Strengths and Limitations of Personality Assessments Essay

Introduction

In recent years, more human resource (HR) managers have demonstrated an increased interest in using personality assessments in spite of debates on their effectiveness in a selection process. Personality tests can be viewed as an important topic for discussion in the field of management because both researchers and practitioners are interested in examining the relationship between personality characteristics identified with the help of these tests and later employees’ job performance and behaviour (Ellingson, Sackett & Connelly 2007; Klehe et al. 2012).

In this context, personality assessments serve to determine particular traits in individuals, and this information can inform managers regarding positions and tasks to select for employees, especially in a hiring process. Nevertheless, there is a concern presented in the academic literature on the use of personality tests in the workplace that is associated with possible response distortion and faking (Jackson, Wroblewski & Ashton 2000; Mueller-Hanson, Heggestad & Thornton III 2003).

As a result, despite practitioners’ choice of these measures, researchers cannot agree on the validity of these tests to be effectively used in organisations.

Therefore, the question to focus on in this research can be formulated in the following way: What are the strengths and limitations of personality assessments when using them in working environments? The purpose of this paper is to critically discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these measurements in the context of applying them in the workplace with reference to related issues, such as validity and response distortion among others.

Although personality tests are widely applied by HR managers to determine employees’ personality characteristics and attributes to make informed decisions regarding hiring, promotion or development, these tests are usually self-reported ones, which increases the risks of bias and faking.

Personality Assessments and Their Application in the Workplace

During many years, personality assessments are actively used by HR managers in the workplace. The reason is that these measurement tools are regarded as effective to enhance a selection process, determine leadership attributes in candidates and employees, and improve training and development practices (Goodstein & Lanyon 1999; Risavy & Hausdorf 2011).

Personnel selection remains the main area in which traditional personality assessment tools are applied to inform decision-making regarding candidates. According to Ones et al. (2007), these measurements help to identify specific traits of potential employees that can be used to predict their professional performance and possible counterproductivity. Thus, the Five-Factor Model (Big Five Theory) is a key theory to explain and support the use of personality inventories in different contexts.

Big Five factors that are referred to in this model are Intellect or Openness to Experience, Extraversion, Emotional Stability or Neuroticism, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Thus, focusing on Intellect or Openness to Experience scores, it is possible to determine whether a candidate is broad-minded and open to innovation. Extraversion-related scores indicate whether a candidate is active and able to work and communicate in a team (Goodstein & Lanyon 1999; Risavy & Hausdorf 2011).

Much attention is paid to the scores on Conscientiousness that can help to demonstrate whether an applicant is self-disciplined and well-organised as a worker (De Fruyt & Mervielde 1999). Information about behavioural patterns followed by individuals and their personality attributes according to the Five-Factor Model and similar theories is important for HR managers to determine the best position for a person, decide on his or her leadership and the potential of being developed as a supervisor or a manager.

Nowadays, numerous typologies and tests are used for personality assessment. Hogan, Hogan and Roberts (1996) and Risavy and Hausdorf (2011) explain the popularity of personality assessments with reference to the fact that today HR managers can choose among a variety of computerised and online measurement scales and tools for different purposes, the results of which can be easily computed.

In this context, “personality measurement is any procedure that systematically assigns numbers to the characteristic features of a person’s interpersonal style according to some explicit rules,” and these scores can be actively used for making conclusions (Hogan, Hogan & Roberts 1996, p. 470). From this perspective, the wide application of such assessments in working environments allows for discussing their advantages and disadvantages for HR management.

Strengths of Personality Assessments and Associated Advantages

Strengths of Personality Measures

When discussing the strengths of personality assessments, it is important to note that received scores are viewed as correlated with employees’ job or task performance, their possible counterproductive behaviours, the ability to work in a team, and leadership skills among other aspects. It is possible to state that relevant evidence supporting the advantages of using personality assessments in working environments has been available since the 1980s (Hogan, Hogan & Roberts 1996).

According to the results of Goodstein and Lanyon’s (1999) review of previous studies, the measures grounded in the Big Five factors can be effectively used in staff selection to determine applicants’ potential for job performance because only valid scores are taken into account. Thus, these tools are characterised by high validity to be used for predicting employees’ counterproductivity and management or leadership capacities (Goodstein & Lanyon 1999; Risavy & Hausdorf 2011).

In their study, Risavy and Hausdorf (2011) refer to the high predictive validity of personality inventories applied in different occupational contexts. Consequently, researchers tend to support the idea concerning the effectiveness of using personality tests in predicting employees’ job performance during a selection process and later.

