A while back, I was being considered for a job..not my ideal job but I needed one so...there you go.  I was into the second interview when I was asked to take a lengthy personality test.
It took a long time and I was able to get the results online.

The results of this test prevented them from hiring me.
do you really think companies should be allowed to do this?

Don't you think a salesman can be effective even though he is not social with co-workers?
That your store manager will work hard even when he prefers to delegate to others?
That a person can be shy and still perform well?

I hate it and now I have been asked again!  This time it's a job I really really want.  I am so worried that some online psychology stands between me and a great job.

i say no. Last app I filled had an 81 question test on it. I filled it out, never heard back from the company. What happens to these tests after I fill them out, hmm? istm to be privileged information... I doubt it is kept confidential. and ffs, it was to work as a sales clerk at an auto parts store, not the CIA or something.  ::)

Ant

While I myself believe that those personality tests are all voodoo and hogwash, if a company wants to use them why not?  There is no law against stupidity.

I worked for a company a few years ago where the new owners slavishly applied the personality test strategy.  And damned near every person who "passed the test" ended up being fired due to lack of performance.  Yet they still stick to the testing strategy.  Like I said, stupid ain't illegal. 

They might as well make hiring decisions based on a horoscope... would be about as accurate.

You have to wonder how badly run the company is if they still use these things.

They might as well make hiring decisions based on a horoscope... would be about as accurate.

You have to wonder how badly run the company is if they still use these things.


Well the owner of the company has another company that he owns that is almost bankrupt and will likely file for bankruptcy next month (having blown $80MM of capital...pissed into the wind).  The company that I worked for is presently circling the drain, and one of their most lucrative accounts is about ready to end their gravy train.  So there's nothing to wonder about... they are VERY badly run.  It is why I left.  ;)

Not unless the job requires you to carry a weapon!

They might as well make hiring decisions based on a horoscope... would be about as accurate.

You have to wonder how badly run the company is if they still use these things.


this is kinda how I feel about it. 

Well the owner of the company has another company that he owns that is almost bankrupt and will likely file for bankruptcy next month (having blown $80MM of capital...pissed into the wind).  The company that I worked for is presently circling the drain, and one of their most lucrative accounts is about ready to end their gravy train.  So there's nothing to wonder about... they are VERY badly run.   It is why I left.  ;)


yesh.. 80 million... I worked for a startup that blew about 20 million over it's lifespan, and had the investors not gotten cold feet would have probably been worth a lot, lot more.  I'd also have retired by now.  c'est la vie...

corporations love tests.  it takes power away from their employees because they don't trust them to use their best judgment. It's usually a sign upper management has no idea how to run anything.

I wish they wouldn't.  Psychologists have debunked tests such as Meyers-Briggs and Strong Inventory time and again.  They are useful to employers looking for their ideal candidate: The sheep with leadership skills.

They could cut all that crap if they would simply ask the question they want:

Will you accept abuse and drudgery with unhesitating pep and vigor?

Yes or Yes

Remember Arthur Miller's "Death of a Salesman."  Are you a likable sort of fellow?
::)

Social critic Barbara Ehrenreich puts it succinctly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qInA8kgng4U

However, unless an aggrieved party can demonstrate these tests run afoul of established anti-discrimination laws, the corporations will keep on using them...and of course, the next established anti-discrimination law that winds up in front of the Robber's Court will be overturned!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/09/snake.gif

I've gone through these long redundant questionnaires for minimum wage or barely above minimum wage jobs, it's absolutely ridiculous. Now for the agency I'm at now I didn't have to do that and I'm making far more than any retail job will pay (though still pretty poor) of course this is a temp position through the end of the year but I'm pretty confident the agency will find me another job as long as I do good here though it most likely won't pay as well as this one. Right now they're on mandatory 7 days a week (time and half overtime and double time for sunday) so I'm having good money coming in for the holidays but I have hardly any free time at the moment. What I'm doing now is not really physically demanding but very very boring (looking through around 300 boxes a night to check if the contents are correct).

