Science reveals the Irritating, the Picky and the Arrogant: take the free assessment
We have something a little light and fun to start off the summer of 2011. . .
I had the opportunity recently to work with Joe Palca and Flora Lichtman of National Public Radio’s Science Friday. They recently published the book, Annoying—The Science of What Bugs Us. Joe’s interviews with people about what makes some so annoying had led him to our colleague Bob Hogan, whose Hogan Development Survey is all about how people can unintentionally derail their reputations and careers.
So we all worked to develop a short survey, sent it out to a few hundred of our closest friends and developed the "Annoying Inventory." When we got the results, we did a quick factor analysis and found that annoying people fall into three categories: Irritating, Picky and Arrogant.
The "Picky" person has a detail focus and often the micromanager’s “my way or the highway” approach to working with others. "Arrogant" people are, well, arrogant. They criticize others’ efforts and like to be the focus of attention. People who can’t trust others or who are hard to please are in the "Irritating" category. It’s all very annoying.
Palca writes: What is the recipe for annoyance? For starters, it should be temporary, unpleasant, and unpredictable, like a boring meeting or mosquito bites. For example, why is that guy talking on his cell phone over there so annoying? For one, it’s unpleasant and distracting. Second, we don’t know, and can’t control, when it will end. Third, we can’t not listen! Our brains are hardwired to pay close attention to people talking and follow the conversations. The loud chatter pulls our brains away to listen to half of something we’re never going to understand.
In Annoying—The Science of What Bugs Us, Palca and Lichtman look at annoying behaviors at work, in politics, sports, science and, yes, even romance.
How annoying are you? You can find out for free by taking the assessment here.
We’ll compare your answers to the current norms for Arrogance, Irritating-ness and Pickiness, and tell you where you rank on general Annoyingness.
Showing posts with label Hogan Personality Assessments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hogan Personality Assessments. Show all posts
June 8, 2011
January 13, 2011
The Stress Head Game: Personality Matters
Why is one person's manageable job another's stress nightmare?
The recent resignation of Pfizer's 55-year-old CEO Jeffrey Kindler was widely reported as being the result of too much stress. According to the Wall Street Journal story,
Pfizer is a large, complex company, but certainly other CEOs have faced similar challenges. What is it that makes the difference in how one person handles stress versus another?
While we don't have any information other than news reports about the circumstances surrounding Kindler's resignation, our work suggests a few things that may have been behind it. We'll look at two of them: personality and motivation.
There is a personality trait related to the experience of stress, called emotional stability. For those familiar with the Hogan Personality Inventory (pdf), we refer to this tendency as Adjustment. We know from research that successful executives are typically higher, rather than lower, on this scale. On the high extreme you have the stereotype of the test pilot—someone who doesn't appear to have an emotional reaction even to extreme, real, physical danger. But being too high can also cause problems. When this strength is taken to a fault, you can have a confident but arrogant person who won't listen to feedback.
On the low side are people who are passionate and appear enthusiastic and energetic. No doubt this was something those choosing Kindler as CEO were attracted to, someone with drive and a sort of impatience for making things happen. But people low in Adjustment are prone to reacting emotionally to all sorts of situations around them. Some show it openly, some feel it only internally, but most experience both. In fact, the WSJ article refers to a typical downside of a low-scoring person. Kindler apparently would have an emotional outburst during a meeting, and then an hour later be on the phone apologizing. People scoring low in adjustment are hyper aware, sometimes to the point of paranoia, about how they must be coming across to others.
It's a difficult balance finding the right executive personality for the job and its challenges at a given point in time. This story highlights a likely mismatch between the realities of a challenging assignment and the downside of emotional sensitivity, to the point of performance failure. According to reports, Pfizer's board was stressed by the situation as well, since they accepted the resignation immediately. Under the circumstances it was probably the best outcome for all involved.
The recent resignation of Pfizer's 55-year-old CEO Jeffrey Kindler was widely reported as being the result of too much stress. According to the Wall Street Journal story,
The Pfizer Inc. board was worried about how Chairman and Chief Executive Jeffrey Kindler was handling the stress of his job. He and company directors had begun looking for an inside executive to share the burden of running the world's largest drug company when Mr. Kindler suddenly decided to retire, according to a person familiar with the situation.Certainly Kindler had his hands full at Pfizer. According to the Wall Street Journal, Pfizer's stock has sunk, and numerous R&D failures were part of the pressure. Kindler became "increasingly frazzled" to the point where his wife urged him to resign. The report goes on to say Kindler put in extraordinary personal effort, had looked for an executive to share the role, but ultimately had just "had enough," according to the article.
Pfizer is a large, complex company, but certainly other CEOs have faced similar challenges. What is it that makes the difference in how one person handles stress versus another?
While we don't have any information other than news reports about the circumstances surrounding Kindler's resignation, our work suggests a few things that may have been behind it. We'll look at two of them: personality and motivation.
There is a personality trait related to the experience of stress, called emotional stability. For those familiar with the Hogan Personality Inventory (pdf), we refer to this tendency as Adjustment. We know from research that successful executives are typically higher, rather than lower, on this scale. On the high extreme you have the stereotype of the test pilot—someone who doesn't appear to have an emotional reaction even to extreme, real, physical danger. But being too high can also cause problems. When this strength is taken to a fault, you can have a confident but arrogant person who won't listen to feedback.
On the low side are people who are passionate and appear enthusiastic and energetic. No doubt this was something those choosing Kindler as CEO were attracted to, someone with drive and a sort of impatience for making things happen. But people low in Adjustment are prone to reacting emotionally to all sorts of situations around them. Some show it openly, some feel it only internally, but most experience both. In fact, the WSJ article refers to a typical downside of a low-scoring person. Kindler apparently would have an emotional outburst during a meeting, and then an hour later be on the phone apologizing. People scoring low in adjustment are hyper aware, sometimes to the point of paranoia, about how they must be coming across to others.
It's a difficult balance finding the right executive personality for the job and its challenges at a given point in time. This story highlights a likely mismatch between the realities of a challenging assignment and the downside of emotional sensitivity, to the point of performance failure. According to reports, Pfizer's board was stressed by the situation as well, since they accepted the resignation immediately. Under the circumstances it was probably the best outcome for all involved.
Read more!
June 9, 2009
Professional Certification for Hogan Personality Inventory
No one can predict the future performance of a new hire, but we have found that employers who use personality tests from Hogan Assessments take a lot of the guesswork out of their hiring. To assure best use of these tests, Hogan Assessment Systems requires certification for coaches and HR professionals prior to delivering test results to their clients and workgroups.
Next Sessions: September 24 and November 12, 2009
Performance Programs chose Hogan instruments over the many others available in the market because they meet all the criteria of excellence in workplace assessment, including rigorous scientific standards and no adverse impact. We have worked with Hogan instruments for 10 years, helping hundreds of clients implement them for both candidate selection and development.
We use all of the Hogan-authorized materials, workbooks, PowerPoint, assessments, information and complete all Hogan training objectives. The Hogan Workshops have pre-work modules and a self-assessment. Registration should be completed at least two weeks in advance. All Hogan workshops are pre-approved for credit by the SHRMS's Human Resource Certification Institute for SPHR, PHR, and GPHR certifications. APA credits are also available.
These one-day seminars are scheduled from 8:30 – 4:30 in Westbrook, CT at Water's Edge Resort. This is close to Rt. 95 and accessible by Amtrak or Shoreline East/MetroNorth trains. The workshop location is within one hour of either the Providence, RI or Hartford, CT airports.
All seminars are $1200, discounted from the full retail value of $ 2300. Certification includes: a personal assessment ($450 value), a copy of The Hogan Guide ($75 value), all Certification Materials ($300), two free assessment IDs for post-workshop use ($800 value), one hour of pre-conference telephone review of your own reports and one-half hour of post-conference telephone review of your first live case ($675 value). In addition, you receive access to the DYAD Training Tool for rapid report interpretation.
Please inquire about rates for additional telephone consultation beyond the first hour.
Please call if we can be of assistance: 1-800-565-4223 or register now.
Read more!
May 5, 2009
Another Way to Identify High Potential Candidates
We keep hearing about the importance of talent identification and management. We thought our friends and customers would like to know about a new tool: the High Potential Candidate Assessment Report from Hogan Assessments.
The High Potential Candidate Assessment Report allows employers to identify top candidates in relation to specific business competencies. It is based on research from a global sample of more than a thousand executive MBA program graduates. This sample group represents one of the highest-level talent pools ever used to create a profile of high potential candidates for leadership roles. The assessment involves three instruments and provides a highly integrated view of the candidate's strengths and challenges.
Visit our site and obtain a sample report for more information.
Read more!
February 5, 2009
Personality Test Predicts Safety Consciousness
The caller on the other end of the line was a long time acquaintance from the HR field. "How do I know if I’m hiring a safety-conscious trucker?” he asked. "Are there any tools out there help predict safety?"
Two things struck me about the call.
First, he was in luck--I was able to offer him a new personality-based safety report from Hogan Assessments that addresses this question.
But second, I noted that I’ve been asked the prediction question in recent months more than at any time in our 20+ years in the human resources assessment business. "How can I tell if the person really has leadership potential?” is a common variation. We also get questions such as these:
"How can I predict if she's going to boil over under stress?"
"How do I predict if he's suited to working in a team environment?"
"How do I know if she's too competitive? (or not competitive enough?)"
I am the last person to claim there is any air-tight method of answering these and the thousands of other selection questions we all face. I am impressed, however, by the results our customers are getting from personality-based evaluations by Hogan Assessments’ research instruments.
You'll probably want to know about the The Hogan Safety Report. This new report determines a job candidate's work style and overall safety orientation, helping employers assure a high-quality, safety-conscious workforce. The report has three sections:
Section I defines the dimensions of safety-related behaviors.
Section II provides a graphic report of the candidate’s assessment results.
Section III summarizes the candidate’s results and our recommendation regarding potential hiring.
Happy to talk with you about how this report can fit into your selection process.
Two things struck me about the call.
First, he was in luck--I was able to offer him a new personality-based safety report from Hogan Assessments that addresses this question.
But second, I noted that I’ve been asked the prediction question in recent months more than at any time in our 20+ years in the human resources assessment business. "How can I tell if the person really has leadership potential?” is a common variation. We also get questions such as these:
"How can I predict if she's going to boil over under stress?"
"How do I predict if he's suited to working in a team environment?"
"How do I know if she's too competitive? (or not competitive enough?)"
I am the last person to claim there is any air-tight method of answering these and the thousands of other selection questions we all face. I am impressed, however, by the results our customers are getting from personality-based evaluations by Hogan Assessments’ research instruments.
You'll probably want to know about the The Hogan Safety Report. This new report determines a job candidate's work style and overall safety orientation, helping employers assure a high-quality, safety-conscious workforce. The report has three sections:
Section I defines the dimensions of safety-related behaviors.
Section II provides a graphic report of the candidate’s assessment results.
Section III summarizes the candidate’s results and our recommendation regarding potential hiring.
Happy to talk with you about how this report can fit into your selection process.
Read more!
November 9, 2008
Importance of Understanding Work Values during Career Transition
Values Assessment Different from Interest Inventories, Personality Tests
Recognition, power, tradition, security, fun, pleasing surroundings, money--these are the values that often make the difference between a job that someone can do and a job they really, really want to do. In the human resources assessment world, we often look at interest inventories and personality tests. But I feel there's a source of information that is mostly overlooked in placement settings--values. This is especially important in more experienced adults, such as the ones so many of our clients and consultants are encountering in a "career transition" setting during these turbulent days.
Values Assessment vs. Interest Inventories vs. Personality Tests
Measures of motives, values, and interests are somewhat different from personality measures.
Values and motives inventories tell us what a person wants to do, shining a light on their inner conversation about their wishes. To quote the technical manual for the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory, published by Hogan Assessments, “Personality measures ask about a person’s typical response in various situations, but interest measures ask about a person’s preferred activities, roles, and associates." Values measures allow people to describe themselves as they would like to be.
Recognition, power, tradition, security, fun, pleasing surroundings, money--these are the values that often make the difference between a job that someone can do and a job they really, really want to do. In the human resources assessment world, we often look at interest inventories and personality tests. But I feel there's a source of information that is mostly overlooked in placement settings--values. This is especially important in more experienced adults, such as the ones so many of our clients and consultants are encountering in a "career transition" setting during these turbulent days.
