Personality testing in the workplace
May 25, 2022 9:24 AM
Have you ever had to take (or administer) a mandatory personality test at work? (Not during the hiring process—the person already has the job.) I am looking for personal experiences or written articles about mandatory personality testing on current employees.
Have you ever had to take a mandatory personality test at your job? (Not during the hiring process—you already had the job.) If so:
If you’re a manager or HR person who had to administer the tests or convince the employees to take it, I’d like to hear from you as well:
Have you ever had to take a mandatory personality test at your job? (Not during the hiring process—you already had the job.) If so:
- What kind of test was it?
- What concerns, if any, did you have about how the info would be used?
- What did your employer end up doing with the results?
If you’re a manager or HR person who had to administer the tests or convince the employees to take it, I’d like to hear from you as well:
- What was the stated rationale for the test?
- What were you (or upper management) hoping to get out of it?
- How did you (or the organization) use the info afterwards?
I took the DISC as part of a management training at my company. The experience was positive in my case because the assessment was administered by an external team from my direct management, and was in a big cohort of other people getting trained as first time managers (about 100 people). We did group exercises that were geared toward helping everyone understand the working styles of each "type" on a macro level, and we were in large groups by type so no one felt singled out or on the spot. I never worried about how the results would be used because I was the only one who received my results (they were not shared with my manager), the context (a big, separate from my existing job training) and how the results were framed - it was very much geared toward understanding the strengths and challenges of each type so you can more effectively work together, not nitpicking at you personally or pushing anyone to inhabit more of a certain type vs another.
posted by amycup at 9:44 AM on May 25, 2022
posted by amycup at 9:44 AM on May 25, 2022
I worked in a small company that made us all take one of those Meyers-Briggs things; it was distributed as more of a cheeseball "here's something we can talk about as a bonding thing during the upcoming staff meeting". The biggest concern I had was how that information would be used; however, a day after announcing the test, the HR department sent out an additional email that stated that we could opt out of sharing that info with anyone except for HR, and HR had already said that they would not include identifying details in their reports to the executive staff (i.e., all their reports would say was that "we have 5 INPF's" and not "EC is one of 5 INPF's" or whatever).
The company was also small enough that I was on chummy relations with the HR team, and could informally ask them "what the hell" and they could tell me that "yeah, the CEO just got all excited about this and wanted us to do it, we think it's dumb too".
I think the owner of the company talked about his score for about 20 minutes at some staff meeting, and then we broke for lunch and everyone forgot about it later.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:48 AM on May 25, 2022
The company was also small enough that I was on chummy relations with the HR team, and could informally ask them "what the hell" and they could tell me that "yeah, the CEO just got all excited about this and wanted us to do it, we think it's dumb too".
I think the owner of the company talked about his score for about 20 minutes at some staff meeting, and then we broke for lunch and everyone forgot about it later.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:48 AM on May 25, 2022
There are basically two scenarios in which testing of current employees might be done. First, as noted by amycup, it might be done as part of a training or teambuilding exercise. In those situations, there are really no limits to which test(s) might be used: common ones are things like DISC and MBTI, which help people understand and appreciate differences in how people act/react/interact. Generally, the results are retained by the test-taker and, while there may be strong encouragement (or even a demand) that people share and discuss their results, the value is in what changes they effect and no one (except perhaps the third-party trainer administering the tests) keeps the results.
The second scenario is when there is an expectation that one or more individuals will be moved to different roles or their jobs will be changed in some significant way. In that case, the tests used will be more akin to those used for hiring situations, which are subject to much higher standards regarding reliability, validity, nondiscrimination, etc. I've been involved as a third-party consultant in instances where an individual has distinguished himself/herself and there is an interest in determining what career path might be best suited for him/her. I've also been involved as a third-party consultant when a company has been bought and the new owners intend a substantial reorganization, and they are interested in knowing the capabilities of the individuals involved so they can be redeployed most effectively. The results are handled much like preemployment testing with respect to confidentiality and limited access.
posted by DrGail at 10:02 AM on May 25, 2022
The second scenario is when there is an expectation that one or more individuals will be moved to different roles or their jobs will be changed in some significant way. In that case, the tests used will be more akin to those used for hiring situations, which are subject to much higher standards regarding reliability, validity, nondiscrimination, etc. I've been involved as a third-party consultant in instances where an individual has distinguished himself/herself and there is an interest in determining what career path might be best suited for him/her. I've also been involved as a third-party consultant when a company has been bought and the new owners intend a substantial reorganization, and they are interested in knowing the capabilities of the individuals involved so they can be redeployed most effectively. The results are handled much like preemployment testing with respect to confidentiality and limited access.