Thus, one of the key strengths of personality assessments and related scores is the fact that the validity of these tests for determining personality constructs and predicting job-related behaviours is reported to be high in many studies conducted in the 1990s and 2000s. Referring to the results of meta-analytic research, Ones et al. (2007, p. 995) supported the idea that personality assessments have many advantages to be actively utilised in the workplace because they “display useful levels of criterion-related validity for job performance and its facets”.

The use of these inventories for choosing certain training and development strategies based on information about employees’ leadership capacity is also important for managers, as it is reported by researchers (Dilchert, Ones & Krueger 2019; Goodstein & Lanyon 1999; Hogan, Hogan & Roberts 1996).

Furthermore, although these assessments are rather traditional self-reported tools, they are effectively modernised and amended today (Dilchert, Ones & Krueger 2019). Therefore, relying on the predictive validity of these tests, managers can apply numerous improved web-based versions to cover their needs, which is also considered as one of the strengths of these tools.

When focusing on the high predictive validity of personality assessment scores and determining associated benefits for HR managers, many researchers note that these advantages are mostly observed during a selection process in organisations.

In their study, Goodstein and Lanyon (1999, p. 317) noted that “carefully designed, focused studies and the meta-analyses of these studies strongly support the use of personality assessment measures for job candidate selection.” Ones et al. (2007) reported that personality assessments effectively work in organisations because information on candidates’ and employees’ Conscientiousness allows for concluding about their job performance, and information on cognitive ability is mostly valid.

Risavy and Hausdorf (2011) also noted that this type of assessments was successfully used by HR managers for selecting the best candidates among applicants in the context of the talent management practices. However, one should note that more research is required in order to support the idea that personality tests can be applied in a wide range of situations equally effectively in all occupational settings, regardless of the task purpose.

Using Self-Reported Personality Scales in Organisational Contexts

In spite of the fact that some researchers are inclined to question the appropriateness of using personality assessments during a hiring process and later in HR management practices, there is much evidence to support using self-reported personality scales in the workplace.

Self-reported scales are often discussed as biased because respondents can distort information regarding their personality traits to produce a better impression on HR managers, but these scales have demonstrated their efficiency with reference to the results of many meta-analytic studies (Dilchert, Ones & Krueger 2019; Goodstein & Lanyon 1999; Jackson, Wroblewski & Ashton 2000; Risavy & Hausdorf 2011).

In addition, Goffin, Jang and Skinner (2011) noted that modern personality assessments that are based on forced-choice (FC) scales prevent individuals from distorting their answers because they are expected to choose between equally appropriate statements. As a result, the risk that respondents can provide false information about themselves in order to affect managers’ decisions or impress them decreases.

To be able to predict applicants’ job performance effectively with reference to self-reported personality scales, it is necessary to use well-constructed measures that are characterised by a high level of reliability and validity. This idea was developed by Goodstein and Lanyon (1999), Hogan, Hogan and Roberts (1996) and Hogan, Barrett and Hogan (2007) in their studies.

In employment contexts, well-organised personality scales contribute to identifying and predicting certain attributes in candidates that are representative of their attitude to task completion, their responsibility degree, potential commitment and possible leadership (Hogan, Barrett & Hogan 2007). Therefore, many managers use only approved personality questionnaires that are based on the Five-Factor Model because their validity and effectiveness are highly evidenced in practice and research (Hogan, Hogan & Roberts 1996; Kaiser, LeBreton & Hogan 2015).

These personality scales allow for calculating scores as quickly as possible and receiving the full interpretation of a candidate’s personality profile to make supported conclusions regarding the selection or promotion of an individual (Goffin, Jang & Skinner 2011). Consequently, HR managers receive an effective tool that contributes to enhancing a hiring process, as it has been found out by researchers.

Limitations of Personality Assessments

Tendencies of Missing Out Information and Faking

A group of researchers revealed many weaknesses and limitations in the practice of using personality assessments in organisations when hiring employees and measuring their traits and capacities. Among other aspects to focus on, they also name the risk of missing out important information related to candidates when referring only to the results of personality measures (De Fruyt & Mervielde 1999; Hough & Oswald 2008).

The problem is that individuals may choose to voluntarily distort their responses when being assessed with the help of personality measurement tools, and this limitation is actively discussed in the research literature (De Fruyt & Mervielde 1999; Klehe et al. 2012; Salgado 2016). Response distortion can be associated with the further ranking of candidates depending on their scores, which directly affects HR managers’ selection of the best candidates.