Of course they should be allowed to use them!  I want to know up front that a company isn't worth working for!

One fun game to play is to dissect them online.  See if you can - without looking at the answers - figure out which questions are "important" questions, which ones are "control" questions, and which ones also try to figure out if the candidate is lying (typically by asking the same thing multiple times, and seeing whether the candidate contradicts himself.)

If you know upfront what brand of BS the employer is using (and for some reason you still want to interview there?), just google the tests.  Most of them are fairly standardized, and can be found with a little looking; you can amuse yourself by aiming for a perfect score (and seeing how many times you had to lie to get it), a zero score (for the lulz!), or you can just have fun fillin' out the ovals and playin' with the pencils to make pretty patterns in the test slips while you're there on the Group W bench...

Most of them are trying to measure four (sometimes a fifth) personality dimensions, and most of those things are actually the same or can easily be mapped onto each other, because they're all riffing off Jung.  For example, here's a mapping from an old Soviet system that I'd never heard of until tonight, and the more familiar Meyers-Briggs test.

I'd love to walk into a job interview, take a look at the first question or two and say "I'm an INTJ or an INTP depending on the phase of the moon, or I'm whatever those two types map onto in whatever system you're using.  That'd be, umm, Rationalist, subvariant Architect or Mastermind in Keirsey.  You want me to map it into 5-factor?  Look, what's your HR department's preferred test and I'll just save us the 15 minutes."   (Of course, that's exactly what you'd expect an INTJ/INTP to say.  Other personality types would either not recognize the commonality between all the tests, or would be at least be polite enough not to call the interviewer on the BS :)

Of course they should be allowed to use them!  I want to know up front that a company isn't worth working for!



LOL! Karma!
;D

When I got my first job at a large company after I graduated from college, the company had me take this test.  It had a question on it... "Do people sometimes annoy you?"

Instead of checking either the yes or no box, I wrote in the margin "Only when they ask ridiculous questions like this".  And got the job.  ;D

Will you accept abuse and drudgery with unhesitating pep and vigor?



I"m actually going to use this sentence in my next meeting with them.

I haave another feeling bout the whole thing.  I feel as if the HR dept, or the company itself does not trust their own judgement.
If you don't think you are savvy enough, or don't feel you can  deduce if I am for real or not, then why do I wanna work for you?

In the first case I mentioned, I felt that way.  This time the company has a great rep and I am enthused about working for them. 

Basically, when I am honest about myself, they don't want me.  I am blunt and don't sugar coat things.  I like paperwork.  I am looking for advancement.  I don't get all emotional about office birthdays.  If you want a water cooler friend, don't ask me.

I"m actually going to use this sentence in my next meeting with them.

I haave another feeling bout the whole thing.  I feel as if the HR dept, or the company itself does not trust their own judgement.
If you don't think you are savvy enough, or don't feel you can  deduce if I am for real or not, then why do I wanna work for you?

In the first case I mentioned, I felt that way.  This time the company has a great rep and I am enthused about working for them. 

Basically, when I am honest about myself, they don't want me.  I am blunt and don't sugar coat things.  I like paperwork.  I am looking for advancement.  I don't get all emotional about office birthdays.  If you want a water cooler friend, don't ask me.


Exactly! Pardonnez-moi for not being Mary Poppins! 

They told me I wasn't a "team player."  Why should I be?  The game is rigged and the coach has his head up his butt!
:P

The short anwser, NO!!!!!!!!
I am quite knowledgeable on some of Carl Jung's work and he never intended his ideas on pyschological types to be made into a shallow 20 minute online personality test. Most of these companies(if they are using MBTI) are probably looking for a ESTJ or ISTJ personality type so if you can score in that range you might be in luck ;). If I did have to choose an accurate personality test based on outward behaviour I would choose the big five, the problem is alot of people are biased(intended or not) when it comes to anwsering the questions honestly. Most of these personality tests have a self-report bias element that obscures an accurate score. Conscientiousness for example, who wants to score very low on this dimension(if you know better) when most of the working world greatly values a well-organized, hard-working, conforming person.