posted by DrGail at 10:02 AM on May 25, 2022
I have taken both the CliftonStrengths (StrengthsFinder) and Enneagram at work. This is in an office-type job, tech company in SF Bay Area, so very different than a union type job. It wasn't mandatory exactly but it was highly encouraged. I thought CliftonStrengths was super interesting and helped me understand my strengths and weaknesses. I also liked Enneagram a lot, although I think it's more appropriate in a personal context than at work.
posted by radioamy at 10:20 AM on May 25, 2022
posted by radioamy at 10:20 AM on May 25, 2022
I've taken the Myers-Briggs and other tests as part of offsite-type activities. The employer didn't use them for anything other than discussions/forming groups during that event. I didn't have concerns about how the info would be used, but I did have concerns that we were using a test that is kind of bullshit. It was kind of fun, though, BS or not.
posted by griseus at 10:24 AM on May 25, 2022
posted by griseus at 10:24 AM on May 25, 2022
at a previous position I was required to do the Predictive Index test, which is designed to identify your characteristics qua the workplace, with goal of 1) putting people where they work best 2) helping them develop their weaker areas that are relevant to their job.
I'm not a fan of this type of thing, but I did it (months into a temp employment term).
I came close to being kept on permanently (which I would have loved) but the second in command did not seem to like my results. I cannot say its certain, but I think that contributed to them choosing to hire someone else and let me term expire.
now, if you were to ask the group of 8-10 people I worked most closely with? they loved me, really wanted me to be kept on, were very happy with my work. I had spent those months gaining proficiency in their tools and methods.
I guess I just feel like, why on earth would you weigh a test result over proven direct experience?
posted by supermedusa at 10:25 AM on May 25, 2022
I'm not a fan of this type of thing, but I did it (months into a temp employment term).
I came close to being kept on permanently (which I would have loved) but the second in command did not seem to like my results. I cannot say its certain, but I think that contributed to them choosing to hire someone else and let me term expire.
now, if you were to ask the group of 8-10 people I worked most closely with? they loved me, really wanted me to be kept on, were very happy with my work. I had spent those months gaining proficiency in their tools and methods.
I guess I just feel like, why on earth would you weigh a test result over proven direct experience?
posted by supermedusa at 10:25 AM on May 25, 2022
I had to do Strengths Finder for a work retreat. (Note: some of us are unionized, others are not.) It was okay, but nobody will ever do anything with the results after the day of revealing the results in reality. They told what everyone's results were on a little chart and you had to get little ... I forget, tags or something and go bond with the other people in the same top 5 as you, something like that. Years before that, I think we did the DISC one...same idea, work retreat, I think, but I barely remember it at this point. Whatever the one with blue/orange/green or whatever?
I also found out that I'm a "Maximizer," which is absolutely useless at my job, a place where things really can't change or be improved 90% of the time, so that was depressing to learn.
What concerns, if any, did you have about how the info would be used?
It's a personality test, I don't care. I enjoy personality tests and the like, but they're more for fun than anything useful. Nobody is actually going to use them for or against you for anything in reality.
What did your employer end up doing with the results?
Shared them with everyone and then did nothing with them after that, as God intended.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:27 AM on May 25, 2022
I also found out that I'm a "Maximizer," which is absolutely useless at my job, a place where things really can't change or be improved 90% of the time, so that was depressing to learn.
What concerns, if any, did you have about how the info would be used?
It's a personality test, I don't care. I enjoy personality tests and the like, but they're more for fun than anything useful. Nobody is actually going to use them for or against you for anything in reality.
What did your employer end up doing with the results?
Shared them with everyone and then did nothing with them after that, as God intended.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:27 AM on May 25, 2022
The HR director at my workplace is a huge fan of DISC profiles. Everyone had to take the test, and she (the director) brings up the subject frequently at meetings. I think the whole thing is pseudoscientific, ridiculous, and insulting. But this is not the hill I want to die on – so I never raise a fuss about it. Also, I don't think that my own DISC profile has hurt me in my career at this workplace, so the whole thing is more of an eye-roll-inducing annoyance than a genuine threat.