Values Assessment vs. Interest Inventories vs. Personality Tests
Measures of motives, values, and interests are somewhat different from personality measures.
Values and motives inventories tell us what a person wants to do, shining a light on their inner conversation about their wishes. To quote the technical manual for the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory, published by Hogan Assessments, “Personality measures ask about a person’s typical response in various situations, but interest measures ask about a person’s preferred activities, roles, and associates." Values measures allow people to describe themselves as they would like to be.
Personality tests tell us what a person may do in certain situations and how their behavior is likely to appear to others. Personality reports describe such characteristics as sociability, inquisitiveness, confidence, ambition, interpersonal sensitivity, cautiousness, and curiosity.
Motives and values are more fundamental than interests. Your interests are likely to move over time, but they are always an expression of what you value. For example, you might have once enjoyed an extreme sport such as mountain biking (an interest). Over time you may have become bored with this activity, and turned your attention to rock climbing (another interest). The core values that tie both of these interests together, and which have not shifted, are love of physical activity, the freedom of the outdoors, and more than a hint of physical risk. Your interests have shifted; your motives and values have not.
This is why we're now emphasizing the Career Compass report from Hogan Assessments. It helps shine a light on the elusive and hard-to-articulate nature of work motivations. It is a comprehensive survey of the 10 key values found in every culture throughout history. The only commercially available measure of values that has been developed, validated, and normed for business contexts.
We now offer Career Compass along with an exclusive 20-page interpretive guide that helps you and your client take action on the report. Career Compass OnLine is only $49. It is based on the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI), a scientifically validated values inventory, developed and published by Hogan Assessments. MVPI is validated for individuals over 21.
Read more!
May 9, 2008
Fast Track to Intepreting Personality Tests
Free of Charge for Certified Users of Hogan Assessments
We were recently pleased to get a new tool to help interpret Hogan Personality Inventory reports. Called the "Dyad" Training Tool, it allows you to pair scales (see below for example) in test results and click to a suggestion of what that pair might mean. For example:
Question: What do you get when you have high ambition and high adjustment in the same personality profile?
Answer: You are likely to find a person who is calm, poised, self-confident, and eager to be in charge.
The new tool will help people who are involved in large-scale hiring or training projects make quicker interpretations. It's also fun to use and helps build your knowledge of the how different personality characteristics interact with one another.
DYAD is written in PowerPoint and is available free of charge to individuals who have attended the Hogan Certifications Workshop. If you are certified, get your free copy by contacting us and putting DYAD Training Tool in the subject line. We'll send the PowerPoint file as an attachment.
Read more!
December 6, 2007
New Guide Helps Interpret Hogan Personality Tests
Personality tests from Hogan Assessments are very popular among our customers, so we were glad to learn of the new book called The Hogan Guide by Robert Hogan, Joyce Hogan, and Rodney Warrenfelz. New users of Hogan assessments will find this a valuable reference to the core concepts behind the Hogan Personality Inventory, Hogan Development Survey, and Motives, Values, and Preferences Inventory. Advanced users will also appreciate its breadth, as it covers every conceivable aspect of the tools and their applications in one concise document. One of the reasons we recommend Hogan’s personality assessments is because they are so well supported with interpretive material, in addition to rigorous research.
The new book is written in a conversational, business-oriented tone, though its academic background is clear. The organization is clear and the layout conducive to finding information quickly.
The book is divided into three parts:
1. Understanding the inventories: History, global portability, scale definitions, and performance implications of results on a scale-by-scale basis.
2. Interpretation methods: including configural, conflict, and competency interpretation.
3. Developmental feedback delivery, coaching and supporting.
We are very pleased to add this book to our list of recommendations on personality testing.
The book is available from Performance Programs for $75, plus shipping (tax applies in CT). For more information or to purchase a copy, visit our shopping cart.
The new book is written in a conversational, business-oriented tone, though its academic background is clear. The organization is clear and the layout conducive to finding information quickly.
The book is divided into three parts:
1. Understanding the inventories: History, global portability, scale definitions, and performance implications of results on a scale-by-scale basis.
2. Interpretation methods: including configural, conflict, and competency interpretation.
3. Developmental feedback delivery, coaching and supporting.
We are very pleased to add this book to our list of recommendations on personality testing.
The book is available from Performance Programs for $75, plus shipping (tax applies in CT). For more information or to purchase a copy, visit our shopping cart.
Read more!
December 5, 2007
Hogan Business Reasoning Inventory Updated
Most psychologists believe that cognitive ability is the best single predictor of occupational performance and other important developmental outcomes, including health, wealth, and life satisfaction. Most tests of cognitive ability, however, are designed for a general population or educational settings. The Hogan Business Reasoning Inventory(HBRI) is a cognitive ability measure designed for the workplace. The inventory draws on the distinction between tactical and strategic reasoning.
Originally published two years ago, the report has now been updated, based on user feedback, with a new format and guidelines for administration. The new report offers four categories of thinkers, based on their style of problem-solving. When used in a business setting, it must be administered in a "lightly proctored setting" on the employer's premises. Please let us know if you would like to know more about the HBRI. See a sample HBRI report . See an HBRI brochure.
Originally published two years ago, the report has now been updated, based on user feedback, with a new format and guidelines for administration. The new report offers four categories of thinkers, based on their style of problem-solving. When used in a business setting, it must be administered in a "lightly proctored setting" on the employer's premises. Please let us know if you would like to know more about the HBRI. See a sample HBRI report . See an HBRI brochure.
Read more!
September 14, 2007
Faking It: Can Job Applicants 'Outsmart' Personality Tests?
"Faking" is probably the biggest apprehension employers have about using personality tests during the hiring process. These concerns are well founded. Job applicants are motivated to "pass the test" and come closer to a job offer. To get the most from their investment in personality tests to screen job candidates, employers need to become skilled in test administration and interpretation.
Lynn McFarland, Ph.D., an assistant professor at Clemson University's industrial/organizational psychology program and president of Human Capital Solutions, Inc., studies the "faking" phenomenon. She works primarily with self-reported measures, such as personality tests and biodata. "Not just my research but the literature in general indicates that applicant groups score higher on 'social desirability' on tests than groups we can be fairly certain are responding honestly," she says. "Job incumbents or college students, for instance, have no consequence tied to the test. Therefore, it seems that at least some applicants do try to "fake" the test and are successful at doing so."
How Big a Problem?
Employers have forever had some clear preferences in personality traits of candidates: Total honesty is a no-brainer, closely followed by the ability to control one's own anger. Beyond this, conscientiousness, ability to work in teams and persistence are three top examples of universally desirable traits. Extraversion is also more attractive than introversion for many jobs, particularly when direct client contact is involved. But if the "right" answers are an open secret, is testing a valid tool in selection? To answer that, it's important to look at some of the subtleties that experienced testers come to know.
Take the following examples:
Case 1: Some faking is devious and intentional. Let's say an applicant for a retail position intends to shoplift. He or she does not want (lack of) integrity to come out during the hiring process. The applicant might try to "beat the test" by providing what he or she believes to be the "correct" answers.
Case 2: Some faking is motivated by a desire to look good “in front of the camera.” Consider the example of an applicant who seeks to please the employer with the "correct" answers so they can get past the test phase and get to second or third interviews. This person does not intend any harm. They may simply feel that testing doesn't show their real strengths and may exclude them from consideration for the wrong reasons.
Case 3: Some faking is based on an elevated self-evaluation. Some applicants’ self-awareness is very optimistic. He or she believes they have many socially desirable characteristics. Whether they really do or not is a question for the skilled interviewer to ascertain. Careful review of educational and work history might affirm the possibility that the optimism is well founded — or not.
For testing to be useful as an adjunct to interviewing and other hiring tools, each of the above situations need to be detectable by the employer.
How Tests Detect Faking
Most test publishers would not dispute that test profiles can be elevated or falsified. So they strive to overcome the problem.
“‘What’s the point? Anybody can fake them!' We hear people ask that question," says test designer Robert Hogan, Ph.D., president of Hogan Assessment Systems. He claims this can be overcome with the "faking profile" that his company's tests generate. "We're doing a whole personality profile," he says of his organization's tests. "They may be able to fake a whole scale (a single aspect of the measurement), but they won't fake a whole profile."
Clemson University's Dr. McFarland affirms that faking often is reported through special test scales: "I think the most common strategy to detect faking is to use what's called a social desirability scale, also called a lie scale. These scales ask the test-taker to indicate the extent to which a number of statements are true of them. The trick is that these statements refer to behaviors that are very common, but undesirable."
For instance, an example of such an item is "I have never been untruthful, even to save someone's feelings."
"A test-taker who denies many of these undesirable behaviors that are extremely common will receive a high socially desirable score," says McFarland. "The employer may use this to identify fakers." She has some doubts about the effectiveness of this strategy, however. For instance, some people may have unusually high scores on "social desirability" scales, but may simply be trying to please, may have poor reading skills, or may have overly optimistic beliefs about themselves.
Questionnaire wording is one of the primary tools in the battle to thwart would-be deceivers. People who give extreme answers to questions are often - but not always -overcompensating to hide their true intent than those who do not answer with the extreme choices.
Consider the shoplifter/retail applicant mentioned earlier in the article (Case 1) as he or she confronts this statement: "I have never known a person who shoplifts." The options provided to the test taker are: Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral, Somewhat Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. If the shoplifter is being honest, they would have to indicate "Strongly Disagree" because they themselves are shoplifters. The shoplifter might naively believe the socially desirable answer is "Strongly Agree." If he or she gives enough of these desirable answers, a "faking" report will be generated. But what if the shoplifter is experienced at beating tests? We'll consider that again a bit later.
In Case 2, the applicant sought to please the employer with the "correct" answers. They are motivated by a need to get past the test phase and get a job offer. On the shoplifter question above, they answer "Somewhat Agree" or "Neutral." This places them within the employer's expectations from an honest person.
Such a test-taker, however, can face some other difficulties. Consider this test item (with the same answering options as in the first example): "It is very important to me that my career interests do not outweigh my personal interests." Applicants like this one are not deliberately lying. They are simply reporting what they believe the employer wants to hear so they can get past the test. In some organization cultures or job descriptions, the person with strong career focus is definitely favored over the person who works at balancing the two. In other organization cultures or job descriptions, a very ambitious, career-focused person might be viewed as a poor fit. So what is the "correct" answer? Both extremes ("Strongly Agree" or "Strongly Disagree") can be socially desirable, depending on the context. This applicant might assume that no employer wants to hear that a personal life is as important as work life, and answer accordingly. In fact, this may not be the employer's desired answer. Too many such answers could generate a "faking report."
Our third example illustrates how some people have inflated or distorted self-awareness. These people haven't necessarily strayed from the truth - as they perceive it. For instance, effective sales people often have extraordinarily high adjustment or self-confidence scores on personality tests. Their answers might generate a warning flag, but that does not necessarily mean that they should be disqualified from further consideration-if they are being considered for sales.
McFarland, however, has serious reservations about the fairness of social desirability scales. "I advise employers to stop using social desirability scales until reasons for differences in social desirability scores across racial groups are better understood." She notes that current research shows differences in responses among racial groups, and the reasons for it are not yet understood. "More research needs to be conducted to determine what's going on here to ensure that personality tests are fair to all applicantts," she says.
Steps for Employers
What separates the experienced, effective user of tests from the ineffective? The dividing line is often defined by the test-givers ability to read the subtleties. It is also determined by following some preventive disciplines. First, employers must cover the basics. They must choose a test with proven reliability and validity. They must become knowledgeable about the test or tests, usually through the publisher's certification programs. If this is not possible for an organization staff member, then an outside consultant who is certified and experienced should be considered. Some other key measures include:
Consider the requirements of the job. Jobs have "personality requirements." For instance, the ability to work long hours without social interaction is far more "natural" to an introvert than an extrovert. Likewise, elevated confidence is often exactly what's called for in an effective salesperson. The personality requirements of the job description can be examined through job analysis. This can help you assess the real importance of elevated scores in terms of your requirements.
Monitor the process. Though it may be convenient to have applicants take on-line tests at home, this can invite outright cheating. For instance, the applicant could have someone else take the test. (They could also be recording the test questions for distribution to other applicants.) All tests should probably be taken with adequate monitoring.