Nevertheless, there are also findings that response distortion is not correlated with the validity of personality measures to determine their effectiveness. Hogan, Barrett and Hogan (2007) found that test scores might remain unchanged for individuals who could distort during previous tests and later were assessed again.

Still, most researchers agree that response distortion can significantly affect the quality of managers’ decisions dependent on the scores of personality tests if they are not organised appropriately to address possible biases (Ellingson, Sackett & Connelly 2007; Klehe et al. 2012; Morgeson et al. 2007). From this perspective, there are many different views on how response distortion can influence employee selection in organisations when HR managers choose to apply personality assessment tools with the tendency to evaluate this distortion as the limitation of personality scales.

In the majority of studies, response distortion is discussed in the context of individuals’ faking during assessments. According to Mueller-Hanson, Heggestad and Thornton III (2003), faking is an urgent problem that needs to be taken into account when evaluating the appropriateness of personality assessments.

Salgado (2016) stated that response distortion can be positive or negative depending on purposes, and faking good (positive response distortion) is associated with trying to make a good impression on a manager during personnel selection. Faking bad (negative response distortion) is not typical of organisational contexts. According to Jackson, Wroblewski and Ashton (2000, p. 372), there is also one more type that is “faking a specific job role”, and this practice is also typical for organisations.

Salgado (2016) conducted a meta-analysis and designed a theoretical model to explain the effects of such faking on assessment procedures with reference to the situation in organisations. It was found out that test results are usually biased because of individuals’ faking, and HR managers need to take this aspect into account when selecting personality assessments for their recruitment process. Thus, the risk of false-positive decisions because of faking good is high.

Researchers provided much evidence to support the idea that personality measurement scales can lead to missing out important information about candidates because of their self-reported nature. Morgeson et al. (2007) spent much time studying the issue and concluded that personality assessments are often associated with faking or providing incomplete information, which reduces the validity of tests.

Thus, personality testing during a selection process cannot be regarded as a valid and reliable technique because test scores and results are dubious in most cases, and they cannot be directly related to future job performance (Morgeson et al. 2007).

Nevertheless, Hogan, Barrett and Hogan (2007) provided evidence according to which, faking during the personality assessment process associated with selecting candidates in organisations cannot be regarded as a critical issue to pay attention to. Jackson, Wroblewski and Ashton (2000) conducted a study to determine how faking in employment tests can influence the effectiveness of results and how FC tests can improve validity. According to the researchers’ conclusions, faking observed during personality assessments negatively affects rational decision-making regarding candidates to hire. Thus, many researchers view personality scales as a controversial and biased tool.

Treating Candidates Who Provide True and Fake Information

Filling in personality questionnaires, individuals can manipulate information they provide in order to create a more positive impression on managers. According to Mueller-Hanson, Heggestad, and Thornton III (2003), if HR managers refer to personality test results when selecting people for hiring, there is a risk to choose and hire candidates whose performance will be below the expected level because they provide false information.

In this case, when some individuals unfairly answer test questions, this situation puts honest candidates at a disadvantage because HR managers can select individuals who intentionally distorted their data. Therefore, according to Jackson, Wroblewski and Ashton (2000, p. 383), managers often choose not to utilise personality tests in employment contexts because “it is manifestly unfair to make job offers to fakers and deny job opportunities to more honest respondents.” This decision seems to be evidence-based when referring to a variety of studies on the problem that are available for the review.

The risk of treating honest candidates unfairly is observed when other applicants choose faking good or ‘faking a selected role’. The problem is that response distortion and the provision of fake information during personality assessments often lead to the phenomenon which is named by researchers as “the ideal-employee factor” identified in addition to standard five factors associated with the Big Five theory (Klehe et al. 2012).

This factor can be regarded as influencing managers’ decisions when they find some individuals responding to the tests to be highly productive, conscientious, active, decisive, and sociable, thus, ideal candidates for a certain position (Klehe et al. 2012). Goffin, Jang and Skinner (2011) stated that specific FC personality scales can be used instead of traditional personality measurement scales in order to reduce the probability of providing fake information and increase the validity of these tests.

However, there is a lack of research involving diverse employees in order to conclude on whether these scales are effective enough to be used as efficient variants of personality tests. Therefore, many limitations associated with personality scales applied in organisational contexts remain to be unaddressed.

Conclusion

The critical review, discussion and analysis of the strengths and limitations of personality assessments to be used in employment contexts indicates that researchers have not agreed on effectiveness and validity of this tool to predict job performance of candidates. There is also a lack of consistent evidence on the role of personality scales in improving a hiring process in organisations among other HR management practices.