The results are not treated as confidential. All the DISC profiles were shared with supervisors (and the HR department), and we were supposed to discuss it with each other at all-staff training meetings.
posted by JD Sockinger at 10:33 AM on May 25, 2022
The results are not treated as confidential. All the DISC profiles were shared with supervisors (and the HR department), and we were supposed to discuss it with each other at all-staff training meetings.
posted by JD Sockinger at 10:33 AM on May 25, 2022
I took the Meyers-Briggs one and fibbed all the way through it. No one said anything to me. I think it was just something HR made new hires do (entertainment network, contract gig.)
posted by Ideefixe at 10:44 AM on May 25, 2022
posted by Ideefixe at 10:44 AM on May 25, 2022
One previous workplace made us all take the MBTI on 16personalities.com and send in our results to be shared with the management team (but not the rest of the company). I've taken the MBTI before on my own and knew what I would get, but I went through the writeups on 16personalities and they had very obvious biases towards some types over others. It made mine sound VERY bad, especially given the role I had which didn't really fit with my type. (Generally mine always sounds bad and I'm used to that — "evil scientist" sometimes, lol — but this site made it sound extra bad.) So I just retook the test over and over, changing my answers until I got a "good" one (which is absolutely evil scientist behaviour).
I don't know what they did with the results. That company's CEO started a lot of things like that, she would make us participate in them and then drop it and never follow up, so I have no idea whether the managers even looked at them. It definitely made me paranoid though. I hate personality tests because if I'm honest with my answers I always get a result that's like, "you're an absolute freak and something's wrong with you" but I try really hard to be unremarkable at work and I don't want them to know there's something wrong with me, that's nobody's business but mine.
posted by 100kb at 10:50 AM on May 25, 2022
I don't know what they did with the results. That company's CEO started a lot of things like that, she would make us participate in them and then drop it and never follow up, so I have no idea whether the managers even looked at them. It definitely made me paranoid though. I hate personality tests because if I'm honest with my answers I always get a result that's like, "you're an absolute freak and something's wrong with you" but I try really hard to be unremarkable at work and I don't want them to know there's something wrong with me, that's nobody's business but mine.
posted by 100kb at 10:50 AM on May 25, 2022
My company uses StandOut. We use it primarily for the check-in/engagement feedback tools, but there is also a strengths assessment. (Sorts you into 2 of 9 different strengths roles.) I'm in HR. I spend about 7 minutes introing it on every new hire's first day as part of a larger meeting about other HRIS tools. These are the highlights I hit:
- I hate personality tests. I'm sure you do, too. (And I specifically note that I'm 50/50 on every metric of the Myers Briggs thing so I get a different jumble of letters every time I take it, so I am especially predisposed to think work personality tests are garbage.) Let's all collectively acknowledge that these are generally very dumb. Great, cool, here's how this one works.
- No one "cares" what your strengths are. We care that you understand your own strengths and feel like you get to get to apply your personal strengths and skills to the work that you do.
- No, you cannot retake the test to get "better" strengths, I cannot stress enough that culturally we put no specific value into any one strength or another.
- What IS good about this is the report it gives you at the end, where it puts your strength roles into a broader context. The most useful thing I took from it was to get some insight as to how other people interpreted my working style. You may find different parts of the report valuable. I promise it's worth spending a few minutes to read through it.
- Spend some time customizing your "snapshot" which is the page anyone at the company can see when they view your StandOut profile. This is the only part of your individual activity on the site anyone besides your boss will ever see. It's also where you can go as a new hire to get a little cheat sheet on anyone else at the company.
As an HR person we do not use the actual strengths assessment portion in any way. We use StandOut for the engagement tools, and to that end can't see anyone's individual data even if we wanted to, and we don't want to. Aggregate numerical data only. You just can't access the tools part without doing the personality test part, and as an avowed skeptic/asshole even I honestly have found value in a small part of the personality test part. (And anecdotally a lot of people even think it's fun.)
posted by phunniemee at 11:28 AM on May 25, 2022
- I hate personality tests. I'm sure you do, too. (And I specifically note that I'm 50/50 on every metric of the Myers Briggs thing so I get a different jumble of letters every time I take it, so I am especially predisposed to think work personality tests are garbage.) Let's all collectively acknowledge that these are generally very dumb. Great, cool, here's how this one works.
- No one "cares" what your strengths are. We care that you understand your own strengths and feel like you get to get to apply your personal strengths and skills to the work that you do.
- No, you cannot retake the test to get "better" strengths, I cannot stress enough that culturally we put no specific value into any one strength or another.
- What IS good about this is the report it gives you at the end, where it puts your strength roles into a broader context. The most useful thing I took from it was to get some insight as to how other people interpreted my working style. You may find different parts of the report valuable. I promise it's worth spending a few minutes to read through it.
- Spend some time customizing your "snapshot" which is the page anyone at the company can see when they view your StandOut profile. This is the only part of your individual activity on the site anyone besides your boss will ever see. It's also where you can go as a new hire to get a little cheat sheet on anyone else at the company.
