Critically assess the reliability of the various methods that could be used to gauge a candidate's personality during the recruitment process.
Behavioural Science (BS 1525) Essay
Business Studies with Japanese
Lecturer: Mr H. Barton
Words: 1374
Critically assess the reliability of the various methods that could be used to gauge a candidate's personality during the recruitment process.
When screening potential employees it has become commonplace for companies and other organisations to use various, and in some cases quite advanced, methods of analysing applicant's personalities'. Many of these methods are however quite controversial and in some cases their reliability, in other words their ability to return consistent results when carried out a number of times on the same person (repeat reliability), has been questioned. Which one of the plethora of research methods including interviews, questionnaires, observation, case studies, action research and laboratory and field experiments is used, depends on which situation the testing is carried out in, and what kind of results are needed. What is however essential, is that the chosen technique is suitable to the problem in hand.
Personality tests can be divided into two distinct categories, nomothetic and idiographic. Both types attempt to assess attitudinal, interpersonal, emotional and motivational characteristics. Nomothetic tests, which aim to scientifically identify, compare, predict and measure personality, use self-report personality inventories. This type of test is used to handle large groups and would therefore be suitable to organisations during the first steps of selection. The concept behind these tests states that environmental and social factors are seen as being negligible; instead a person's personality is viewed as being genetically based which would render it less susceptible to change.
Various psychologists have proposed a number of different models to gauge a person's personality. These vary primarily in the number of factors that are taken into account. Popular among tests that are designed along the nomothetic approach are Cattel's sixteen personality factor (16 PF) test, Eycenck's personality inventory (EPI), Goldberg's five factor model and the Myers-Briggs Type indicator (MBTI).
Catell (1965) set out sixteen factors that should be used when analysing personality. He decided on these factors, which are said to represent the source traits, by using statistical methods and observational data. So called surface traits, which are more easily observed, are determined by the source traits, which form the basis of any person's behaviour. The test itself consists of self-report statements on various personality traits, broken down into contrasting pairs such as suspicious and trusting.
Eycenck's EPI (1965) questionnaire is based around ninety yes/no questions that related degrees of introversion and emotional stability. The way ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Catell (1965) set out sixteen factors that should be used when analysing personality. He decided on these factors, which are said to represent the source traits, by using statistical methods and observational data. So called surface traits, which are more easily observed, are determined by the source traits, which form the basis of any person's behaviour. The test itself consists of self-report statements on various personality traits, broken down into contrasting pairs such as suspicious and trusting.
Eycenck's EPI (1965) questionnaire is based around ninety yes/no questions that related degrees of introversion and emotional stability. The way in which the questionnaire was designed made it possible to determine whether or not subjects were answering questions untruthfully in order to create a more desirable impression of their personality.
"The Big Five" model proposed by Goldberg (1994) centres on intellect, emotional stability, surgency, agreeableness and conscientiousness. As well as self-evaluation, observer's views are incorporated into the overall assessment. The use of observer's views may however lead to the reliability of these tests being questioned. Especially when examining borderline behavioural traits observers may report different results. The difference between appearing confident or arrogant is not always clear and may be hard to distinguish. As confidence is a trait that is demanded, especially in managerial positions, falsely attributing arrogance to a potential employee might deny the organisation of exactly the type of person it wishes to employ.
The Myers-Briggs Type indicator, based on Jung's personality topology, measures personality on four dimensions: introversion and extroversion, thinking and feeling, intuition and sensation, and a final dimension which serves to assess a person's type, the three extremes being the perceiving type, the judging type or the thinking or feeling type. The MTBF has become the most widely used of personality tests in the personnel selection process.
Idiographic tests such as the Rorschach ink blot test, the repertory grid and semantic differential technique are based on a phenomenological approach which puts emphasis on subjective perceptions.
Psychometric personality tests are useful in that they are easy to administer and the data gained from them can be quickly and effectively quantified and also accessed easily at a later date.