Use two tests. Let's say you are hiring for a job where anger-proneness would immediately disqualify a candidate. Two tests may be advisable. The chances of someone successfully deceiving two tests are considerably slimmer than one. Hogan Assessments, for instance, offers companion tests-one that deals with the applicant's visible, positive personality characteristics -and a second test to look at the darker sides of workplace behavior, such as tendencies to lose one's temper, to become disruptive, or to be disrespectful of authority or coworkers.
Tell participants they will be discussing their answers at a later date. Dr. McFarland says this strategy shows some promise. It holds an applicant responsible for consistent answers at a later date. "Applicants can be told their answers will be discussed in an interview if they are selected to go on," says McFarland.
For those who pass the testing screen, conduct interviews that are at least partially based on the test results. Some test publishers provide interview recommendations with the test reports, which can save time. If someone has intentionally provided false or inflated answers, you may spot discomfort or hesitation during the interview.
Most applicants are not informed consumers of tests. If tests become more and more widely used, it is possible that some applicants will become experienced at beating the tests. For the time being, though, faking reports -- used with caution -- and other current strategies offer some assurance to employers. They must be aware that not all results that look like faking are actually untrue. Armed with these skills, you are ready to gain the advantages of pre-employment personality testing.
Dr. McFarland summarizes, "I would use personality tests to select applicants. They have been shown to be valid selection measures. However, I would not base selection decisions solely on such tests."
Author: Kathleen Groll Connolly writes on a variety of human resources topics and is a partner in Performance Programs, Inc., an organization specializing in human resources surveys and measurement. Click here to contact Performance Programs or call 1-800-565-4223.
Copyright 2007 Performance Programs, Inc.
Lynn McFarland, Ph.D., an assistant professor at Clemson University's industrial/organizational psychology program and president of Human Capital Solutions, Inc., studies the "faking" phenomenon. She works primarily with self-reported measures, such as personality tests and biodata. "Not just my research but the literature in general indicates that applicant groups score higher on 'social desirability' on tests than groups we can be fairly certain are responding honestly," she says. "Job incumbents or college students, for instance, have no consequence tied to the test. Therefore, it seems that at least some applicants do try to "fake" the test and are successful at doing so."
How Big a Problem?
Employers have forever had some clear preferences in personality traits of candidates: Total honesty is a no-brainer, closely followed by the ability to control one's own anger. Beyond this, conscientiousness, ability to work in teams and persistence are three top examples of universally desirable traits. Extraversion is also more attractive than introversion for many jobs, particularly when direct client contact is involved. But if the "right" answers are an open secret, is testing a valid tool in selection? To answer that, it's important to look at some of the subtleties that experienced testers come to know.
Take the following examples:
Case 1: Some faking is devious and intentional. Let's say an applicant for a retail position intends to shoplift. He or she does not want (lack of) integrity to come out during the hiring process. The applicant might try to "beat the test" by providing what he or she believes to be the "correct" answers.
Case 2: Some faking is motivated by a desire to look good “in front of the camera.” Consider the example of an applicant who seeks to please the employer with the "correct" answers so they can get past the test phase and get to second or third interviews. This person does not intend any harm. They may simply feel that testing doesn't show their real strengths and may exclude them from consideration for the wrong reasons.
Case 3: Some faking is based on an elevated self-evaluation. Some applicants’ self-awareness is very optimistic. He or she believes they have many socially desirable characteristics. Whether they really do or not is a question for the skilled interviewer to ascertain. Careful review of educational and work history might affirm the possibility that the optimism is well founded — or not.
For testing to be useful as an adjunct to interviewing and other hiring tools, each of the above situations need to be detectable by the employer.
How Tests Detect Faking
Most test publishers would not dispute that test profiles can be elevated or falsified. So they strive to overcome the problem.
“‘What’s the point? Anybody can fake them!' We hear people ask that question," says test designer Robert Hogan, Ph.D., president of Hogan Assessment Systems. He claims this can be overcome with the "faking profile" that his company's tests generate. "We're doing a whole personality profile," he says of his organization's tests. "They may be able to fake a whole scale (a single aspect of the measurement), but they won't fake a whole profile."
Clemson University's Dr. McFarland affirms that faking often is reported through special test scales: "I think the most common strategy to detect faking is to use what's called a social desirability scale, also called a lie scale. These scales ask the test-taker to indicate the extent to which a number of statements are true of them. The trick is that these statements refer to behaviors that are very common, but undesirable."
For instance, an example of such an item is "I have never been untruthful, even to save someone's feelings."
"A test-taker who denies many of these undesirable behaviors that are extremely common will receive a high socially desirable score," says McFarland. "The employer may use this to identify fakers." She has some doubts about the effectiveness of this strategy, however. For instance, some people may have unusually high scores on "social desirability" scales, but may simply be trying to please, may have poor reading skills, or may have overly optimistic beliefs about themselves.
Questionnaire wording is one of the primary tools in the battle to thwart would-be deceivers. People who give extreme answers to questions are often - but not always -overcompensating to hide their true intent than those who do not answer with the extreme choices.
Consider the shoplifter/retail applicant mentioned earlier in the article (Case 1) as he or she confronts this statement: "I have never known a person who shoplifts." The options provided to the test taker are: Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral, Somewhat Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. If the shoplifter is being honest, they would have to indicate "Strongly Disagree" because they themselves are shoplifters. The shoplifter might naively believe the socially desirable answer is "Strongly Agree." If he or she gives enough of these desirable answers, a "faking" report will be generated. But what if the shoplifter is experienced at beating tests? We'll consider that again a bit later.
In Case 2, the applicant sought to please the employer with the "correct" answers. They are motivated by a need to get past the test phase and get a job offer. On the shoplifter question above, they answer "Somewhat Agree" or "Neutral." This places them within the employer's expectations from an honest person.
Such a test-taker, however, can face some other difficulties. Consider this test item (with the same answering options as in the first example): "It is very important to me that my career interests do not outweigh my personal interests." Applicants like this one are not deliberately lying. They are simply reporting what they believe the employer wants to hear so they can get past the test. In some organization cultures or job descriptions, the person with strong career focus is definitely favored over the person who works at balancing the two. In other organization cultures or job descriptions, a very ambitious, career-focused person might be viewed as a poor fit. So what is the "correct" answer? Both extremes ("Strongly Agree" or "Strongly Disagree") can be socially desirable, depending on the context. This applicant might assume that no employer wants to hear that a personal life is as important as work life, and answer accordingly. In fact, this may not be the employer's desired answer. Too many such answers could generate a "faking report."
Our third example illustrates how some people have inflated or distorted self-awareness. These people haven't necessarily strayed from the truth - as they perceive it. For instance, effective sales people often have extraordinarily high adjustment or self-confidence scores on personality tests. Their answers might generate a warning flag, but that does not necessarily mean that they should be disqualified from further consideration-if they are being considered for sales.
McFarland, however, has serious reservations about the fairness of social desirability scales. "I advise employers to stop using social desirability scales until reasons for differences in social desirability scores across racial groups are better understood." She notes that current research shows differences in responses among racial groups, and the reasons for it are not yet understood. "More research needs to be conducted to determine what's going on here to ensure that personality tests are fair to all applicantts," she says.
Steps for Employers
What separates the experienced, effective user of tests from the ineffective? The dividing line is often defined by the test-givers ability to read the subtleties. It is also determined by following some preventive disciplines. First, employers must cover the basics. They must choose a test with proven reliability and validity. They must become knowledgeable about the test or tests, usually through the publisher's certification programs. If this is not possible for an organization staff member, then an outside consultant who is certified and experienced should be considered. Some other key measures include:
Consider the requirements of the job. Jobs have "personality requirements." For instance, the ability to work long hours without social interaction is far more "natural" to an introvert than an extrovert. Likewise, elevated confidence is often exactly what's called for in an effective salesperson. The personality requirements of the job description can be examined through job analysis. This can help you assess the real importance of elevated scores in terms of your requirements.
Monitor the process. Though it may be convenient to have applicants take on-line tests at home, this can invite outright cheating. For instance, the applicant could have someone else take the test. (They could also be recording the test questions for distribution to other applicants.) All tests should probably be taken with adequate monitoring.
Use two tests. Let's say you are hiring for a job where anger-proneness would immediately disqualify a candidate. Two tests may be advisable. The chances of someone successfully deceiving two tests are considerably slimmer than one. Hogan Assessments, for instance, offers companion tests-one that deals with the applicant's visible, positive personality characteristics -and a second test to look at the darker sides of workplace behavior, such as tendencies to lose one's temper, to become disruptive, or to be disrespectful of authority or coworkers.
Tell participants they will be discussing their answers at a later date. Dr. McFarland says this strategy shows some promise. It holds an applicant responsible for consistent answers at a later date. "Applicants can be told their answers will be discussed in an interview if they are selected to go on," says McFarland.
For those who pass the testing screen, conduct interviews that are at least partially based on the test results. Some test publishers provide interview recommendations with the test reports, which can save time. If someone has intentionally provided false or inflated answers, you may spot discomfort or hesitation during the interview.
Most applicants are not informed consumers of tests. If tests become more and more widely used, it is possible that some applicants will become experienced at beating the tests. For the time being, though, faking reports -- used with caution -- and other current strategies offer some assurance to employers. They must be aware that not all results that look like faking are actually untrue. Armed with these skills, you are ready to gain the advantages of pre-employment personality testing.
Dr. McFarland summarizes, "I would use personality tests to select applicants. They have been shown to be valid selection measures. However, I would not base selection decisions solely on such tests."
Author: Kathleen Groll Connolly writes on a variety of human resources topics and is a partner in Performance Programs, Inc., an organization specializing in human resources surveys and measurement. Click here to contact Performance Programs or call 1-800-565-4223.
Copyright 2007 Performance Programs, Inc.
Read more!
August 15, 2007
Can 360 Feedback Help Executives Develop Charisma?
By Paul M. Connolly, Ph.D.
The following is from an address by Dr. Connolly at a convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). He explores the question of whether leadership charisma can be isolated through measurement, with the goal of providing coaching to help executives develop greater charisma. He shows how two instruments, the Clark Wilson Survey of Executive Leadership™ and Hogan Personality Inventory (PDF), were used to answer the question.
Some years ago I was working with a customer who I’d jokingly classify as difficult, but seriously describe as one of the brightest, most competent HR practitioners I’ve ever met. We were working on behavioral measures to support his plans for developing high-potential leadership candidates. Our discussions often led to a topic almost as inscrutable as nature vs. nurture. It’s the topic of personality vs. behavior as the source of one of the most highly effective leadership traits: charisma.
I insisted that while personality is important, it is–in a training and development context–irrelevant. Personality factors cannot be taught. In fact, most personality factors are generally well established by adolescence. They change only with difficulty, through traumatic life events or concentrated psychotherapy.
Leadership, I further insisted, consists of actions–the things people do. In other words, the sum of a person’s leadership is equal to the parts of his or her behaviors.
Being the highly experienced practitioner that he was, my customer wouldn’t let me escape that easily. Many of the candidates in the high potential group we were working with had, in fact, been selected because they exhibited charisma. "Your education," he told me, "is about to continue."
Charisma is the hard-to-define, rare characteristic in a person that causes others to want to listen, to follow, and to perform. It is a magnetic, "pulling toward" characteristic. It is motivating and extremely valuable in a leader. Is charisma the inborn talent that makes the difference between a good manager and a great executive? Or is it a series of behaviors that, when present in subtle juxtaposition, simply appear to produce a result greater than the sum of parts?
Furthermore, is charisma a personality factor or a behavior factor? It is probably both. Our challenge became clear: Could we develop a measurement that was true to the meaning of charisma and was also true to the principles of good developmental feedback? This question was of such interest to my client that we engaged in special research in an attempt to find out.
Research Program: Measurement of Charisma
We surveyed 135 managers in the organizations ’s high-potential program. They were selected through various means: Some were nominated by their immediate management, some were nominated by other management, and a handful were self-nominated (a temporary process whereby an individual has a chance to "prove her/himself" in spite of "management blockage"). The group went through various processes and assessments, including the two measures we are discussing today, the Clark Wilson Group's Executive Leadership Survey™ and the Hogan Personality Inventory.