As an HR person we do not use the actual strengths assessment portion in any way. We use StandOut for the engagement tools, and to that end can't see anyone's individual data even if we wanted to, and we don't want to. Aggregate numerical data only. You just can't access the tools part without doing the personality test part, and as an avowed skeptic/asshole even I honestly have found value in a small part of the personality test part. (And anecdotally a lot of people even think it's fun.)
posted by phunniemee at 11:28 AM on May 25, 2022
I had to take the 16 Personalities test for a work retreat and it was terrible because I have autism and struggle with self-perception, so I made up answers.
I am leaving this organization because they're just one bad decision after another, btw.
posted by yes I said yes I will Yes at 11:58 AM on May 25, 2022
I am leaving this organization because they're just one bad decision after another, btw.
posted by yes I said yes I will Yes at 11:58 AM on May 25, 2022
I have a fair bit of experience with them, both taking and administering. It might be helpful for you to think about them as falling into one of two categories:
1 - Those that are useful for peer-to-peer discussion, or maybe for manager-subordinate discussion. MBTI (which is questionable at best), DISC, FIRO-B, Clifton, StrengthsFinder, etc., all fall into this category. Use them for team building exercises, for creating common languages, for helping an employee figure out their preferred working style, etc. Don't hang much else off them.
2 - Those that are used for more significant purposes, including assessment and selection for senior roles, etc. These are the tools created by companies like Hogan, or proprietary ones from the major talent consulting firms. They get very specific or granular in subscores, and you need a professional to administer and interpret the data. They tend to have a more solid scientific foundation to them, but almost all the providers would tell you that they are just one of multiple data sources that should be used in combination for any given decision that's being made.
Ideally, results from the first category shouldn't be used for anything serious in a company, shouldn't have any lasting impact on an employee, and probably shouldn't play any real part in an HR file. Some employees will roll their eyes at taking them, and that's usually the result of a poor setup or administration which doesn't set context properly, puts too much weight on the results, etc. Too much woo.
The second category however, have real impact on careers, and anyone taking them should be aware of that (and likely has consented into the process because they're interested in the job it's being used for). That data will follow them, but it should also be paired with a serious investment in that person's career or development, even if they don't get the position they are up for.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 12:01 PM on May 25, 2022
1 - Those that are useful for peer-to-peer discussion, or maybe for manager-subordinate discussion. MBTI (which is questionable at best), DISC, FIRO-B, Clifton, StrengthsFinder, etc., all fall into this category. Use them for team building exercises, for creating common languages, for helping an employee figure out their preferred working style, etc. Don't hang much else off them.
2 - Those that are used for more significant purposes, including assessment and selection for senior roles, etc. These are the tools created by companies like Hogan, or proprietary ones from the major talent consulting firms. They get very specific or granular in subscores, and you need a professional to administer and interpret the data. They tend to have a more solid scientific foundation to them, but almost all the providers would tell you that they are just one of multiple data sources that should be used in combination for any given decision that's being made.
Ideally, results from the first category shouldn't be used for anything serious in a company, shouldn't have any lasting impact on an employee, and probably shouldn't play any real part in an HR file. Some employees will roll their eyes at taking them, and that's usually the result of a poor setup or administration which doesn't set context properly, puts too much weight on the results, etc. Too much woo.
The second category however, have real impact on careers, and anyone taking them should be aware of that (and likely has consented into the process because they're interested in the job it's being used for). That data will follow them, but it should also be paired with a serious investment in that person's career or development, even if they don't get the position they are up for.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 12:01 PM on May 25, 2022
I had to take MBTI and StrengthFinders at the small ad agency I used to work for. They were pitched as teambuilding exercises, but the boss used them to pigeonhole employees into specific roles.
I scored with hard introvert and analytical traits, which were used against me to block me from any creative projects, or attending conferences. Never mind I was the only active artist in the shop (performing and fine arts), had design awards, and was a paid public speaker.
I agree with the assessment these are pseudoscientific, ridiculous, and insulting. I tend to steer clear of any company that requires them for hiring (OCEAN is popular in my line of work, and the bias baked into the questions is absolutely dreadful).
posted by Wossname at 12:03 PM on May 25, 2022
I scored with hard introvert and analytical traits, which were used against me to block me from any creative projects, or attending conferences. Never mind I was the only active artist in the shop (performing and fine arts), had design awards, and was a paid public speaker.
