from the data, a model is used known as the “Big Five”. The main aspects of
the model include:
- Openness
- Conscientiousness
- Extroversion
- Agreeableness
-
Neuroticism.
The aim of my essay is to discuss in great depth about the different methods
of personnel selection used and how effective and efficient they can be on
influencing an employer ‘s decision. I also intend to examine different job
categories and how an employer would select the best method of personality
selection to suit that career.
I will achieve the aim through an analysis of the four most widely used
methods, and how traits can be established through areas of personality
assessment. I will also achieve this by relating facts from various job
descriptions and compare the advantage and disadvantages of each method.
A Greater Understanding of Interviews
Within the method of an interview an individual’s personality can be
characterised very directly and produce a more ‘get to know you’ basis.
Employers have been using these methods for many years and have been
proven to be quite effective in choosing a suitable employee. Although in
many circumstances this is not the only method used, it can be often used in
conjunction with another personality test. When conducting an interview, the
conductor is not just an observer. They play a positive role, which should
push them to ask questions that they would have experienced through their
role and would wish upon the future employee.
In the work of Harry Stack Sullivan, it is described that intonations can
describe aspects of personality. With this, it is shown that rate of speech and
other expressive behaviour are factors in finding a persons inner-structure.
Through this knowledge it can be related back toward personnel interviews,
as it follows the same structure and pushes to find attitudinal aspects of the
interviewee. As this method takes a more direct approach, it can give the
interviewer a better insight into the dominant motives and aspirations
underlying in their personality.
Due to interviews being constantly used, they have evolved into one of the
most efficient means to capturing an individual’s inner character. Due to this
evolution, the aspect of a interview can be split into two areas. The most
commonly used for personnel selection is an Unstructured interview. In
this process the interviewer gives the individual a chance to express their
ideas and portray a sense of their personality by using their own means. A
Structured interview on the other hand is more focused on a procedural
diagnosis, it follows a specific quota and is scaled to give a simpler overall
outlook on a person’s personality.
The use of interviews can grasp a first hand look at a person’s individualism
and pin points their most dominant traits to fit the desired job description.
This method ensures that certain questions can be asked to achieve the
desired description, in which they need to fulfil that certain role. This method
is also great for rating people in the “Big Five”, as it explores a persons
identity in depth. An employer can base their one-on-one questions to suit
this model, therefore it will ensure results on paper and gain a first hand
insight to on an individuals personality. Although the interview seems to be
very effective, it can also be shown to be very ineffective. The term “making
a good impression” is a continually conveyed aspect of the method. Whether
it being the way they act or their professional appearance, it gives the
interviewer an overall impression from the start and will place a negative or
positive imprint for rest of the interview. Personality is not always a factor
in an interview.
A Greater Understanding of Observation
Observation is not as widely used as the other personality assessments,
but can play an essential role if used in conjunction with other methods. It
involves observing an individual’s behaviour in a certain environment to gain
an insight on their personality. The best means to approach observation in an
interview is to observe that person in a direct approach. Although, this
process can be seen as very time consuming and an interviewer cannot watch
the person all day. A means within this method is Analogue Behavioural
Observation, which in fact sets up a life like situation that will relate to the
job.
The Analogue Behavioural Observation test gives a good reference into a
persons behaviours and the personality they display throughout the
exercise. This exercise can be considered to be more effective and accurate
when there are two interviewers. The data collected from observation can be
better understood and expanded if it is used with another source such as
interviews. As observation on its own doesn’t perceive a person’s hidden
characteristics of personality, only those exerted in the observation, which
cannot portray all of a person’s traits.
Observations for personnel selection is probably not the most effective and
efficient means out of the four and doesn’t relate strongly to defining traits
within the “Big Five”. The “Big Five” has many traits to explore which in
turn would exonerate the efforts of an observation test. Therefore I see this
test as one that would prove to have a totality of inefficiency within its
structure and somewhat useless towards personnel selection.
A Greater Understanding of Objective Tests
The use of objective tests in recent times has made them become one
of the most widely used, which has forged them into very efficient and
effective methods for personnel selection. The format involves either a true
or false fixture, or multiple-choice quizzes that describe certain behaviours
and feelings of a subject’s inner working. It promotes a limited response
range and ensures an answer in all aspects of the “Big Five”. These tests
are ideal for assessing traits of an individual and for assessing distinctive
areas of a person’s every day situations.
In relation to personnel selection, the demand for such tests has become quite
big in many businesses and has proved to be a quite an effective tool in
selecting the best personality for the job. The inventories are also very good
as they limit the responses of an individual so they can correlate with the
selected traits for the position. Because of the limited response questions it
promotes its own downfalls. The test runs on an honesty basis, which cannot
guarantee true answers. In 1920 Woodworth created a data sheet which
required prospect military personnel to tick yes or no answers on specific
questions. One question that was used, asked if they wet the bed, obviously
reasons such as the embarrassment of the topic showed that the honesty
factor was thrown out the window. This showing that even the most
commonly used method can in fact have a serious downfall.
In 1943 a new test had arose, which had a main focus on removing
Woodworth’s problem areas. The MMPI or the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory followed a different structure that allowed personnel to
choose between three responses, True, False or cannot say. This seemed to
be the test that grasped the traits of personality most efficiently, until varying
results from several different ethical backgrounds proved to be very
different. The test was culturally biased. Because this was the case in 1989,
a revision of the test promoted a broader spectrum of questions that would
compensate for different backgrounds.