Exhibit A
Demographics of Study Sample
Average Age: 41 (SD=5.8)
Caucasian: 101 men, 20 women
Minority:12 men, 2 women
Total Sample 135
It’s important to mention here that the sample exhibited a level of ambition higher than 85% of the general population of working adults, as measured by the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI). In other words, they came to the high potential program with an intrinsic desire to succeed. The purpose of our research was to provide them with tools that would give them a unique insight into how to enhance their success by emphasizing certain behaviors and skills.
Whatever measures we developed had to meet the three criteria of well designed developmental feedback. This means that every questionnaire item must do the following:
It asks for data that is observable by others. This leads to rating consistency and reliability.It asks for observations that relate to the role of an executive. This is one aspect of assuring validity.
It addresses a behavior that is under the control of an individual to change. In other words, it is a behavior that can respond to training if the individual is willing.
The third criterion is very important because behavioral feedback is most suitable for improving performance, not simply understanding performance.From a developmental feedback perspective, charisma is a problem variable. It doesn't meet the third of the key criteria for good feedback items: responsiveness to training.
Looking at the history of research on charisma, however, we made an interesting discovery. The behavioral descriptions of the characteristic all center on enthusiasm, speed of motion, running, jumping, vocal projection, eye contact. In other words, the observable actions center on the individual’s apparent energy level.
Measuring Executive Energy
For years I have worked with the Task Cycle Model, developed by Clark Wilson, Ph.D., as the research platform for 360-degree behavioral feedback to executives and leaders. We selected this as the behavioral instrument for our study. The model incorporates the behavioral dimensions shown in the Task Cycle exhibit below. We decided to add an Energy dimension to our behavior-focused Leadership survey. We incorporated it as a subscale under Drive. It contained seven items. When we administered the survey to our sample of 135, I expected the Energy dimension to fail as an experiment. I believed it would not factor "cleanly." In other words, I thought that it would be too closely related to other dimensions, such as Vision. I thought it would provide no new, independent information.
I was wrong.
Our seven items factored cleanly, more highly related to one another than to anything else in the survey. We had indeed improved our survey. We were now receiving a more complete picture of a high potential’s behavior profile.
This completed one leg of the journey.
Personality Measures
We wanted to see whether high Energy scores correlated with charisma-related scores on a personality instrument. We felt that if a person was already scoring high on the charisma scales, they would benefit from becoming conscious of how others perceive their energy. They could, for instance, learn to project more energy in key situations to improve their effectiveness.We chose the Hogan Assessment Systems series of instruments for this part of the study. The Hogan instruments are mathematically similar to Wilson instruments. Hogan also uses the concept of independent factors. The structural similarity between the two instruments simplifies the search for common touch-points. Hogan Personality Inventory looks at charisma through three subscales: No Social Anxiety (gregariousness), Leadership (wanting to be in charge), and Self-confidence (having the wherewithal to move forward). Comparing scores for the study group, we found the correlation moderate but significant. They generally ranged from .2 to .3. While this may sound low to those familiar with statistical measurement, we were very excited! It is rare for any personality measure to correlate with a behavior measure at more than a .4 level. This is commonly called the Personality Trait Ceiling among psychometricians. They theorize that it is due to self-perception errors.
Our two selected instruments produced the following results on the three charisma-related items:
Exhibit B
Correlation between HPI Charisma Measures and Executive Leadership Survey Energy Measure:
"No Social Anxiety" (gregariousness): .32 correlation
Leadership (wanting to be in charge): .32 correlation
Self-confidence (having the wherewithal to move forward): .10 correlation
The moderate correlation between lack of social anxiety and the desire to be in charge showed that the energy-related behaviors can be related to personality factors. For the individual who comes to management with these personality assets in place, we could help them see which behaviors might improve their effectiveness.
So, my client was correct and my education was continuing. I began to see that a portion of the phenomenon called charisma can be quantified, studied, reported, and, most importantly, developed.
Copyright 1998-2007 Performance Programs, Inc.
The following is from an address by Dr. Connolly at a convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). He explores the question of whether leadership charisma can be isolated through measurement, with the goal of providing coaching to help executives develop greater charisma. He shows how two instruments, the Clark Wilson Survey of Executive Leadership™ and Hogan Personality Inventory (PDF), were used to answer the question.
Some years ago I was working with a customer who I’d jokingly classify as difficult, but seriously describe as one of the brightest, most competent HR practitioners I’ve ever met. We were working on behavioral measures to support his plans for developing high-potential leadership candidates. Our discussions often led to a topic almost as inscrutable as nature vs. nurture. It’s the topic of personality vs. behavior as the source of one of the most highly effective leadership traits: charisma.
I insisted that while personality is important, it is–in a training and development context–irrelevant. Personality factors cannot be taught. In fact, most personality factors are generally well established by adolescence. They change only with difficulty, through traumatic life events or concentrated psychotherapy.
Leadership, I further insisted, consists of actions–the things people do. In other words, the sum of a person’s leadership is equal to the parts of his or her behaviors.
Being the highly experienced practitioner that he was, my customer wouldn’t let me escape that easily. Many of the candidates in the high potential group we were working with had, in fact, been selected because they exhibited charisma. "Your education," he told me, "is about to continue."
Charisma is the hard-to-define, rare characteristic in a person that causes others to want to listen, to follow, and to perform. It is a magnetic, "pulling toward" characteristic. It is motivating and extremely valuable in a leader. Is charisma the inborn talent that makes the difference between a good manager and a great executive? Or is it a series of behaviors that, when present in subtle juxtaposition, simply appear to produce a result greater than the sum of parts?
Furthermore, is charisma a personality factor or a behavior factor? It is probably both. Our challenge became clear: Could we develop a measurement that was true to the meaning of charisma and was also true to the principles of good developmental feedback? This question was of such interest to my client that we engaged in special research in an attempt to find out.
Research Program: Measurement of Charisma
We surveyed 135 managers in the organizations ’s high-potential program. They were selected through various means: Some were nominated by their immediate management, some were nominated by other management, and a handful were self-nominated (a temporary process whereby an individual has a chance to "prove her/himself" in spite of "management blockage"). The group went through various processes and assessments, including the two measures we are discussing today, the Clark Wilson Group's Executive Leadership Survey™ and the Hogan Personality Inventory.
Exhibit A
Demographics of Study Sample
Average Age: 41 (SD=5.8)
Caucasian: 101 men, 20 women
Minority:12 men, 2 women
Total Sample 135
It’s important to mention here that the sample exhibited a level of ambition higher than 85% of the general population of working adults, as measured by the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI). In other words, they came to the high potential program with an intrinsic desire to succeed. The purpose of our research was to provide them with tools that would give them a unique insight into how to enhance their success by emphasizing certain behaviors and skills.
Whatever measures we developed had to meet the three criteria of well designed developmental feedback. This means that every questionnaire item must do the following:
It asks for data that is observable by others. This leads to rating consistency and reliability.It asks for observations that relate to the role of an executive. This is one aspect of assuring validity.
It addresses a behavior that is under the control of an individual to change. In other words, it is a behavior that can respond to training if the individual is willing.
The third criterion is very important because behavioral feedback is most suitable for improving performance, not simply understanding performance.From a developmental feedback perspective, charisma is a problem variable. It doesn't meet the third of the key criteria for good feedback items: responsiveness to training.
Looking at the history of research on charisma, however, we made an interesting discovery. The behavioral descriptions of the characteristic all center on enthusiasm, speed of motion, running, jumping, vocal projection, eye contact. In other words, the observable actions center on the individual’s apparent energy level.
Measuring Executive Energy
For years I have worked with the Task Cycle Model, developed by Clark Wilson, Ph.D., as the research platform for 360-degree behavioral feedback to executives and leaders. We selected this as the behavioral instrument for our study. The model incorporates the behavioral dimensions shown in the Task Cycle exhibit below. We decided to add an Energy dimension to our behavior-focused Leadership survey. We incorporated it as a subscale under Drive. It contained seven items. When we administered the survey to our sample of 135, I expected the Energy dimension to fail as an experiment. I believed it would not factor "cleanly." In other words, I thought that it would be too closely related to other dimensions, such as Vision. I thought it would provide no new, independent information.
I was wrong.
Our seven items factored cleanly, more highly related to one another than to anything else in the survey. We had indeed improved our survey. We were now receiving a more complete picture of a high potential’s behavior profile.
This completed one leg of the journey.
Personality Measures
We wanted to see whether high Energy scores correlated with charisma-related scores on a personality instrument. We felt that if a person was already scoring high on the charisma scales, they would benefit from becoming conscious of how others perceive their energy. They could, for instance, learn to project more energy in key situations to improve their effectiveness.We chose the Hogan Assessment Systems series of instruments for this part of the study. The Hogan instruments are mathematically similar to Wilson instruments. Hogan also uses the concept of independent factors. The structural similarity between the two instruments simplifies the search for common touch-points. Hogan Personality Inventory looks at charisma through three subscales: No Social Anxiety (gregariousness), Leadership (wanting to be in charge), and Self-confidence (having the wherewithal to move forward). Comparing scores for the study group, we found the correlation moderate but significant. They generally ranged from .2 to .3. While this may sound low to those familiar with statistical measurement, we were very excited! It is rare for any personality measure to correlate with a behavior measure at more than a .4 level. This is commonly called the Personality Trait Ceiling among psychometricians. They theorize that it is due to self-perception errors.
Our two selected instruments produced the following results on the three charisma-related items:
Exhibit B
Correlation between HPI Charisma Measures and Executive Leadership Survey Energy Measure:
"No Social Anxiety" (gregariousness): .32 correlation
Leadership (wanting to be in charge): .32 correlation
Self-confidence (having the wherewithal to move forward): .10 correlation
The moderate correlation between lack of social anxiety and the desire to be in charge showed that the energy-related behaviors can be related to personality factors. For the individual who comes to management with these personality assets in place, we could help them see which behaviors might improve their effectiveness.
So, my client was correct and my education was continuing. I began to see that a portion of the phenomenon called charisma can be quantified, studied, reported, and, most importantly, developed.
Copyright 1998-2007 Performance Programs, Inc.
Read more!
May 30, 2007
New Hogan Hiring Report Shows Candidate's Job Fit
Trial Available: Three Free Reports Until August 31
The Candidate Potential Report Series (CPR) joins the report options for the Hogan Assessment Systems product line. This hiring recommendation report is designed for organizations assessing fewer than 80 job candidates per year across different job titles. CPR helps select the right candidates for jobs throughout an organization, providing an immediate rating of “high,” “medium” or “low” job fit based on Hogan's archive of job families*. CPR is based on seven job families that capture more than 95% of jobs in the economy.
The key benefit with CPR is that you do not need to conduct local validation through job analysis. CPR reports are valid and legally defensible. Performance Programs looks forward to offering this to our clients as one of the fastest ways yet to manage the risks of bad hires. CPR is part of Hogan’s Selection Series.
Free: Screen three candidates with Candidate Potential Reports before August 31, 2007. If you wish to continue using the reports, you will be billed a one-time fee of $400 to set up your account and $50 per report thereafter.
* Some examples of job types supported by these reports include Protective Services, Managing Others, Sales, Clerical/administrative, Care Giving, Research, Customer Service, and Design/Creativity. All Hogan tests have passed requirements of no adverse impact.Read more!
May 26, 2006
Personality and the Fate of Organizations
New Book by Robert Hogan, Hogan Assessment Systems
Robert Hogan, Ph.D., author of the Hogan Personality Inventory, has long been a proponent of the idea that the fate of organizations (including governments) is heavily influenced by the personalities of key individuals. To many that may be a no-brainer, but in academic cirlces it has long been a point of debate. Now, Hogan has a new book forthcoming: Personality and the Fate of Organizations. It will be published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates in August, 2006.
Hogan says his book is about using personality to understand, evaluate, select, deselect and train managers, to staff teams, and to understand organizations. In the preface, he writes, “… the book strives to be non-technical and hopefully will interest anyone who is curious about people, careers, and organizational politics.” We haven’t seen the material yet, but Hogan’s other works have been thoughtful, provocative, and readable. He says this one offers a great deal of empirical data, and that the major statements and claims are supported by evidence. Read a two-page flyer about the book, which includes prepublication ordering information.
Read more!
May 8, 2006
Can Personality Tests Cause You to Miss a Great Employee?
We were recently asked by a visitor to this blog: If you add personality assessments such as Hogan Personality Inventory to your hiring program, is it likely the assessment might lead you to miss a “great” employee or hire a disaster employee?