I agree with the assessment these are pseudoscientific, ridiculous, and insulting. I tend to steer clear of any company that requires them for hiring (OCEAN is popular in my line of work, and the bias baked into the questions is absolutely dreadful).
posted by Wossname at 12:03 PM on May 25, 2022
My previous employer did the Strengthsfinder. My supervisor was really into it and assigned tasks and projects based on our strengths.
However, just because something is a strength doesn't mean it's an interest. I scored high in whatever the "helping people" category was - no big surprise, I'd been a Librarian in a public Library for over a decade. But at that point I was burning out on the Reference Desk and was more interested in working with the collection. So yeah, I COULD spend 40 hours a week living at the Ref Desk with the constant parade of questions and characters...but I'd rather mix it up with projects and tasks that take me off-desk. That interest wasn't reflected in the test.
It seems that there are tests more geared towards interest than skill. I wish we'd taken both!
posted by Gray Duck at 12:08 PM on May 25, 2022
However, just because something is a strength doesn't mean it's an interest. I scored high in whatever the "helping people" category was - no big surprise, I'd been a Librarian in a public Library for over a decade. But at that point I was burning out on the Reference Desk and was more interested in working with the collection. So yeah, I COULD spend 40 hours a week living at the Ref Desk with the constant parade of questions and characters...but I'd rather mix it up with projects and tasks that take me off-desk. That interest wasn't reflected in the test.
It seems that there are tests more geared towards interest than skill. I wish we'd taken both!
posted by Gray Duck at 12:08 PM on May 25, 2022
Yes, I had to take Meyers-Briggs. It was used to bully me and possibly others. Yechhh.
posted by theora55 at 12:33 PM on May 25, 2022
posted by theora55 at 12:33 PM on May 25, 2022
I've taken the DiSC and the StrengthsFinder at two different jobs, neither unionized. The tests weren't used for much that I can tell, but my managers took the test at the same time as me and we all knew each others results. The DiSC test was taken as part of leadership training to become a manager and the StrengthsFinder was given just as a general reflection exercise to get us to think about our career progression in the company.
My results ("C" for DiSC and "Strategic Thinking" for StrengthsFinder) were mostly used for my managers and coworkers to poke fun at me for being a nerd. Neither helped me recognize anything in myself at all. Worse than useless.
posted by little king trashmouth at 1:14 PM on May 25, 2022
My results ("C" for DiSC and "Strategic Thinking" for StrengthsFinder) were mostly used for my managers and coworkers to poke fun at me for being a nerd. Neither helped me recognize anything in myself at all. Worse than useless.
posted by little king trashmouth at 1:14 PM on May 25, 2022
I've taken two. One was StrengthsFinders, and I don't remember the other (it was over 15 years ago). I was actually looking forward to management using the StrengthsFinders results, as mine indicated I'm someone who likes to do a lot of in-depth research (which is true). As it turned out, management used the results to assign me work that was the exact opposite. This is rather in opposition to the purpose of StrengthsFinders.
The only thing I remember about the first one is that, shortly after the tests were scored, the owner of the company mentioned to me that a co-worker on whom I had a serious crush (but hadn't said anything about, because co-workers, inappropriate) and I would be a perfect match. That's literally the only time I ever heard anyone in management mention the results.
posted by kevinbelt at 2:10 PM on May 25, 2022
The only thing I remember about the first one is that, shortly after the tests were scored, the owner of the company mentioned to me that a co-worker on whom I had a serious crush (but hadn't said anything about, because co-workers, inappropriate) and I would be a perfect match. That's literally the only time I ever heard anyone in management mention the results.
posted by kevinbelt at 2:10 PM on May 25, 2022
I took a day long battery of these as part of screening for a potential top executive job for a middlesized company in Mumble, Ohio. This was probably 25 years ago so much of it is (thankfully) hazy. I know it involved extensive interviews by various Ph.D types and written exercises. It was thorough and tiring and super super nosy, went into a ton of work and personal experiences, attitudes, and beliefs, but I went through it because the job would have been a big step up for me.
At the end, the director-person called me in and said they had the results; looked at me and said, "You don't really want this job, do you?" I realized I didn't, agreed, and left.
What happened to the information etc I have no idea but I hope it's gone and lost forever.
posted by charris5005 at 2:20 PM on May 25, 2022
At the end, the director-person called me in and said they had the results; looked at me and said, "You don't really want this job, do you?" I realized I didn't, agreed, and left.
What happened to the information etc I have no idea but I hope it's gone and lost forever.
posted by charris5005 at 2:20 PM on May 25, 2022
My previous employer made everyone take the MBTI a few years back, and then had an entire day's worth of meetings with a consultant to talk through the results. She specifically called out people by name to talk about their personality based on the results she held in her hand. I was one of the people she called out.