Although these tests are used widely during personnel selection, there are a number of problems surrounding personality testing. The most common of these is faking, i.e. not truthfully answering the questions and instead second guessing which answers are desirable, in order to better his chances of getting the job. Research done by Poppleton (1975) showed that applicants exhibited precisely this behaviour and lied when filling out Cattell's 16 PF test. Further research seems to prove that when tests are taken purely for the purpose of self-evaluation and not as part of the recruitment process, subjects generally answer questions truthfully (Tiffin and McCormick, 1969). Methods such as forced-choice techniques or "lie scales" have been devised to combat cheating in tests. These involve posing questions in such a manner so that someone trying to falsely create a more positive picture of his personality could be easily identified.
As well as deliberate faking, there are other cases where questions may be inadvertently answered incorrectly. People may feel they need to answer questions even if they are not in a proper position to do so, if they lack the necessary skills or education for example. Questions can of course always be misread, sometime resulting in contradictory results. Someone might also not be fully able to answer the questions because they lack the self-awareness to adequately assess their feelings. Also, as many of the tests are standardised and freely available people are able to practice answering them or learn how to answer the questions so as to portray their personality as being a certain type, namely that which they thing the organisation is looking for. There is of course always the case that a person could deliberately try and sabotage the research process by giving random responses.
The way in which the questions are posed or the test is designed may lead people to answer in a certain way or may at least lead to an unfair bias of certain traits. Cultural differences may also be relevant, as personality tests devised for subjects in certain countries or regions cannot automatically be transferred to other areas. Most of the tests used in the UK were originally used in America, which does not however make them automatically applicable in Britain.
As well as personality tests, interviews are also a widely used tool in personnel selection. The way in which an interview is conducted can range from a completely free, formless conversation over semi-structured types to fully structured variants with standardised questions and processes. However interviews suffer from a relatively low repeat reliability, which stems from the fact that interviews rely solely on the opinion of observers and cannot be compared with the easily replicated scientific approach of written personality tests. Reasons that lower the reliability of interviews are inappropriate and irrelevant questions, insufficient interpretation of the information that is gained, a low level of agreement of the assessors, experiences from previous interviews that may influence the interviewer, the overvaluation of anything negative, emotional influences when reaching a verdict and the fact that during many interviews the interviewer himself may talk for a disproportionate amount of time. Mischell (1968) suggested that interviews may be misleading, in that people change their behaviour depending on the situation they are in. Mischell stated that it is less personality traits, but instead to a greater extent the situation that defines how a person will behave. This would contradict the theory that personality is consistent, and mean that one cannot accurately predict someone's behaviour by analysing their personality.
Further methods of analysing personality such as graphology play only a minor role as they are seen by many as having very little or no scientific basis.
Personnel selection is on of the most difficult parts of management. As well as a potential applicants CV and track record, any further input is likely to improve the selection process. Organisations must however be aware of the disadvantages and shortcomings of the various methods of personality testing. Based on the findings of research done to date, placing to greater emphasis on psychometric testing would not be advisable as these methods are to prone to cheating. In the light of the increasing competition among job applicants, relying on their truthfulness is probably unwise. Instead selectors should endeavour to collect information from as many sources as possible as this increases the likelihood of creating a balanced and accurate assessment of a person's suitability for a job.
Bibliography
Cattell, R.B (1965). The scientific analysis of personality. Harmondsworth, OK: Penguin.
Eysenck, H.J (1965). Fact and fiction in psychology. Harmdondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Goldberg, L.R. & Rosolack, T.K. (1994). The Big Five factor structure as an integrative framework: An empirical comparison with Eysenck's P-E-N model. In C.F. Halverson, G.A. Kohnstamm, & R.P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
McKenna, E. (2000). Business psychology & organisational behaviour (3rd Ed.). Hove: Psychology Press.
Mischell, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.
Poppleton, S.E. (1975). Biographical and personality characteristics associated with success in life insurance salesmen. Unpublished MPhil thesis, Birkbeck college, University of London.
Tiffin, J. & McCormick, E.J. (1969). Industrial psychology (3rd ed.). London: George Allen & Unwin.
David Talbott
990205159