't even have access to the results...
    Do not write below this line. Office use only.
  • SketchleySketchley Posts: 4,235
    I think you're confusing what personality/psychological profiles actually are!

    No i'm really not.

    What I'm trying to say, admittedly badly, if that the things mentioned above will effect how you answer on a personality test as much as how you react when a car pulls out in front of you. Consquently external influence will effect the personality/psychological profile test result, while not changing the underlying indvidual's personality/psychological profile.

    Only testing over time, which you cannot do in the interview process, will uncover true "personality/psychological profiles" for an indivual.

    Conclusion being that as science done in controlled settings over time by people who really understand the subject (e.g. people with pyscology degrees who have study this in detail) could have benefit. This very real science has been packaged as snake oil by a number of firms worldwide and sold to companies who are now making very real decisions on who to hire (or fire) based on them. This I don't like.
    --
    Chris

    Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/5
Sign In or Register to comment.