Here's the thing: the whole thing is corporate voodoo b.s., and when I took the test online I completed the entire thing in under a minute, because I invariably picked the first answer for every question. The fact that the software was too dumb to immediately flag a test that was completed orders-of-magnitude too quickly to be legitimate, and too repetitively to be honest, only convinced me further of the stupidity of the entire thing.
When the consultant tried to fish for feedback from my, I politely suggested that I wasn't interested in discussing it and she moved on.
The CEO at the company was obsessed with this kind of stuff, and believed in it wholeheartedly. He was also very easily distracted by the next shiny thing, so it never came up again after that day.
posted by Lokheed at 2:43 PM on May 25, 2022
Here's the thing: the whole thing is corporate voodoo b.s., and when I took the test online I completed the entire thing in under a minute, because I invariably picked the first answer for every question. The fact that the software was too dumb to immediately flag a test that was completed orders-of-magnitude too quickly to be legitimate, and too repetitively to be honest, only convinced me further of the stupidity of the entire thing.
When the consultant tried to fish for feedback from my, I politely suggested that I wasn't interested in discussing it and she moved on.
The CEO at the company was obsessed with this kind of stuff, and believed in it wholeheartedly. He was also very easily distracted by the next shiny thing, so it never came up again after that day.
posted by Lokheed at 2:43 PM on May 25, 2022
As part of a promotion to manager at a Bank, I was put into a class of disparate other promoted folks and given the Myers-Briggs. We were then divided up into tables and asked to do a presentation on "something" and it was very interesting to see how different groups approached the assignment. I being VERY high on the SJ scale was not surprised that everyone at the SJ table could only think of one thing to do (a Powerpoint presentation on what it's like to be SJ).
Yes, I know, MB has been discredited, but this was late 80's. My younger self didn't have a lot of concerns about what the head shrink data would be used for. This was not a unionized environment.
I did worry somewhat about what happened with the next phase (I'll describe below) that probably showed me as floundering.
They did video taped simulated exchanges between someone pretending to be an average employee (because, after all, they've just been promoted so they're not) and another management class participant. I felt we were being thrown in the pool to swim on our own, with no real preparation. Others felt we were just supposed to make everything look good (i.e., don't worry about learning anything, just fake it).
posted by forthright at 3:09 PM on May 25, 2022
Yes, I know, MB has been discredited, but this was late 80's. My younger self didn't have a lot of concerns about what the head shrink data would be used for. This was not a unionized environment.
I did worry somewhat about what happened with the next phase (I'll describe below) that probably showed me as floundering.
They did video taped simulated exchanges between someone pretending to be an average employee (because, after all, they've just been promoted so they're not) and another management class participant. I felt we were being thrown in the pool to swim on our own, with no real preparation. Others felt we were just supposed to make everything look good (i.e., don't worry about learning anything, just fake it).
posted by forthright at 3:09 PM on May 25, 2022
I got permission to do Strengthsfinder with my (very young, strangers-to-me) team when I suddenly became their manager. I presented it as a private, professional development/reflection opportunity and it was terrific - they weren't as jaded as some of the rest of us, and found a lot of satisfaction in seeing themselves in the Strengthsfinder context.
They understood that the results were theirs to share or not, and each of them chose to share - temporarily - screen shots of their "Top 10" during the ONE meeting we had explicitly to talk about the experience of taking the survey. In that meeting we talked about how - considered all together, mine included - our team was already strong in the areas that matched our charter. It helped get us build trust and start off on the right foot - positive, respectful of one-another, appreciative.
YMMV.
posted by nkknkk at 4:06 PM on May 25, 2022
They understood that the results were theirs to share or not, and each of them chose to share - temporarily - screen shots of their "Top 10" during the ONE meeting we had explicitly to talk about the experience of taking the survey. In that meeting we talked about how - considered all together, mine included - our team was already strong in the areas that matched our charter. It helped get us build trust and start off on the right foot - positive, respectful of one-another, appreciative.