In our experience, no, that's not likely at all. That’s the attraction of testing. You reduce the likelihood of such extreme things happening.
With that said, no test is 100% accurate. It always possible that someone who could do a job could be missed, and someone who will fail at the job could be hired. The same is true with any selection procedure you might use. This is the primary reason that you must always use multiple selection methods when hiring. For example, one of the primary advantages of testing and assessment is that you can see very quickly where the candidate may have problems, and then interview to either confirm or deny that the problem area is real.
For more information, see our previous posts on this subject:
The Competency Connection
Job Candidate Personality Testing: What Can a Hiring Employer Expect?
In our experience, no, that's not likely at all. That’s the attraction of testing. You reduce the likelihood of such extreme things happening.
With that said, no test is 100% accurate. It always possible that someone who could do a job could be missed, and someone who will fail at the job could be hired. The same is true with any selection procedure you might use. This is the primary reason that you must always use multiple selection methods when hiring. For example, one of the primary advantages of testing and assessment is that you can see very quickly where the candidate may have problems, and then interview to either confirm or deny that the problem area is real.
For more information, see our previous posts on this subject:
The Competency Connection
Job Candidate Personality Testing: What Can a Hiring Employer Expect?
Read more!
March 17, 2006
Hogan Personality Inventory Updated
New Questionnaire Items Stay Ahead of the Legal Curve
Some questions on the Hogan Personality Inventory are being replaced in order to update language and to stay well ahead of the ever-changing legal curve. Hogan’s experts identified 28 items on the HPI across four subscales that could be replaced with psychometrically equivalent items that lessen the likelihood of any negative legal reviews.
Hogan Assessments Systems has never been challenged for violating any employment selection guidelines with its three personality assessments: Hogan Personality Inventory, Hogan Development Survey and the Motivation, Values, Preferences Inventory. The assessments have been reviewed by many lawyers, including lawyers for more than 25% of the Fortune 50. In no case did an organization decide against the assessments based on item content or potential legal impact. Hogan items have also been reviewed by the EEOC.
All online accounts were updated with the revised instruments between March 16th and March 17th, and all new user IDs are associated with the new HPI items. As the scoring program and psychometric qualities of the HPI have not changed, there will be no differences in candidate scores. Furthermore, online assessment and administration does not change.
While the legal issues do not impact those of you using the HPI for development, the fact that the tool needs to meet the higher standards that are applied to selection measures is a good and unusual thing.
Some questions on the Hogan Personality Inventory are being replaced in order to update language and to stay well ahead of the ever-changing legal curve. Hogan’s experts identified 28 items on the HPI across four subscales that could be replaced with psychometrically equivalent items that lessen the likelihood of any negative legal reviews.
Hogan Assessments Systems has never been challenged for violating any employment selection guidelines with its three personality assessments: Hogan Personality Inventory, Hogan Development Survey and the Motivation, Values, Preferences Inventory. The assessments have been reviewed by many lawyers, including lawyers for more than 25% of the Fortune 50. In no case did an organization decide against the assessments based on item content or potential legal impact. Hogan items have also been reviewed by the EEOC.
All online accounts were updated with the revised instruments between March 16th and March 17th, and all new user IDs are associated with the new HPI items. As the scoring program and psychometric qualities of the HPI have not changed, there will be no differences in candidate scores. Furthermore, online assessment and administration does not change.
While the legal issues do not impact those of you using the HPI for development, the fact that the tool needs to meet the higher standards that are applied to selection measures is a good and unusual thing.
Read more!
January 31, 2006
Football, Leadership, and Leadership Anomalies
Performance Programs welcomes this article by Robert Hogan, Ph.D., author of the widely used Hogan Personality Inventory, and founder of Hogan Assessment Systems, Tulsa, OK. Reprinted with permission. Learn more about Robert Hogan and the Hogan Personality Inventory.
Anomalous Leadership
By Robert Hogan
I follow athletics in order to test my ideas about leadership. I have uncovered an interesting anomaly about which I have been thinking for some time. This anomaly, properly understood, has important implications for evaluating and developing leadership competencies.
The current (2005) coach of the professional football team, the New England Patriots, a man named Bill Belichick, is widely regarded as the best coach in his business. He has been regarded as a football genius since the beginning of his career. His win-loss record is phenomenal. He obviously occupies a leadership role, so what are the keys to his success?
Return to Newsletter
He matches to perfection the four elements that define leadership from the observer’s perspective: (1) He is a person of great integrity—he keeps his word and never plays favorites; (2) He is decisive—he makes very sound decisions quickly and under pressure; (3) He is competent—all observers are impressed with his work ethic, his comprehensive knowledge of the game, and his creativity and forward thinking; and (4) He is faithful to the only vision his profession permits—winning (cf. Hogan & Kaiser, 2005).
At the same time, however, he treats his players in a distinctly impersonal way. He concluded as a beginning coach that it is a fatal error to become friends with his players. He apprenticed with successful coaches who were notoriously hard on their players. At least one observer, Tom Jackson of ESPN, says Belichick’s players hate him. It is widely reported that the major reason Belichick failed in his first head coaching job, at the Cleveland Browns, was that his players disliked him so much.
I have always thought an essential key to leadership is the ability to form positive relationships with subordinates. Indeed, this competency is one of the four pillars of our “domain model” (Hogan & Warrenfeltz, 2003). Red Holtzman, the legendary coach of the New York Knickerbockers, a professional basketball team and popular after dinner speaker, always argued that the first thing a coach needs to do is establish an effective relationship with his/her players. My personal hero, Admiral Horatio Nelson, one of the greatest military leaders of all time, was beloved by his subordinates.
How can we reconcile this apparent anomaly? The answer, I believe, is that professional football players in America have no options; if they want to play, they must be hired and retained by a team, and do exactly as they are told. If they don’t, they are labeled as intractable and essentially banned from the game. They have no real options for defection, and as a result, owners and managers need pay little attention to their relations with the players.
This leads to three conclusions. First, Belichick outperforms his competition because he is smarter and harder working than they are, and treating his players with respect would give him no competitive advantage in that business. Second, real leadership involves persuading people to follow an agenda or program, when they have opportunities to defect. And third, managers in the modern economy, regardless of the business sector, are rarely required to be leaders because they can coerce their subordinates into compliance using threats of dismissal. Nonetheless, treating subordinates as fellow humans is the right thing to do, morally and pragmatically.
References: Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R.B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General Psychology. Hogan, R., and Warrenfeltz, R. W. (2003). Educating the modern manager. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2, 74-84.
Performance Programs offers professional certification on the Hogan Personality Inventory, Hogan Development Survey, and the Motivation, Preferences, Values Inventory.
Anomalous Leadership
By Robert Hogan
I follow athletics in order to test my ideas about leadership. I have uncovered an interesting anomaly about which I have been thinking for some time. This anomaly, properly understood, has important implications for evaluating and developing leadership competencies.
The current (2005) coach of the professional football team, the New England Patriots, a man named Bill Belichick, is widely regarded as the best coach in his business. He has been regarded as a football genius since the beginning of his career. His win-loss record is phenomenal. He obviously occupies a leadership role, so what are the keys to his success?
Return to Newsletter
He matches to perfection the four elements that define leadership from the observer’s perspective: (1) He is a person of great integrity—he keeps his word and never plays favorites; (2) He is decisive—he makes very sound decisions quickly and under pressure; (3) He is competent—all observers are impressed with his work ethic, his comprehensive knowledge of the game, and his creativity and forward thinking; and (4) He is faithful to the only vision his profession permits—winning (cf. Hogan & Kaiser, 2005).
At the same time, however, he treats his players in a distinctly impersonal way. He concluded as a beginning coach that it is a fatal error to become friends with his players. He apprenticed with successful coaches who were notoriously hard on their players. At least one observer, Tom Jackson of ESPN, says Belichick’s players hate him. It is widely reported that the major reason Belichick failed in his first head coaching job, at the Cleveland Browns, was that his players disliked him so much.
I have always thought an essential key to leadership is the ability to form positive relationships with subordinates. Indeed, this competency is one of the four pillars of our “domain model” (Hogan & Warrenfeltz, 2003). Red Holtzman, the legendary coach of the New York Knickerbockers, a professional basketball team and popular after dinner speaker, always argued that the first thing a coach needs to do is establish an effective relationship with his/her players. My personal hero, Admiral Horatio Nelson, one of the greatest military leaders of all time, was beloved by his subordinates.
How can we reconcile this apparent anomaly? The answer, I believe, is that professional football players in America have no options; if they want to play, they must be hired and retained by a team, and do exactly as they are told. If they don’t, they are labeled as intractable and essentially banned from the game. They have no real options for defection, and as a result, owners and managers need pay little attention to their relations with the players.
This leads to three conclusions. First, Belichick outperforms his competition because he is smarter and harder working than they are, and treating his players with respect would give him no competitive advantage in that business. Second, real leadership involves persuading people to follow an agenda or program, when they have opportunities to defect. And third, managers in the modern economy, regardless of the business sector, are rarely required to be leaders because they can coerce their subordinates into compliance using threats of dismissal. Nonetheless, treating subordinates as fellow humans is the right thing to do, morally and pragmatically.
References: Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R.B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General Psychology. Hogan, R., and Warrenfeltz, R. W. (2003). Educating the modern manager. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2, 74-84.
Performance Programs offers professional certification on the Hogan Personality Inventory, Hogan Development Survey, and the Motivation, Preferences, Values Inventory.
Read more!
March 29, 2005
They Can Sell But Can They Do Fundraising?
Last year I got involved with an interesting validation study, one that asked who is likely to succeed as a nonprofit fundraiser. The question came up when I met David Edell, an associate who had spent 13 years in fundraising and 16 years as a nonprofit search consultant with DRG Inc. in New York City. David had seen firsthand the difficulty nonprofits have in recruiting talented fundraisers. Fundraising seems on the surface like a job that should parallel commercial sales jobs. But in David’s extensive experience, skilled commercial salespeople don’t always make the transition successfully.
I chose the job personality tests published by Hogan Assessment Systems as the testing vehicles for our investigation. I prefer the Hogan instruments for their theoretical premises, rigorous mathematical foundations, and the fact that they don’t discriminate on age, race, or gender.
We approached the question much the same as we would have for any employer who wanted to validate the use of a pre-employment test. The difference was that we were validating a set of characteristics for a common job title within a business sector. We recruited twelve Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), all vice presidents of development, from major nonprofit organizations to create the study.
Our SMEs quickly informed us we needed to define two fundraising jobs in our investigation: Fundraising Generalist and Major Gifts Professionals. Different personality charactertistics and competencies, they felt, may be required to succeed in each of these job titles.
Fundraiser Generalists are responsible for working with volunteers and professionals to conduct special events to raise support from individual supporters and constituent groups.
Major Gift Professionals handle all aspects of marketing, management and administration of activities associated with major donor development.
We used the Hogan Job Environment Tool to evaluate the factors that would make a difference in successful performance of these two jobs. The JET has been shown in other research to provide the link between job demands and the kind of individual who can best perform a job.
Personality Characteristics
Current thinking in personality assessment says that most personality characteristics can be described in terms of five dimensions, referred to in the testing industry as “the Bigs”:
I. Extraversion – outgoing and talkative
II. Agreeableness – warm and pleasant
III. Conscientiousness – rule following
IV. Emotional Stability – calm and composed
V. Openness – creative and open-minded
These are measured on the Hogan instruments in seven scales. (Contact us for more information.) Results showed that that the most important personality characteristics for both Fundraiser Generalist and Major Gifts Professional candidates are associated with high social interaction, social sensitivity, goal achievement, stress tolerance, and vision. The personality profiles for both jobs are similar, although scale scores of Fundraiser Generalist on Adjustment, Ambition, Sociability, and Creative Problem Solving are slightly lower than those of Major Gifts Professional. Major Gift professionals score somewhat higher on Adjustment, Ambition, and Sociability.
For comparison purposes, we looked at a sample of salespeople in three commercial organizations. The corresponding scales for sales people are quite different. Successful commercial sales people have high ambition, self-confidence, and sociability. They have average to high scores for creative problem solving. They have average to low scores for conformity and conscientiousness. They are likely to be highly flexible in their approach to problem-solving.
Competencies
A competency is knowledge, skill, or ability necessary to accomplish a job requirement. We asked the SMEs to rate 62 competencies for both job titles and learned that the top 15 competencies desirable in a Fundraising Generalist differed from those needed by Major Gift Professionals. Tables 1 and 2 show the top five competencies for the two fundraising specialties.