The strengths associated with personality assessments and accentuated by researchers include the possibility to predict job and task performance, select the most appropriate candidates for specific positions, identify leaders and potential supervisors among employees. Thus, personality scales are applied in most cases in order to guarantee that a selected candidate will fit an open position.

As a result, using such tools and referring to personality descriptions and scores, managers save time and resources during selection and promotion processes. The reference to personality types allows HR managers to predict an employee’s behaviour and take appropriate actions to address it. These benefits explain why personality assessments are actively applied in an organisational context to optimise a selection process among other managerial practices.

Nevertheless, the use of personality inventories in the workplace is associated with many limitations and weaknesses actively discussed by researchers. Evidence in many studies supports the idea that these tools cannot adequately help HR managers in a selection process because of response distortion or faking.

Furthermore, the problem is that even the use of FC scales cannot be regarded as appropriate in order to improve trustworthiness of conducted measurements and received test scores. As a result, managers are at risk of hiring employees who tend to provide false information about them when ignoring honest candidates that can be regarded as more fitting certain positions.

The analysis of these strengths and limitations of personality measures discussed in the academic literature indicates that researchers try to find alternative variants to continue using personality tests but with a focus on increased validity. They propose using FC scales and well-constructed questionnaires based on Big Five Theory in order to address possible limitations.

This approach can be discussed as advantageous for an organisational context, but more research is required in the field to determine what personality assessments are most valid. Therefore, managers should be recommended to utilise only the most valid and reliable variants of personality measurement tools in their work, and these measures cannot be used as primary tools for making hiring decisions.

Reference List

De Fruyt, F & Mervielde, I 1999, ‘RIASEC types and Big Five traits as predictors of employment status and nature of employment’, Personnel Psychology, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 701-727.

Dilchert, S, Ones, DS & Krueger, RF 2019, ‘Personality assessment for work: legal, IO, and clinical perspective’, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 143-150.

Ellingson, JE, Sackett, PR & Connelly, BS 2007, ‘Personality assessment across selection and development contexts: insights into response distortion’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 92, no. 2, pp. 386-395.

Goffin, RD, Jang, I & Skinner, E 2011, ‘Forced-choice and conventional personality assessment: each may have unique value in pre-employment testing’, Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 51, no. 7, pp. 840-844.

Goodstein, LD & Lanyon, RI 1999, ‘Applications of personality assessment to the workplace: a review’, Journal of Business and Psychology, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 291-322.

Hogan, J, Barrett, P & Hogan, R 2007, ‘Personality measurement, faking, and employment selection’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 92, no. 5, pp. 1270-1285.

Hogan, R, Hogan, J & Roberts, BW 1996, ‘Personality measurement and employment decisions: questions and answers’, American Psychologist, vol. 51, no. 5, 469-477.

Hough, LM & Oswald, FL 2008, ‘Personality testing and industrial–organizational psychology: reflections, progress, and prospects’, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 272-290.

Jackson, DN, Wroblewski, VR & Ashton, MC 2000, ‘The impact of faking on employment tests: does forced choice offer a solution?’, Human Performance, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 371-388.

Kaiser, RB, LeBreton, JM & Hogan, J 2015, ‘The dark side of personality and extreme leader behavior’, Applied Psychology, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 55-92.

Klehe, UC, Kleinmann, M, Hartstein, T, Melchers, KG, König, CJ, Heslin, PA & Lievens, F 2012, ‘Responding to personality tests in a selection context: the role of the ability to identify criteria and the ideal-employee factor’, Human Performance, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 273-302.

Morgeson, FP, Campion, MA, Dipboye, RL, Hollenbeck, JR, Murphy, K & Schmitt, N 2007, ‘Are we getting fooled again? Coming to terms with limitations in the use of personality tests for personnel selection’, Personnel Psychology, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 1029-1049.

Mueller-Hanson, R, Heggestad, ED & Thornton III, GC 2003, ‘Faking and selection: considering the use of personality from select-in and select-out perspectives’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 88, no. 2, 348-355.

Ones, DS, Dilchert, S, Viswesvaran, C & Judge, TA 2007, ‘In support of personality assessment in organizational settings’, Personnel Psychology, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 995-1027.

Risavy, SD & Hausdorf, PA 2011, ‘Personality testing in personnel selection: adverse impact and differential hiring rates’, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 18-30.

Salgado, JF 2016, ‘A theoretical model of psychometric effects of faking on assessment procedures: empirical findings and implications for personality at work’, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 209-228.