YMMV.
posted by nkknkk at 4:06 PM on May 25, 2022
MBTI, they were a teambuilder thing, at one place they made us make collages of our types, I lied shamelessly on all occasions.
posted by betweenthebars at 4:32 PM on May 25, 2022
posted by betweenthebars at 4:32 PM on May 25, 2022
Yes, we all had to do DISC. I really disliked it. The results were disclosed to everyone. My division head made clear that he liked the ones that were in his quadrant, like that was where everyone needed to be. It gave me zero new information about myself or my coworkers, except that my boss thinks we should all have the opposite personality type than I have. I’m a midcareer professional and really pretty secure in what I bring to the table, and I was suprised how alienating and angering the whole thing was.
posted by haptic_avenger at 5:33 PM on May 25, 2022
posted by haptic_avenger at 5:33 PM on May 25, 2022
We did a True Colors personality test. It was not mandatory, more of a team building activity.
posted by medeine at 5:35 PM on May 25, 2022
posted by medeine at 5:35 PM on May 25, 2022
I had to do one at my last job when I got a new boss. The whole team did it in a room, and the results were basically "everybody but the boss is a helpful, co-operative person. The new boss is a sociopath".
New boss was very happy that he'd won the personality test.
posted by pompomtom at 5:57 PM on May 25, 2022
New boss was very happy that he'd won the personality test.
posted by pompomtom at 5:57 PM on May 25, 2022
I highly recommend checking out the recent podcast episode 159 of Citations Needed: The Anti-Worker Pseudo-psychology of Corporate Personality Testing.
posted by enfa at 6:22 PM on May 25, 2022
posted by enfa at 6:22 PM on May 25, 2022
I've done a bunch of these over the years, all in government agencies. Some of them are interesting, some do actually give you some insight into why you may be struggling in a particular area, some of them are just stupid. Most of the time, they've been done and forgotten (box-ticking exercises), but a couple of times they have been used to facilitate a deeper dive into how you can improve your management style, how your particular characteristics align or clash with others in the team and what that might mean in terms of working better with others to improve effectiveness.
In every case, the results have not been shared (other than the HR person co-ordinating the thing) with anyone else except at an aggregate level. In no case have any of them resulted in any lasting change or stayed with me long enough to be of much use. They're generally useful as a self-reflection thing, but no organisation I've worked in has used them in any sustained way.
posted by dg at 6:26 PM on May 25, 2022
In every case, the results have not been shared (other than the HR person co-ordinating the thing) with anyone else except at an aggregate level. In no case have any of them resulted in any lasting change or stayed with me long enough to be of much use. They're generally useful as a self-reflection thing, but no organisation I've worked in has used them in any sustained way.
posted by dg at 6:26 PM on May 25, 2022
I'm a union employee and I've had to take the MBTI and what was probably True Colors (or a knockoff of it) as team-building exercises. The former was taken online and results were later discussed in-person as a getting-to-know-each-other exercise at a team retreat. The latter was both administered and discussed in-person at a team retreat. It wasn't mandatory per se; the test results weren't being recorded and I think I probably could have opted out if I had felt strongly about it, but it would have been pretty awkward to do so.
I have huge personal reservations about metrics like these, between how essentializing they are, and pseudoscientific, and the fact that they can trace their history straight back to eugenics. The whole thing feels sort of cult-y, or like a very IBM, Mad Men, mid-century management technology sort of endeavor, and I really hope workplaces aren't baking stuff like this into their hiring processes, promotions, or anything consequential.
That said, I can see ways in which these tests are useful in the context of team-building, even if they are bunk. They can really get people engaged, especially in the middle of three days of meetings, because everyone loves a BuzzFeed quiz. People who had zoned out perk up and start talking, which can reset the energy of the room.
On top of that, they provide a sort of impersonal framework for discussing interpersonal issues, which is useful. Instead of someone saying, "George, you are constantly breathing down my neck and you need to back the hell off," they can say, "I'm yellow, which means I am a lateral thinker, so I really appreciate it when people give me space to try different things and come up with creative solutions." Or instead of "Frances, you need to stop sending me an impenetrable wall of text when I am asking you what needs to get done," someone can say, "I'm [initials], and when I am stressed I find it easiest to think of things in terms of action items and bulleted lists." It basically forces people into using "I" statements and tricks folks out of second-guessing other people's needs, which makes it easier to navigate conversations about expectations, communications styles, etc.
I wonder if there's any way to use a "Which Disney Princess Are You?" quiz to do that instead.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 7:04 PM on May 25, 2022
I have huge personal reservations about metrics like these, between how essentializing they are, and pseudoscientific, and the fact that they can trace their history straight back to eugenics. The whole thing feels sort of cult-y, or like a very IBM, Mad Men, mid-century management technology sort of endeavor, and I really hope workplaces aren't baking stuff like this into their hiring processes, promotions, or anything consequential.
That said, I can see ways in which these tests are useful in the context of team-building, even if they are bunk. They can really get people engaged, especially in the middle of three days of meetings, because everyone loves a BuzzFeed quiz. People who had zoned out perk up and start talking, which can reset the energy of the room.