The short anwser, NO!!!!!!!!
I am quite knowledgeable on some of Carl Jung's work and he never intended his ideas on pyschological types to be made into a shallow 20 minute online personality test. Most of these companies(if they are using MBTI) are probably looking for a ESTJ or ISTJ personality type so if you can score in that range you might be in luck ;). If I did have to choose an accurate personality test based on outward behaviour I would choose the big five, the problem is alot of people are biased(intended or not) when it comes to anwsering the questions honestly. Most of these personality tests have a self-report bias element that obscures an accurate score. Conscientiousness for example, who wants to score very low on this dimension(if you know better) when most of the working world greatly values a well-organized, hard-working, conforming person.

I've done several, includingMBTI and big five.  Last time I was honest, it got me the boot.  Problem is, I am perfect for this.  I can't believe they can't see that.

I had to take two this week -- for really intense jobs:  sales person in JC Penney's and Desk Clerk in a hospital. And this was just to submit my resume for consideration - not even at an interview.  :P

I had to take two this week -- for really intense jobs:  sales person in JC Penney's and Desk Clerk in a hospital. And this was just to submit my resume for consideration - not even at an interview.   :P


Who should we really be afraid of in America?  Osama Bin Laden never required me to take a Meyers-Briggs test for a minimum wage job or lent me money at 39% interest, and that's all I have to say about that.

You know, the last time I did this, it slotted me in the category of "Convincer".  But don't you want that in sales? 

Or do you want hand-holding, Kumbaya-singing Teddy bears?  I'm perfect just the way I am- don't you know that?  ;)

(Dammit.  Page 142's the most important page to this discussion.  Hmph.  Fine, this is important, so I'm doing it the hard way.  All quotes in this post are from Page 142 - the only page that isn't on the Google Books link - of The Book of the SubGenius, Chapter 14!, "Excuses, True Lies, and Dollar$: The Real World of Horrible Jobs".)

The osensible reason (and there's a grain of truth to it) companies do this sort of thing is that they really do want the person to fit the job, and vice versa.  To use myself as an example, they don't want an introverted email-using analyst-type (like me) in a sales position that requires lots of 3-martini lunches, regular phone calls, diplomacy, and sociability.  I'm crappy fit for a sales job.  My sales would be poor, and I'd be unhappy trying to do what a salesman does.  Putting me in sales would be a lose/lose proposition for both me and a potential employer.

But the bigger reason companies do this is because it's a convenient substitute for thinking.  Any moron could see that I'd suck at sales.  Problem is, not only do many HR people have sub-moron intellects, they think everyone else does too, so they put out the personality test, and then they don't have to rely on the hiring manager's personal judgement.  And more importantly, they can say it's a standard test!  He just didn't fit the job, and nobody can get sued for age/race/sex discrimination!


I've done several, including MBTI and big five.  Last time I was honest, it got me the boot.  Problem is, I am perfect for this.  I can't believe they can't see that.


So lie already!

"A true salesman in a 'credibility dilemma' uses the Black Arts of Human Appeal: flattery, lies, etc. You know perfectly well that the customer isn't always right. You must exercise the freedom to LIE AT THE DROP OF A HAT. It's a world of supply of demand. The Con demands that you lie, and you supply those lies. It wasn't your idea."
 - Page 142

If they think the job calls for a certain personality type, and you think they're wrong, be whatever personality type you need to be on the test.

If it turns out they were right all along, and the company isn't worth working for, you can always look for another job (which is always easier when you already have a job) while you're still there.

If they're wrong, they won't have the faintest idea why (because everybody else selected themselves out of the job!) you're the only person at the company who can not only do the job, but you always seem to have a different perspective on things.  But you'll know why:

"When you make mistakes on the job, don't wring your hands over them - FLAUNT them; amaze the office!  Eventually you will find yourself bearing a mysterious new status-cloak of 'highly creative individual.'  It's not real creativity, of course - just what they can comprehend as creativity."
 - Page 142

(I've done that all my career, and it's worked wonders, nay, miracles.)