Table 1
Fundraising Generalist
1. Interpersonal Skills
2. Trustworthiness
3. Integrity
4. Written Communication
5. Customer Service
Table 2
Major Gifts Professional
1. Customer Service
2. Achievement Orientation
3. Trustworthiness
4. Interpersonal Skills
5. Oral Communication
In summary, we learned that a personality test can be useful in filling these two fundraising positions. Testing would help a nonprofit organization identify the degree to which individuals possess the charactertistics and competencies needed to succeed in these two job titles.
David Edell and I founded a joint venture, NPEdge LLC, to offer these specialized assessments for nonprofit employers. NPEdge’s JobFit Assessment Profiles for Fundraisers and Major Gifts professionals are the first on-line assessment tools for executives who are responsible for hiring fundraisers. To learn more about David Edell, visit his web site: www.drgnyc.com. To learn more about our joint venture, visit www.jobsnonprofit.com. To learn more about Performance Programs, visit www.performanceprograms.com.
I chose the job personality tests published by Hogan Assessment Systems as the testing vehicles for our investigation. I prefer the Hogan instruments for their theoretical premises, rigorous mathematical foundations, and the fact that they don’t discriminate on age, race, or gender.
We approached the question much the same as we would have for any employer who wanted to validate the use of a pre-employment test. The difference was that we were validating a set of characteristics for a common job title within a business sector. We recruited twelve Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), all vice presidents of development, from major nonprofit organizations to create the study.
Our SMEs quickly informed us we needed to define two fundraising jobs in our investigation: Fundraising Generalist and Major Gifts Professionals. Different personality charactertistics and competencies, they felt, may be required to succeed in each of these job titles.
Fundraiser Generalists are responsible for working with volunteers and professionals to conduct special events to raise support from individual supporters and constituent groups.
Major Gift Professionals handle all aspects of marketing, management and administration of activities associated with major donor development.
We used the Hogan Job Environment Tool to evaluate the factors that would make a difference in successful performance of these two jobs. The JET has been shown in other research to provide the link between job demands and the kind of individual who can best perform a job.
Personality Characteristics
Current thinking in personality assessment says that most personality characteristics can be described in terms of five dimensions, referred to in the testing industry as “the Bigs”:
I. Extraversion – outgoing and talkative
II. Agreeableness – warm and pleasant
III. Conscientiousness – rule following
IV. Emotional Stability – calm and composed
V. Openness – creative and open-minded
These are measured on the Hogan instruments in seven scales. (Contact us for more information.) Results showed that that the most important personality characteristics for both Fundraiser Generalist and Major Gifts Professional candidates are associated with high social interaction, social sensitivity, goal achievement, stress tolerance, and vision. The personality profiles for both jobs are similar, although scale scores of Fundraiser Generalist on Adjustment, Ambition, Sociability, and Creative Problem Solving are slightly lower than those of Major Gifts Professional. Major Gift professionals score somewhat higher on Adjustment, Ambition, and Sociability.
For comparison purposes, we looked at a sample of salespeople in three commercial organizations. The corresponding scales for sales people are quite different. Successful commercial sales people have high ambition, self-confidence, and sociability. They have average to high scores for creative problem solving. They have average to low scores for conformity and conscientiousness. They are likely to be highly flexible in their approach to problem-solving.
Competencies
A competency is knowledge, skill, or ability necessary to accomplish a job requirement. We asked the SMEs to rate 62 competencies for both job titles and learned that the top 15 competencies desirable in a Fundraising Generalist differed from those needed by Major Gift Professionals. Tables 1 and 2 show the top five competencies for the two fundraising specialties.
Table 1
Fundraising Generalist
1. Interpersonal Skills
2. Trustworthiness
3. Integrity
4. Written Communication
5. Customer Service
Table 2
Major Gifts Professional
1. Customer Service
2. Achievement Orientation
3. Trustworthiness
4. Interpersonal Skills
5. Oral Communication
In summary, we learned that a personality test can be useful in filling these two fundraising positions. Testing would help a nonprofit organization identify the degree to which individuals possess the charactertistics and competencies needed to succeed in these two job titles.
David Edell and I founded a joint venture, NPEdge LLC, to offer these specialized assessments for nonprofit employers. NPEdge’s JobFit Assessment Profiles for Fundraisers and Major Gifts professionals are the first on-line assessment tools for executives who are responsible for hiring fundraisers. To learn more about David Edell, visit his web site: www.drgnyc.com. To learn more about our joint venture, visit www.jobsnonprofit.com. To learn more about Performance Programs, visit www.performanceprograms.com.
Read more!
October 27, 2004
The Competency Connection
Let's say you're asked to improve your recipe for hiring success. What ingredients would command your attention? Some of the "master chefs" of the selection business are paying special attention to the new chemistry between personality tests, competency requirements, and behavioral interviewing.
The elements of the formula may sound familiar -- even obvious. All three have been around for a while. But evolution in the testing industry has created some new connections. Add a personality assessment to a behavioral interview and you can substantially raise your chances of identifying competencies that predict performance. According to some test publishers, the chances can be raised by 20%. Given the cost of hiring and training managerial talent, that 20% improvement can save your firm thousands -- even hundreds of thousands -- of dollars in hiring mistakes. You might say you could have your cake and eat it, too.
Christine Fahnestock is a consultant specializing in talent assessment for managerial and executive positions. "The combination of personality tests with competency-based behavioral interviews is invaluable," she says. "Without the personality assessment, it is too easy for a candidate to position themselves to look good in a behavioral interview alone."
Personality tests have come a long way since the early days, with a number of good ones written specifically for the workplace. They shed light on personal competencies, such as approachability, ambition, or interpersonal sensitivity, that translate to performance in the workplace. The testing industry has shown they can assess job-related personality factors without adverse impact.
Fahnestock's Glastonbury, Connecticut firm manages assessments for several large Northeast employers. She says the motivation for connecting competencies with personality test results is clear. "Quite simply, it saves employers a lot of money and time." According to Fahnestock, "coaches and consultants are catching on to this connection. It's an investment up front, but the ROI is so worthwhile."
Case study: personality tests in action
One example is Seabrook Station, a New Hampshire nuclear facility of Florida Power and Light. Since they were licensed to operate in 1990, Seabrook has enjoyed 13 years of safe and reliable operation producing power for one million homes and businesses. The people they select and promote are responsible for the safe operation of the facility.
A leadership talent pool was identified in their Operations Group. From this "feeder pool," they planned to staff a management team over time. "The people who are assessed as having potential to advance into leadership receive approximately 18 months of licensing training at a cost of about $200,000 per person. This enables them to obtain a United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Senior Reactor Operator License," says Fahnestock. "The ROI of careful selection becomes clear rather quickly."
"Seabrook used to select people for leadership positions based on experience and behavioral interviews alone. Interview scores would be placed on a grid to compare candidates." The competencies they sought were derived from a job analysis. The table below shows a sample of actual interview scores (names and some data have been changed to protect confidentiality):
Tom Morrow Sara Paul Steve Stone Louise Lane Pete Petersen
Overall Scores Based on Interviews (1 = low, 5 = high) 2.4 3.0 3.4 3.6 4.0
When Fahnestock recommended the addition of personality test results to the assessment grid, she chose the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), a validated instrument designed for the workplace.
"We added the test rankings to the grid on the factors that matched the employer's competencies. We were stunned at the information this added to the process," she says. "We were amazed at the degree to which the personality assessment added third party verification for some of the interview results and caused us to reevaluate others."
In the following table, Fahnestock shares the actual assessment grid. It has both the ideal and actual candidate scores on personality test factors that coincide with the core competencies targeted by her client. In addition, the end of the table lists the candidates' ratings on the three occupational scales relevant to the position:
Actual Individual Scores on Personality Factors Measured by the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI)
HPI Factors Ideal Scores for Position To Be Filled Tom Morrow Sara Paul Steve Stone Louise Lane Pete Petersen
Adjustment (80%) 98% 66% 94% 66% 78%
Ambition (85%) 4% 87% 100% 47% 87%
Sociability (50%) 19% 66% 85% 38% 52%
Interpersonal Sensitivity (84%) 83% 100% 83% 60% 83%
Prudence (77%) 50% 82% 98% 58% 75%
Inquisitiveness (53%) 62% 62% 95% 62% 76%
Learning Approach (45%) 79% 58% 100% 27% 69%
HPI Occupational Scales
Stress Resistance High High High High High
Reliability Average High High Average High
Managerial Potential Very Low High High Average High
When interview scores were viewed alongside test scores, Pete Petersen won clear confirmation as the top candidate. The next two candidates, Steve Stone and Louise Lane, had equal interview scores. Their standings changed, however, when test scores showed that Learning Approach and Ambition were issues for Louise Lane. These personality factors were both especially important for the job. Instead, test scores helped Sara Paul emerge with strong potential, though the interviews would not have predicted this.
The hiring team thus had two sources of input to their decision making, each source adding information that couldn't be obtained with either method alone.
Fahnestock finds the tests useful in another way. "Sometimes you get a feeling during an interview, but can't quite get at the issue. You may have heard the 'what' that bothers you, but you don't know the 'why.' Personality tests will give you a reason why." Conversely, she adds, tests can cause you to ask probing questions during the interview that you wouldn't have thought to ask.
Seabrook Station uses this approach for all management and supervisory candidates. The personality tests were part of an executive assessment of internal and external candidates conducted for the position of Station Director of the entire facility. The confidence they add has convinced this employer that personality testing needs to be a part of their total hiring process. They have broadened the application.
"The investment is well worthwhile," says Fahnestock, "because the cost of failure is so high."
If you're ready to sharpen your hiring practices, the competency connection is one well worth pursuing. Used fairly with a job analysis, you can now shed light on areas that formerly had to remain in the dark.
For more information, visit www.performanceprograms.com Visit "articles and resources."
The elements of the formula may sound familiar -- even obvious. All three have been around for a while. But evolution in the testing industry has created some new connections. Add a personality assessment to a behavioral interview and you can substantially raise your chances of identifying competencies that predict performance. According to some test publishers, the chances can be raised by 20%. Given the cost of hiring and training managerial talent, that 20% improvement can save your firm thousands -- even hundreds of thousands -- of dollars in hiring mistakes. You might say you could have your cake and eat it, too.
Christine Fahnestock is a consultant specializing in talent assessment for managerial and executive positions. "The combination of personality tests with competency-based behavioral interviews is invaluable," she says. "Without the personality assessment, it is too easy for a candidate to position themselves to look good in a behavioral interview alone."
Personality tests have come a long way since the early days, with a number of good ones written specifically for the workplace. They shed light on personal competencies, such as approachability, ambition, or interpersonal sensitivity, that translate to performance in the workplace. The testing industry has shown they can assess job-related personality factors without adverse impact.
Fahnestock's Glastonbury, Connecticut firm manages assessments for several large Northeast employers. She says the motivation for connecting competencies with personality test results is clear. "Quite simply, it saves employers a lot of money and time." According to Fahnestock, "coaches and consultants are catching on to this connection. It's an investment up front, but the ROI is so worthwhile."
Case study: personality tests in action
One example is Seabrook Station, a New Hampshire nuclear facility of Florida Power and Light. Since they were licensed to operate in 1990, Seabrook has enjoyed 13 years of safe and reliable operation producing power for one million homes and businesses. The people they select and promote are responsible for the safe operation of the facility.
A leadership talent pool was identified in their Operations Group. From this "feeder pool," they planned to staff a management team over time. "The people who are assessed as having potential to advance into leadership receive approximately 18 months of licensing training at a cost of about $200,000 per person. This enables them to obtain a United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Senior Reactor Operator License," says Fahnestock. "The ROI of careful selection becomes clear rather quickly."
"Seabrook used to select people for leadership positions based on experience and behavioral interviews alone. Interview scores would be placed on a grid to compare candidates." The competencies they sought were derived from a job analysis. The table below shows a sample of actual interview scores (names and some data have been changed to protect confidentiality):
Tom Morrow Sara Paul Steve Stone Louise Lane Pete Petersen
Overall Scores Based on Interviews (1 = low, 5 = high) 2.4 3.0 3.4 3.6 4.0
When Fahnestock recommended the addition of personality test results to the assessment grid, she chose the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), a validated instrument designed for the workplace.