On top of that, they provide a sort of impersonal framework for discussing interpersonal issues, which is useful. Instead of someone saying, "George, you are constantly breathing down my neck and you need to back the hell off," they can say, "I'm yellow, which means I am a lateral thinker, so I really appreciate it when people give me space to try different things and come up with creative solutions." Or instead of "Frances, you need to stop sending me an impenetrable wall of text when I am asking you what needs to get done," someone can say, "I'm [initials], and when I am stressed I find it easiest to think of things in terms of action items and bulleted lists." It basically forces people into using "I" statements and tricks folks out of second-guessing other people's needs, which makes it easier to navigate conversations about expectations, communications styles, etc.
I wonder if there's any way to use a "Which Disney Princess Are You?" quiz to do that instead.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 7:04 PM on May 25, 2022
I did DISC with a team of fellow engineers and found it very useful to me as a human being to realize how many of my very capable and skilled colleagues weren't "engineering types" (Conscientious) at all but were much more interpersonally focused, and that plus the discussion of different types made me really start to internalize the value of all different sorts of approaches in making a team work.
Around the same time I did a test that gave some results that I saw as flaws and was really embarrassed about and wanted to hide, even though everyone else treated it as normal, and it got me started on a road toward accepting myself even when I'm not a perfect idealized egoless engineer who cares only about the design success. So this is pretty much an unmitigated success for me because of how it was handled - "learn about yourself and your colleagues and learn that there are many different valid ways of being and working".
posted by Lady Li at 10:43 PM on May 25, 2022
Around the same time I did a test that gave some results that I saw as flaws and was really embarrassed about and wanted to hide, even though everyone else treated it as normal, and it got me started on a road toward accepting myself even when I'm not a perfect idealized egoless engineer who cares only about the design success. So this is pretty much an unmitigated success for me because of how it was handled - "learn about yourself and your colleagues and learn that there are many different valid ways of being and working".
posted by Lady Li at 10:43 PM on May 25, 2022
Thank you all for your answers—it’s been helpful to me to hear a range of experiences (and some from the POV of people who give the tests). I also am looking forward to listening to that podcast episode.
The reason I’m asking this is that I have a senior watchdog role in our faculty union and recently some faculty came to me with concerns about a personality test their manager wants everyone to take. I wanted to hear about real people’s experiences with these tests and be prepared so I could ask questions when I meet with the manager. I have a cordial relationship with this manager, so I’ll just do some gentle probing about what kind of test it is, whether it’s actually mandatory, what they hope to get out of it, and whether results will be confidential.
Our union contract is silent on this so my hunch is they can require it, but if it ever went wrong in some of the ways I’m reading about in your answers, the union could grieve it. Managers usually want to avoid those situations, so an informal discussion before anything happens is generally beneficial to all parties.
Thanks again for all the helpful replies.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 12:36 AM on May 26, 2022
The reason I’m asking this is that I have a senior watchdog role in our faculty union and recently some faculty came to me with concerns about a personality test their manager wants everyone to take. I wanted to hear about real people’s experiences with these tests and be prepared so I could ask questions when I meet with the manager. I have a cordial relationship with this manager, so I’ll just do some gentle probing about what kind of test it is, whether it’s actually mandatory, what they hope to get out of it, and whether results will be confidential.
Our union contract is silent on this so my hunch is they can require it, but if it ever went wrong in some of the ways I’m reading about in your answers, the union could grieve it. Managers usually want to avoid those situations, so an informal discussion before anything happens is generally beneficial to all parties.
Thanks again for all the helpful replies.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 12:36 AM on May 26, 2022
Here's a link to Canada federal government guidelines for personality testing.
It's typically bureaucratic(no surprise) but does discuss the issue.
Curiously a manager cannot order a personality test without prior approval in the federal civil service.
". Obtain the PSC’s (Public Service Commission) approval prior to using psychological tests of intelligence, personality, integrity and aptitude tests and tests of mental health"
They also discuss why approval may not be granted.
Human rights, security, etc
posted by yyz at 6:10 AM on May 26, 2022
It's typically bureaucratic(no surprise) but does discuss the issue.
Curiously a manager cannot order a personality test without prior approval in the federal civil service.
". Obtain the PSC’s (Public Service Commission) approval prior to using psychological tests of intelligence, personality, integrity and aptitude tests and tests of mental health"
They also discuss why approval may not be granted.
Human rights, security, etc
posted by yyz at 6:10 AM on May 26, 2022
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by SeedStitch at 9:42 AM on May 25, 2022