The notion of “personality” (or, more rarely, “character”) is often invoked during a recruitment process. Psychologists specializing in human resources management argue that employee personalities partly predict their performance because they are stable, difficult to change and made up of broad characteristics often called “traits”. This perspective justifies the existence of personality tests administered to identify the fundamental characteristics affecting the performance of employees and to compose balanced teams.
As explained in a still current publication, personality questionnaires almost all follow the same logic. They consist of a series of questions to be answered with “yes” or “no” (some offer graded or neutral answers). When the test is completed, the answers are compiled according to several axes, which are all personality traits measured by the questionnaire.
Cattell’s test, known as “16PF”, dates from 1949 and can be considered the ancestor of personality tests. Popular until the 1980s, it has since been supplanted, in particular by the “Big Five” (a simplification of the 16PF), the HEXACO (from the “Big Five”) and above all the MBTI. Here is an example of a profile generated by the 16PF:
Provided by the author
The person with this profile will have been judged “very intelligent”, “very assertive”, “trusting easily”, “very imaginative”, “very direct”, “very placid” and “very self-sufficient”. However, in the context of a hiring process, she will very likely have been rejected. Indeed, its profile is unbalanced: 11 of the 16 traits were measured outside the middle zone, 7 of them being very far from it.
Preference for medium profile
Generally speaking, a candidate whose profile is unbalanced like the one above has little chance of being selected. In this case, who wants to work with someone more intelligent, assertive, confident, imaginative, etc.? than oneself? A “balanced”, “round” or “smooth” profile, that is to say one whose most personality traits have been measured close to the average, will have a much better chance of being selected.
True, such a person will be a bit boring (not too smart, not too imaginative, etc.), but at least he won’t overshadow anyone. The average profile is therefore the ideal psychological profile, at least within the framework of a job selection procedure and in the absence of additional information on the position and the company concerned. But how to get it?
Regardless of the questionnaire, a given trait is measured by matching responses to a group of ten, fifteen, or twenty different questions and comparing them with averages established by the test designers. The questions of a group, although formulated differently, in fact relate to the same psychological dimension. The French language is flexible, but there are only a limited number of ways to ask someone, for example, if they have a lot of friends or make friends easily. Some repetition in the content of questions is inevitable.
To avoid an extreme score (one way or the other) for a trait, we will answer the questions in the most conventional way possible (as if we were Mr. or Mrs. Toulemonde, happy and comfortable in your skin). Moreover, we will not hesitate to contradict ourselves from time to time. For example, if you answered “yes” to two or three questions of the type “I often give my opinion spontaneously”, you will answer “no” to the question “I frequently say what I think”. Thus, the personality trait that these questions are trying to measure will not come out with too high or too low a score.
“Do you understand why people love abstract art? »
Personality test enthusiasts will protest that there are no “right” or “wrong” answers to their questions, that scores cannot be assessed in isolation, that it is dishonest to try to cheat, that this is not possible and that even if it were, it is the candidate who will suffer because he risks being offered a position that does not suit him. These remarks can, however, be widely nuanced.
First of all, wanting to come out of the personality test with the most advantageous profile possible is of the same order of idea as wanting to make a good impression during an interview. For example, people who dress sloppily in their day-to-day life usually go out of their way to dress their best for a job interview. Such adjustments are not considered dishonesty. They are even encouraged, as they disguise the person’s “true nature” (assuming there is one) in much the same way as calculated answers to personality questions.
Read also: Applying to a bank? Remove your piercings and hide your tattoos!
The “Big Five” test contains questions like “Do you know why the stars twinkle?” », « do you prefer a book to a film on television? or “Do you understand why people like abstract art?” The relevance of these questions in the context of recruitment for a marketing manager, consultant or other position seems doubtful.
Indeed, as a reminder, the labor code (article L 1221-6) specifies that:
“The information requested from job applicants, in whatever form, can only be used to assess their ability to hold the job offered or their professional skills. This information must have a direct and necessary link with the job offered or with the assessment of professional aptitudes”.
The objective of the legislator is to protect candidates against discrimination. Asking a question such as those set out above therefore amounts to discrimination under the labor code.
Trick questions
Aware of the possibility of manipulating the results of their tests, psychologists sometimes insert trick questions (“lie scale” in English). These do not directly measure a personality trait, but assess the honesty of the person taking the test (and therefore the reliability of the test) by comparing their answers with what the test designers judged to be conduct. normal.
These particular questions relate to objectionable but very common behaviors. For example: “Are all your habits good? » ; “Do you sometimes brag a little? » ; “Have you ever spoken ill of anyone? “, etc.
In order to come across as honest, one will answer “no”, “yes” and “yes”, even if it involves lying about oneself. Once these trick questions have been thwarted, the other questions can be answered as you see fit.
Finally, there remains the risk of being offered a position that does not suit his “personality”. To this remark, we will retort that it is surely a more acceptable risk than that of not being offered a position at all.
Some proponents of personality tests claim that they are useful in ensuring that a candidate’s personality matches the culture of the company. As the American professor and management consultant Peter Drucker pointed out, such a practice, even if it is effective, would only encourage favoritism and conformity and will backfire on the company when a diversity of opinions is necessary.
Either way, using personality tests as part of a hiring process is inefficient and legally dubious. It’s time to turn away.
Rather than trying to assess a candidate’s personality, recruiters can, for example, check, through simulations, whether he knows how to present himself, lead a meeting, present an argument and listen to his interlocutors, or he has a sense of service (skills often called “soft skills”, often forgotten in management schools – but taught at EMLV). If necessary, cognitive tests (of IQ or specific knowledge) can be organized for the technical aspects of the job concerned (“hard skills”).