"We added the test rankings to the grid on the factors that matched the employer's competencies. We were stunned at the information this added to the process," she says. "We were amazed at the degree to which the personality assessment added third party verification for some of the interview results and caused us to reevaluate others."
In the following table, Fahnestock shares the actual assessment grid. It has both the ideal and actual candidate scores on personality test factors that coincide with the core competencies targeted by her client. In addition, the end of the table lists the candidates' ratings on the three occupational scales relevant to the position:
Actual Individual Scores on Personality Factors Measured by the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI)
HPI Factors Ideal Scores for Position To Be Filled Tom Morrow Sara Paul Steve Stone Louise Lane Pete Petersen
Adjustment (80%) 98% 66% 94% 66% 78%
Ambition (85%) 4% 87% 100% 47% 87%
Sociability (50%) 19% 66% 85% 38% 52%
Interpersonal Sensitivity (84%) 83% 100% 83% 60% 83%
Prudence (77%) 50% 82% 98% 58% 75%
Inquisitiveness (53%) 62% 62% 95% 62% 76%
Learning Approach (45%) 79% 58% 100% 27% 69%
HPI Occupational Scales
Stress Resistance High High High High High
Reliability Average High High Average High
Managerial Potential Very Low High High Average High
When interview scores were viewed alongside test scores, Pete Petersen won clear confirmation as the top candidate. The next two candidates, Steve Stone and Louise Lane, had equal interview scores. Their standings changed, however, when test scores showed that Learning Approach and Ambition were issues for Louise Lane. These personality factors were both especially important for the job. Instead, test scores helped Sara Paul emerge with strong potential, though the interviews would not have predicted this.
The hiring team thus had two sources of input to their decision making, each source adding information that couldn't be obtained with either method alone.
Fahnestock finds the tests useful in another way. "Sometimes you get a feeling during an interview, but can't quite get at the issue. You may have heard the 'what' that bothers you, but you don't know the 'why.' Personality tests will give you a reason why." Conversely, she adds, tests can cause you to ask probing questions during the interview that you wouldn't have thought to ask.
Seabrook Station uses this approach for all management and supervisory candidates. The personality tests were part of an executive assessment of internal and external candidates conducted for the position of Station Director of the entire facility. The confidence they add has convinced this employer that personality testing needs to be a part of their total hiring process. They have broadened the application.
"The investment is well worthwhile," says Fahnestock, "because the cost of failure is so high."
If you're ready to sharpen your hiring practices, the competency connection is one well worth pursuing. Used fairly with a job analysis, you can now shed light on areas that formerly had to remain in the dark.
For more information, visit www.performanceprograms.com Visit "articles and resources."
Read more!
October 5, 2004
Job Candidate Personality Testing: What Can a Hiring Employer Expect?
If they are mathematically sound, legally defensible, and predictive of a person’s job performance—is it any surprise that personality tests are more and more a part of hiring? No one knows for sure how many employers use tests, but the number is growing, according to professionals in the field of psychological testing.
Pre-employment tests can cover several areas. Basic intelligence tests, skills tests, and multifaceted observations are all part of the suite. This article specifically discusses personality tests. These explore a person’s basic motivations, attitudes, and temperament.
If personality tests are in your hiring future, what can you reasonably expect? What shouldn’t you expect?
Select the Right Test
First, plan on learning something about testing. Tests are not all alike and there are many to choose from.
“The biggest misinformation we experience in the marketplace,” says Robert Hogan, Ph.D., a well-known test designer and psychometrician, “is that a test is a test is a test. There is very poor awareness of the differences in quality among tests.” Hogan is the author, together with Joyce Hogan, Ph.D., of four workplace personality tests. They run Hogan Assessment Systems in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
A quick look at the history of psychological testing provides a clue to the confusion. The only tests that you should consider for a hiring program are those that are mathematically reliable and valid. This is a rigorous process that can take a test designer a number of years and hundreds or thousands of measurements.
Yet this field is relatively unregulated, although is it also highly litigated. There are new tests coming into the market all the time. They may or may not have the research data that you should require. It is a case of “buyer beware.” Don’t be shy about requiring evidence of the research. A reputable testing company will have no problem producing it.
A second issue is that some tests are sold for the workplace but were designed for another purpose. Some of the oldest, best-known, and best-researched tests were developed to detect pathology in the general population. While they might be excellent predictors of tendencies towards violence or dishonesty, they are generally not predictors of a person’s “bright side”—the collection of visible personality characteristics that make normal people different from one another. The bright side also has to do with the ways in which personality predisposes a candidate to be a contributor.
Also, some personality tests have been designed with questions about a person’s religious beliefs and sexual practices, which run the risk of being viewed as discriminatory. You must be able to show that your use of testing is fair and does not adversely impact a protected group, in case an unhappy applicant challenges you. The surest method for meeting this requirement is a formal job analysis.
So, three questions you should ask before a test comes under serious consideration for hiring purposes are these:
1. Is it mathematically reliable and valid?
2. Was it designed specifically for use in the workplace?
3. Has it been fully tested by the test designer for possible adverse impact? In other words, does the test give the same results independent of one’s race, gender, ethnicity, or other background factor?
Make Tests Part of a Process
Tests are not a stand-alone event. The consensus of those we consulted is that tests have much potential for increasing the quality of hiring, assuming you make testing part of a well designed and well managed hiring process. And while you’re designing the hiring process, you’d best install a measurement system for your company’s employment experience as well.
David S. Miller is a principal with a consulting firm that has helped the management teams of utility companies. During the past five years, many had to reestablish themselves during deregulation and restructuring. His firm, Human Resources Strategies and Solutions, in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, has worked with numerous downsizing situations.
Consider the rigor of the hiring process they used. One utility had 145 candidates for 25 jobs available in engineering management. Miller and his team instituted a multifaceted process, of which testing was one part. First, they reviewed the candidates’ technical skills. Miller says of the initial cut, “Skills data narrowed it down to about 100. We needed to go farther. We were also recruiting from the outside, to increase the talent pool.”
So they required applicants to take an online personality test. “We needed to level the playing field,” says Miller. “Testing delivered that.”
Next, they used behavioral interviews based on the test results. Two-member teams conducted the interviews. One team member was always a highly experienced HR professional. “That was the tipping factor,” says Miller. “There is no substitute for that.”
Then they administered a critical thinking test to differentiate among candidates’ problem-solving capacities. By this stage, the most desirable candidates were becoming obvious and some executives were now competing with each other for those individuals. Therefore, no interviewing team was able to make a job offer without consulting with the rest of the group. “We tried to make decisions that were good for the whole, not just one of the parts,” says Miller. At this final stage, they also considered diversity issues—both of people’s backgrounds and their relative professional strengths.
He says that tests “knocked out the extremes,” meaning the people who were very clearly wrong for the jobs. He used both the Hogan Assessment Systems Personality Inventory and the Watson-Glaser test.
Measure the Results
Both Hogan and Miller mention that employers have to keep records of company employment experience—preferably before and after tests are introduced.
Assuming the test is well selected and correctly used, employers will be able to prove the value of testing to themselves. “If they (employers) keep records before and after they begin testing, they’ll see a decrease in negative business indicators—turnover, accidents, insubordination, drunkenness—and an increase in positive business indicators—lower turnover, fewer accidents, etc.,” says Bob Hogan.
Miller thinks measurements need to be developed as a part of the overall mission. “First, you’ve got to gain alignment around a vision,” he says. “Then develop key performance indicators as a part of that effort.”
Interviews and Resumes Still Matter
Can testing produce a clear thumbs-up/thumbs-down indicator? When the issue is basic honesty for a security guard or a retail worker, the answer is often yes. When the issue is which candidate to select among a similarly qualified pool of professionals, it is far from clear.
“We were interviewing a lot of engineers with MBAs,” recalls David Miller of the diligent management selection process he conducted for utilities. Testing, he says, “served a winnowing process. But it’s not necessarily going to help you make the final cut.” This problem is greater when the candidate pool is uniformly qualified. Says Miller, “When you boil people down to paper, they all begin to look alike.”
Some might say that the application of personality tests gets more complex in higher level hiring. Edward Hoffman, Ph.D., is the author of Psychological Testing at Work (McGraw-Hill, 2002). Hoffman is a psychologist based in Commack, New York. He thinks that pre-employment testing is most useful for entry-level positions. “For many kinds of entry-level positions, such as in sales, pre-employment personality tests are very useful in screening out potentially undesirable employees. Integrity testing, for example, has a very high success rate …. Personality tests in the hiring process that measure extroversion are quite useful, as are those that measure conscientiousness, anger-proneness, or low tolerance for stress.”
So how important are interviews and the resume? According to Hoffman, who has written extensively on psychological testing and has designed tests as well, “There is no single rule to apply as to how to weight various relevant factors in the hiring process. For certain types of jobs, standardized psychological tests, including personality tests, are probably more important than how the person comes across in the interview.” As pointed out earlier, these jobs are often entry-level. At higher levels, more experienced candidates are likely to be sought. Personality testing still has a role—but that role in the hiring process may be more subtle than a simple "pass" or "fail" rating.
He notes that the candidate’s relevant work experience is still the single most significant indicator of suitability for many positions.
So let’s say you want to use personality tests.
1. You’re prepared to select them carefully.
2. You’ve considered how to integrate them into your hiring process
3. You’re prepared to measure the outcome.
Many employers still have a big question: Can job applicants “fake” their personalities on a personality test? How foolproof are the tests?
For more information on the topic of faking, visit "Faking It" and "Can Personality Tests Be Fooled?"
Pre-employment tests can cover several areas. Basic intelligence tests, skills tests, and multifaceted observations are all part of the suite. This article specifically discusses personality tests. These explore a person’s basic motivations, attitudes, and temperament.
If personality tests are in your hiring future, what can you reasonably expect? What shouldn’t you expect?
Select the Right Test
First, plan on learning something about testing. Tests are not all alike and there are many to choose from.
“The biggest misinformation we experience in the marketplace,” says Robert Hogan, Ph.D., a well-known test designer and psychometrician, “is that a test is a test is a test. There is very poor awareness of the differences in quality among tests.” Hogan is the author, together with Joyce Hogan, Ph.D., of four workplace personality tests. They run Hogan Assessment Systems in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
A quick look at the history of psychological testing provides a clue to the confusion. The only tests that you should consider for a hiring program are those that are mathematically reliable and valid. This is a rigorous process that can take a test designer a number of years and hundreds or thousands of measurements.
Yet this field is relatively unregulated, although is it also highly litigated. There are new tests coming into the market all the time. They may or may not have the research data that you should require. It is a case of “buyer beware.” Don’t be shy about requiring evidence of the research. A reputable testing company will have no problem producing it.
A second issue is that some tests are sold for the workplace but were designed for another purpose. Some of the oldest, best-known, and best-researched tests were developed to detect pathology in the general population. While they might be excellent predictors of tendencies towards violence or dishonesty, they are generally not predictors of a person’s “bright side”—the collection of visible personality characteristics that make normal people different from one another. The bright side also has to do with the ways in which personality predisposes a candidate to be a contributor.
Also, some personality tests have been designed with questions about a person’s religious beliefs and sexual practices, which run the risk of being viewed as discriminatory. You must be able to show that your use of testing is fair and does not adversely impact a protected group, in case an unhappy applicant challenges you. The surest method for meeting this requirement is a formal job analysis.
So, three questions you should ask before a test comes under serious consideration for hiring purposes are these:
1. Is it mathematically reliable and valid?
2. Was it designed specifically for use in the workplace?
3. Has it been fully tested by the test designer for possible adverse impact? In other words, does the test give the same results independent of one’s race, gender, ethnicity, or other background factor?
Make Tests Part of a Process
Tests are not a stand-alone event. The consensus of those we consulted is that tests have much potential for increasing the quality of hiring, assuming you make testing part of a well designed and well managed hiring process. And while you’re designing the hiring process, you’d best install a measurement system for your company’s employment experience as well.
David S. Miller is a principal with a consulting firm that has helped the management teams of utility companies. During the past five years, many had to reestablish themselves during deregulation and restructuring. His firm, Human Resources Strategies and Solutions, in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, has worked with numerous downsizing situations.