I"m actually going to use this sentence in my next meeting with them.


OK, that - and the rest of what you said - is better than lying outright to perfectly match the test.  

Tell you what.  How about just lying a little bit?  Why make it obvious?  (If you make it obvious that you're lying, you might get caught.  We can't have that!)  I'm guessing that you know what kind of profile they're looking for on the test.  So in questions where you know you'd be answering "wrong", answer truthfully 1/3 time, and the other 2/3 of the time?  When you'd say "strongly agree/disagree", alternate between "neutral" or "somewhat agree/disagree".  They'll think you're a milder version of the real you.  

"DO NOT show your real creativity at job interviews. Although the Pink who first interviews you will be superstitiously impressed, his boss - who does the hiring - is probably an unsaved latent SubGenius who will intuit your true potential and keep you from threatening his post as Top Ape. ( ... ) It would be disastrous for you to sell your 'real' self. Sell instead the 'false self' that's seemingly honest and pure, dumb and innocent, and utterly ambitionless. The 'false self' should always be slightly more stupid than any given cutsomer."
 - Page 142

If they're dead-set on hiring someone who isn't you for the game, you really don't want that job.  But if they only don't want "X" because their test says they shouldn't, and you make a show of saying you're "very X", but your test shows that you're only "barely-halfway-to-X", they'll think their test is all the more valid.  The test proved you were right for the job anyways, even though you said you weren't!  Their test was smarter than you!  Their test was smarter than them!  (And why wouldn't it be?  They paid a consultant the big bucks to let them know what they REALLY thought so that they wouldn't pass over awesome candidates like you!)  The test says you're OK, so you're hired!

(A few years later, when you're running the company, you can scrap the test and summarily terminate everyone who believed in it.  Don't tell them that part.  And maybe you don't even want to bother trying to run the place.  Just find the highest position at which you're still competent but still enjoy the gig, and stay there until the company ends up in the gutter or takes you to the stars.)

"Stay among your own kind as much as possible (...) Eventually you'll all be able to band together and either dominate your industry or destroy it (thus becoming the new Establishment, but don't worry about that yet)."
 - Page 142

(I just realized the two-bit startup I hooked up with more than a decade ago is about halfway there.  I remember recognizing my kind at the interview; it's why I signed on, but I'd forgotten this specific passage until tonight.  Achieving creeping dominance over our little niche of the industry is a nice thing to still-not-worry-about.)

"YOU ARE OWED A LIVING, AND EVERY DAY SHOULD BE PAYDAY."
 - The last sentence on Page 142.

http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp80/Slackluster/InfiniteSlack/slack_in.gif

In Infinite Slack,
PRABOB!

^  Karma!

HR people are indeed dumb as dirt.  Early experiences both in the workforce and in a major state university taught me one thing for sh*t-sure.  If you're a good-looking broad with a peppy personality, you can have a cranium stuffed with cotton candy and get quite far in life.  

The first slap in the face I got from the university was getting assigned to Journalism 300 Marybeth O'Driscoll*.  She was a 23-year-old fashion plate with the brains of a guppy.  She recited cliches from the AP style guide in a sing-song manner.

I got a big C on my first paper.  I was really haughty about it.  I thought she was unqualified to critique my writing.  I showed the paper to my friend Ahmed Hussein*, who had been a journalism undergrad, and was then a grad student in comp lit.  I asked him to review the same paper.  He said it was fine, just a little verbose.  He would have given me an A-.  I said, "Yes, see here she wrote 'Your paragraphs are way too big...'"
"Yez, vay too big for me to underztand!," scoffed Ahmed.  "Let me tell you zomething about Merry Death, she is a clazzic bimbo.  She used to vug her boyfriend in Daily Commonwealth% dark room.  I don't know how she got that job or how much we would have paid to watch.  You should drop the clazz while you ztill can and take it with Ron Wentworth* next zeemezter!"