In relation to Objective Tests, they seem to be a good indicator for judging
traits to base a person’s personality. If this were used in personnel selection
the individual taking the test would have a minimal chance of succeeding
through cheating, as there is a validity scale designed to detect such
behaviour. Due to the fact that there are 567 questions, you would be sure to
get random responses with no formed correlation. I think to gain the
maximum results for finding the bulk of an individuals persona, you would
have to involve another test (eg Interview, Observation or a Projective test)
to back up the information from the objective test.
A Greater Understanding of Projective Tests
Projective tests can be seen as a reflection of the unconscious reacting
to an equivocal stimuli, therefore creating a response of their feelings and
needs. If used correctly these tests can look deeply into personality traits as
it lets the subject explore their own ideas and then expand on them. The test
is seen as very indirect and pushes the individual to expand further, this
means that there will be no clear-cut response, therefore promoting diversity
of answers. Due to the more complex structure compared to interviews or
observations, some professionals have seen the test as inconclusive as it is
based around assumption. This is also a test that should be used in
conjunction with another test, as it needs to relate its findings to another
source.
The projective test is split into two differently structured ambiguous picture
showings, one known as the Rorschach Inkblot Test and the other the TAT
(Thematic Apperception Test). These tests are predominantly used for
clinical use and subject to much criticism if used for personnel selection. In
1921 Hermann Rorschach invented the Rorschach Inkblot test that comprised
a series of ten cards that entails a blot of ink on paper. The cards are shown
to an individual and then asked to examine the card so they can give a
possible explanation of what they think the blot represents. This pushes out
many symbolic possibilities, which can result in the finding of particular
traits. This style of personality assessment pushed Henry Murray in 1938,
to come up with his own projective test known as the TAT. This test also
consists of equivocal stimuli and also promotes the individual to give an in
depth analysis of the picture. The pictures are designed more for determining
traits, as the pictures show people in unexplained circumstances therefore
pushing the individual to make up their own scenario.
If choosing from the two for determining the best test for personnel
assessment, the TAT would be the best as it gives a more realistic feel and
would grant less leeway for lying about answers. This test also can cover a
majority of the “Big Five”, but would need the extra influence from another
test to gain the best personality perspective. The test would still lack the one
on one with an employer, as a highly trained psychologist should conduct the
test.
Conclusion
Due to personality’s diversity, it is hard to determine an individual
personality just through a test. The concepts of all the tests draw their own
traits and conclusions, but non-of the tests solely draw all traits effectively
and efficiently.
The positive aspect of all the tests show that direct and indirect means of
assessment can draw aspects of a person’s inner-self . The need for such test
are vital for a business as right selection of an employee based on personality
can reveal a person abilities and interests, and open the door for interpersonal
traits that are needed for certain job areas.
Overall I see it as necessary to not use just one test as it will not uncover all
underlying aspects of a person’s personality. The use of an interview and an
objective test would create the best possible chance to discover the full basis
of an individuals traits.
Bibliography
Burger, Jerry, Personality (6th Ed, Wadsworth/Thompson Learning, Belmont USA, 2002)
Saccuzzo, Denis P, Psychology: From Research to Applications (Allyn & Bacon Inc, Newton USA, 1987)
Matlin, Margaret W, Psychology (3rd Ed, Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Fortworth USA, 1999)
Matlin, Margaret W, Psychology (2nd Ed, Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Fortworth USA, 1992)
Huffman, Karen, Psychology in Action (7th Ed, John Wiley & sons Inc, Hoboken USA, 2004)
Myers, David G, Psychology (2nd Ed, Worth Publishers Inc, New York USA, 1989)
Aitken, LR, Personality Assessment Methods and Practices (3rd Ed, Department of Psychology, Pepperdine University, California, 1998)
Kimble, Garmezy and Zigler, principles of Psychology (6th Ed, Wadsworth, Belmont, 2000)
Hall, Lindzey and Campbell, Theories of Personality (4th Ed, John Wiley & Sons Inc, Canada, 1998)
Richards, Graham, Putting Psychology In Its Place (2nd Ed, Taylor & Francis Group, New York 2002)
Rathus, Spencer A, Essentials Of Psychology (5th Ed, Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Florida, 1985)
Westen, Drew, Psychology: Brain, Behavior, and Culture (3rd Ed, John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York, 2002)
Huffman, Karen, Psychology in Action (7th Ed, John Wiley & sons Inc, Hoboken USA, 2004) 444
Hall, Lindzey and Campbell, Theories of Personality (4th Ed, John Wiley & Sons Inc, Canada, 1998) 167
Myers, David G, Psychology (2nd Ed, Worth Publishers Inc, New York USA, 1989) 421
Saccuzzo, Denis P, Psychology: From Research to Applications (Allyn & Bacon Inc, Newton USA, 1987) 448-449
Burger, Jerry, Personality (6th Ed, Wadsworth/Thompson Learning, Belmont USA, 2002) 400
Aitken, LR, Personality Assessment Methods and Practices (3rd Ed, Department of Psychology, Pepperdine University, California, 1998) 407
Matlin, Margaret W, Psychology (3rd Ed, Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Fortworth USA, 1999) 437
Saccuzzo, Above n11, 446 & Huffman, Above n1, 446
Hall, Lindzey and Campbell, Above n3, 291-292
Succuzzo, Above n11, 450 & Burger, Above n12, 63 & Myers, Above n10, 416