Consider the rigor of the hiring process they used. One utility had 145 candidates for 25 jobs available in engineering management. Miller and his team instituted a multifaceted process, of which testing was one part. First, they reviewed the candidates’ technical skills. Miller says of the initial cut, “Skills data narrowed it down to about 100. We needed to go farther. We were also recruiting from the outside, to increase the talent pool.”
So they required applicants to take an online personality test. “We needed to level the playing field,” says Miller. “Testing delivered that.”
Next, they used behavioral interviews based on the test results. Two-member teams conducted the interviews. One team member was always a highly experienced HR professional. “That was the tipping factor,” says Miller. “There is no substitute for that.”
Then they administered a critical thinking test to differentiate among candidates’ problem-solving capacities. By this stage, the most desirable candidates were becoming obvious and some executives were now competing with each other for those individuals. Therefore, no interviewing team was able to make a job offer without consulting with the rest of the group. “We tried to make decisions that were good for the whole, not just one of the parts,” says Miller. At this final stage, they also considered diversity issues—both of people’s backgrounds and their relative professional strengths.
He says that tests “knocked out the extremes,” meaning the people who were very clearly wrong for the jobs. He used both the Hogan Assessment Systems Personality Inventory and the Watson-Glaser test.
Measure the Results
Both Hogan and Miller mention that employers have to keep records of company employment experience—preferably before and after tests are introduced.
Assuming the test is well selected and correctly used, employers will be able to prove the value of testing to themselves. “If they (employers) keep records before and after they begin testing, they’ll see a decrease in negative business indicators—turnover, accidents, insubordination, drunkenness—and an increase in positive business indicators—lower turnover, fewer accidents, etc.,” says Bob Hogan.
Miller thinks measurements need to be developed as a part of the overall mission. “First, you’ve got to gain alignment around a vision,” he says. “Then develop key performance indicators as a part of that effort.”
Interviews and Resumes Still Matter
Can testing produce a clear thumbs-up/thumbs-down indicator? When the issue is basic honesty for a security guard or a retail worker, the answer is often yes. When the issue is which candidate to select among a similarly qualified pool of professionals, it is far from clear.
“We were interviewing a lot of engineers with MBAs,” recalls David Miller of the diligent management selection process he conducted for utilities. Testing, he says, “served a winnowing process. But it’s not necessarily going to help you make the final cut.” This problem is greater when the candidate pool is uniformly qualified. Says Miller, “When you boil people down to paper, they all begin to look alike.”
Some might say that the application of personality tests gets more complex in higher level hiring. Edward Hoffman, Ph.D., is the author of Psychological Testing at Work (McGraw-Hill, 2002). Hoffman is a psychologist based in Commack, New York. He thinks that pre-employment testing is most useful for entry-level positions. “For many kinds of entry-level positions, such as in sales, pre-employment personality tests are very useful in screening out potentially undesirable employees. Integrity testing, for example, has a very high success rate …. Personality tests in the hiring process that measure extroversion are quite useful, as are those that measure conscientiousness, anger-proneness, or low tolerance for stress.”
So how important are interviews and the resume? According to Hoffman, who has written extensively on psychological testing and has designed tests as well, “There is no single rule to apply as to how to weight various relevant factors in the hiring process. For certain types of jobs, standardized psychological tests, including personality tests, are probably more important than how the person comes across in the interview.” As pointed out earlier, these jobs are often entry-level. At higher levels, more experienced candidates are likely to be sought. Personality testing still has a role—but that role in the hiring process may be more subtle than a simple "pass" or "fail" rating.
He notes that the candidate’s relevant work experience is still the single most significant indicator of suitability for many positions.
So let’s say you want to use personality tests.
1. You’re prepared to select them carefully.
2. You’ve considered how to integrate them into your hiring process
3. You’re prepared to measure the outcome.
Many employers still have a big question: Can job applicants “fake” their personalities on a personality test? How foolproof are the tests?
For more information on the topic of faking, visit "Faking It" and "Can Personality Tests Be Fooled?"
Read more!
October 4, 2004
Personality Tests, 360 Feedback Help Executives Avoid Career Derailment
No amount of training can “change” our personalities. Why, then, are personality tests and other assessments a part of many executive developmental programs these days?
The answer may lie in the power of self-awareness—a commodity that some would-be fast trackers have in short supply, according to our sources. “At some point in their professional lives, the more successful people have already rationalized why people react to them they way they do,” says Gary D’Lamater, Ph.D., a 20-year veteran of executive education and coaching based in Corrales, New Mexico. “I provide them feedback, but they’ll say, ‘That’s interesting stuff, but I’ve been successful in spite of it.’”
That's the fallacy. What they “got by” with in the past may prove to be their undoing in the next position. “Much of my work is done with individuals who are stuck and can’t move or who have been moved up too quickly and are floundering,” says D’Lamater. These are people whose careers are at risk of derailment.
Frank Shipper, Ph.D., is Professor of Management in the Franklin P. Perdue School of Business at Salisbury State University in Salisbury, Maryland. He has studied career derailment, working primarily with validated 360-degree feedback instruments. “Research has shown that poor self-awareness can be related to career derailment, particularly among executives,” he says. “Our studies suggest that assisting managers to see themselves as others see them on specific skills could either prevent derailment or aid recovery. The fatal flaw for would-be fast-trackers, based on our research, is a lack of self-awareness.”
While there is no straight line between personality tests and executive excellence, Shipper’s work makes a very convincing case for providing upwardly-mobile professionals with validated information that shows them how others may be perceiving their attitudes, words, and most importantly, behaviors.
“It’s another lens on the assessment camera,” says Christine Fahnestock, whose 30 years of assessment work has made her a firm believer in the value of personality testing. Fahnestock is president of Fahnestock & Associates in Glastonbury, Connecticut.
Same Skills, Traits May Not Fly at Higher Levels
Fahnestock works frequently with high-potential individuals who are being considered for higher-level positions. “I explain to people that awareness is the first step. It’s even more important for people who are upwardly mobile. In terms of personality tests, they are often very high on adjustment, ambition, and confidence. The flip side is they don’t listen much to input about themselves. They can be full of themselves about what they’re doing right.”
She gives the example of a young female executive who is currently being considered for high-level management. “Until now, she’s been golden. She is so bright and so fast to provide insights. She’s also extremely competitive and has been seen as a star up to now.”
Fahnestock’s challenge is to help her see that some of the personality traits that brought her this far may be her undoing at the next level. “If she goes to the next level, it will be a liability if she doesn’t learn to build strategic relationships. [At the next level] it will be all about sharing in the success of moving this company ahead—not about standing out. She won’t be able to play that card anymore.”
Fahnestock uses a “triangulated” assessment in much of her work, combining behavioral simulations, cognitive testing, and personality tests. “I’ve been amazed at how well the personality tests reinforce what we see behaviorally and cognitively,” she says. “But the real grabber is that the candidates are amazed at how accurate it is. It reinforces their belief in the fairness of the selection and development processes.”
Using 360-Degree Feedback to Improve Self-awareness
D’Lamater thinks that personality tests may have their greatest value for the executive coach. “Personality tests help me understand the person’s motivation,” he says. But to help his clients see themselves as others see them, D’Lamater often uses 360-degree feedback instruments. These surveys are usually based on strictly behavioral observations from bosses, peers, direct reports, and clients, plus a self-assessment on the same questionnaire. They address issues such as a person’s skill in communications, planning, praising subordinates, and other areas for which specific training can be provided.
“I find people very receptive to 360 feedback,” says D’Lamater. “Personality tests show me, as the coach, whether the individual has the motivation and energy to get through the difficult process of changing their behaviors. It helps me find an effective approach to the individual.”
Both D’Lamater and Fahnestock noted that personality tests and 360 degree feedback can help someone quickly come to grips with their developmental needs. “If a candidate is motivated to succeed, the combined feedback can arm him or her with a level of self-awareness that would be difficult to achieve in other ways,” says Fahnestock. “They get past the idea that they need to ‘give up’ some behavior or that their personalities are flawed.”
“It gives my clients a fuller and more predictive assessment,” Fahenstock adds. “It also allows them to back off from some of the more time intensive and expensive approaches to assessment.”
The message from these two coaches is clear: While personality tests cannot change personalities, they can help motivated individuals change behaviors that impede their career progress. That’s the power of self-awareness in a management career.
For more information, visit www.performanceprograms.com
The answer may lie in the power of self-awareness—a commodity that some would-be fast trackers have in short supply, according to our sources. “At some point in their professional lives, the more successful people have already rationalized why people react to them they way they do,” says Gary D’Lamater, Ph.D., a 20-year veteran of executive education and coaching based in Corrales, New Mexico. “I provide them feedback, but they’ll say, ‘That’s interesting stuff, but I’ve been successful in spite of it.’”
That's the fallacy. What they “got by” with in the past may prove to be their undoing in the next position. “Much of my work is done with individuals who are stuck and can’t move or who have been moved up too quickly and are floundering,” says D’Lamater. These are people whose careers are at risk of derailment.
Frank Shipper, Ph.D., is Professor of Management in the Franklin P. Perdue School of Business at Salisbury State University in Salisbury, Maryland. He has studied career derailment, working primarily with validated 360-degree feedback instruments. “Research has shown that poor self-awareness can be related to career derailment, particularly among executives,” he says. “Our studies suggest that assisting managers to see themselves as others see them on specific skills could either prevent derailment or aid recovery. The fatal flaw for would-be fast-trackers, based on our research, is a lack of self-awareness.”
While there is no straight line between personality tests and executive excellence, Shipper’s work makes a very convincing case for providing upwardly-mobile professionals with validated information that shows them how others may be perceiving their attitudes, words, and most importantly, behaviors.
“It’s another lens on the assessment camera,” says Christine Fahnestock, whose 30 years of assessment work has made her a firm believer in the value of personality testing. Fahnestock is president of Fahnestock & Associates in Glastonbury, Connecticut.
Same Skills, Traits May Not Fly at Higher Levels
Fahnestock works frequently with high-potential individuals who are being considered for higher-level positions. “I explain to people that awareness is the first step. It’s even more important for people who are upwardly mobile. In terms of personality tests, they are often very high on adjustment, ambition, and confidence. The flip side is they don’t listen much to input about themselves. They can be full of themselves about what they’re doing right.”
She gives the example of a young female executive who is currently being considered for high-level management. “Until now, she’s been golden. She is so bright and so fast to provide insights. She’s also extremely competitive and has been seen as a star up to now.”
Fahnestock’s challenge is to help her see that some of the personality traits that brought her this far may be her undoing at the next level. “If she goes to the next level, it will be a liability if she doesn’t learn to build strategic relationships. [At the next level] it will be all about sharing in the success of moving this company ahead—not about standing out. She won’t be able to play that card anymore.”
Fahnestock uses a “triangulated” assessment in much of her work, combining behavioral simulations, cognitive testing, and personality tests. “I’ve been amazed at how well the personality tests reinforce what we see behaviorally and cognitively,” she says. “But the real grabber is that the candidates are amazed at how accurate it is. It reinforces their belief in the fairness of the selection and development processes.”
Using 360-Degree Feedback to Improve Self-awareness
D’Lamater thinks that personality tests may have their greatest value for the executive coach. “Personality tests help me understand the person’s motivation,” he says. But to help his clients see themselves as others see them, D’Lamater often uses 360-degree feedback instruments. These surveys are usually based on strictly behavioral observations from bosses, peers, direct reports, and clients, plus a self-assessment on the same questionnaire. They address issues such as a person’s skill in communications, planning, praising subordinates, and other areas for which specific training can be provided.
“I find people very receptive to 360 feedback,” says D’Lamater. “Personality tests show me, as the coach, whether the individual has the motivation and energy to get through the difficult process of changing their behaviors. It helps me find an effective approach to the individual.”
Both D’Lamater and Fahnestock noted that personality tests and 360 degree feedback can help someone quickly come to grips with their developmental needs. “If a candidate is motivated to succeed, the combined feedback can arm him or her with a level of self-awareness that would be difficult to achieve in other ways,” says Fahnestock. “They get past the idea that they need to ‘give up’ some behavior or that their personalities are flawed.”
“It gives my clients a fuller and more predictive assessment,” Fahenstock adds. “It also allows them to back off from some of the more time intensive and expensive approaches to assessment.”
The message from these two coaches is clear: While personality tests cannot change personalities, they can help motivated individuals change behaviors that impede their career progress. That’s the power of self-awareness in a management career.
For more information, visit www.performanceprograms.com
Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)