I wanted to get the basic requirement out of the way, so I stuck with the class and was miserable the whole time.  I have a feeling she probably DID do favors for creepy old Professor Biff Howard,* then the journalism department chair.  

Mr. Hussein is now a major figure in Arab advocacy journalism.  He's been on the O'Reilly Factor and Larry King.  Ms. O'Driscoll was a cub reporter for the Boston Herald, the city's tabloid birdcage liner -- as opposed to the Globe, the city's broadsheet birdcage liner), but I don't know what she's been up to in the past 15 years.  I'll bet it's not journalism.  More likely she's in an HR office firing people.  

*names changed to protect the idiot, the inflammatory, the innocent, and the senile.
%name changed to protect the university fish wrapper.  

One problem I had with personalities as a prospective journalist is I am an introvert.  I wasn't Jimmy Olson.  I had also gone back to school after failing spectacularly in the quote-unquote real world, and major clinical depression severely compromised my cognition.  I'm still struggling with it and it ain't pretty.  

I was also burdened with a moral compass.  I went to J school right after the First Gulf War when right-wing think tank money was pouring into the Republican Club's pockets.  There was no money in print journalism.  You could count on working 48-hour weeks for 29 hours of pay writing obits and pot-hole stories.  The real money was in propaganda.  If I didn't have a conscience, I would have marched over to the Republican club, joined up, and become the next Andrew Breitbart!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/jerk.gif

BTW, if you are trying to get a job in this economy and you're going through Human Resources, you've already lost the race.  Just because they advertise a position to the public doesn't mean the public is in competition.  Jenkins' idiot son needs a job and he's going to get it! Don't waste your time with the circles and check-marks!
::)

Osama Bin Laden never required me to take a Meyers-Briggs test for a minimum wage job or lent me money at 39% interest, and that's all I have to say about that.

Excellent point.  Karma to you, Max.

 She used to vug her boyfriend in Daily Commonwealth% dark room.  I don't know how she got that job or how much we would have paid to watch.  You should drop the clazz while you ztill can and take it with Ron Wentworth* next zeemezter!"



heheheheh..."vug"

Silly corporations... Personality tests are for the pointy-haired bosses of the world. :D


Of course they should be allowed to use them!  I want to know up front that a company isn't worth working for!

One fun game to play is to dissect them online.  See if you can - without looking at the answers - figure out which questions are "important" questions, which ones are "control" questions, and which ones also try to figure out if the candidate is lying (typically by asking the same thing multiple times, and seeing whether the candidate contradicts himself.)

If you know upfront what brand of BS the employer is using (and for some reason you still want to interview there?), just google the tests.  Most of them are fairly standardized, and can be found with a little looking; you can amuse yourself by aiming for a perfect score (and seeing how many times you had to lie to get it), a zero score (for the lulz!), or you can just have fun fillin' out the ovals and playin' with the pencils to make pretty patterns in the test slips while you're there on the Group W bench...

Most of them are trying to measure four (sometimes a fifth) personality dimensions, and most of those things are actually the same or can easily be mapped onto each other, because they're all riffing off Jung.  For example, here's a mapping from an old Soviet system that I'd never heard of until tonight, and the more familiar Meyers-Briggs test.

I'd love to walk into a job interview, take a look at the first question or two and say "I'm an INTJ or an INTP depending on the phase of the moon, or I'm whatever those two types map onto in whatever system you're using.  That'd be, umm, Rationalist, subvariant Architect or Mastermind in Keirsey.  You want me to map it into 5-factor?  Look, what's your HR department's preferred test and I'll just save us the 15 minutes."   (Of course, that's exactly what you'd expect an INTJ/INTP to say.  Other personality types would either not recognize the commonality between all the tests, or would be at least be polite enough not to call the interviewer on the BS :)


I thought the "INTJ" and like looked familiar. I remember someone on here posting a test for the personality chart you're describing(I remember getting "INFP", which is Questor/Healer/Idealist).