IS it legal for employer to make you take a personality test?

[twinklebug]

Some companies do credit checks too.

Credit checks are totally different than trying to place someone by personality. For example, you wouldn't want to place someone with a poor credit rating in charge of determining who is a good loan risk.

On the other hand, by the MB tests you wouldn't want someone who goes by intuition to do the same job either... but those tests are BS and cannot say who we are. It's flat out discrimination based on random answers, but they can get away with it because the interview process is a perfectly legitimate form of discrimination as it is to eliminate those who you feel would not be a fit.

 

[tinkerbellandeeyor]

Mb is pretty good I took it for fun

 

[ronandannette]

I've become interested in these M-B classifications recently and have concluded they are a bunch of BS, LOL.
If you're testing for a job interview, anyone can create the answers they think others are looking for and become any type. Introverts become extroverts, feelers become sensors, etc.

What the tests do are a decent job at are helping us to see that we're not alone. Chances are there are no perfect fits for any personality type.

I believe that for a company to make individual take these tests, or some form of, before offering or denying a job offer shows that the company has no faith in their ability to hire the right people and encourage/train them appropriately. I would not want to be a part of any such mess of a company.

It's awfully presumptuous of a candidate to assume they know what profile an employer is looking for. They "fake it" at the peril of disqualifying themselves unnecessarily. We use a profiling tool that is similar-but-different than the MB and find the results extremely reliable indicators of suitable candidates. We don't even consider applicants that don't fit our matrices, which are specific to each role.

 

[OhhBother]

It's awfully presumptuous of a candidate to assume they know what profile an employer is looking for. They "fake it" at the peril of disqualifying themselves unnecessarily. We use a profiling tool that is similar-but-different than the MB and find the results extremely reliable indicators of suitable candidates. We don't even consider applicants that don't fit our matrices, which are specific to each role.

Agree. Faking it is a bad idea. The tool we use has a sensitivity to people attempting to manipulate the results. If someone attempts to answer in the way he or she believes the employer "wants," the test picks up on that. It's fascinating, actually. I don't look to the personality tests as the end-all, be-all, but they are a useful part of the hiring process.

 

[ronandannette]

Agree. Faking it is a bad idea. The tool we use has a sensitivity to people attempting to manipulate the results. If someone attempts to answer in the way he or she believes the employer "wants," the test picks up on that. It's fascinating, actually. I don't look to the personality tests as the end-all, be-all, but they are a useful part of the hiring process.

It is interesting. I'm sure our test doesn't claim to be able to determine the veracity of the responses, but I do know that a candidate doesn't really know what qualities we find necessary for what roles. They risk really messing themselves up if they are trying to "aim" for a certain result.

 

[twinklebug]

Agree. Faking it is a bad idea. The tool we use has a sensitivity to people attempting to manipulate the results. If someone attempts to answer in the way he or she believes the employer "wants," the test picks up on that. It's fascinating, actually. I don't look to the personality tests as the end-all, be-all, but they are a useful part of the hiring process.

I'm not condoning "faking". As I said before, if a company needs to do psychological profiling on people before they hire them, then they don't trust their hiring managers to do a good job, nor do they believe they can train properly. I recommend everyone run the opposite direction away from such companies.

I'm saying that if an applicant is looking to fill the role of say a marketing person and they know that they are a natural introvert, then it is quite easy to pretend to be an extrovert. I do it all the time when working with my teams. I'm 100% introvert, yet I know I must lead discussions and initiate contact so I put on what I call my manager's hat and just do the job. I learn so much from others while doing so, but make no mistake, I head back to my office and recover from intense interactions. Yes, the test can be manipulated in such manner and yes, it is quite easy to figure out what sort of personality each role requires.

 

[ronandannette]

I'm not condoning "faking". As I said before, if a company needs to do psychological profiling on people before they hire them, then they don't trust their hiring managers to do a good job, nor do they believe they can train properly. I recommend everyone run the opposite direction away from such companies.

I'm saying that if an applicant is looking to fill the role of say a marketing person and they know that they are a natural introvert, then it is quite easy to pretend to be an extrovert. I do it all the time when working with my teams. I'm 100% introvert, yet I know I must lead discussions and initiate contact so I put on what I call my manager's hat and just do the job. I learn so much from others while doing so, but make no mistake, I head back to my office and recover from intense interactions. Yes, the test can be manipulated in such manner and yes, it is quite easy to figure out what sort of personality each role requires.

I'm curious to know what direct experience you have with temperament analysis, either from the perspective of administering/interpreting the tests or taking them yourself. As a department head responsible for hiring, training and supervision, let me assure you, you can train for skills/tasks, you cannot train for temperament or attitude.

 

[tex1989]

37 Years in the Energy Industry with 6 different employers and I have never taken one during the course of the interviewing process. Currently as far as I know new hires are still not subject to it at my current employer. As far as being able to "fake" answers you most certainly can, problem is for a particular role you don't know what personality type they are looking for. I took psychology as a minor in college and am somewhat familiar with certain questions and testing methodology so I can steer towards certain profiles fairly easily. For some roles I would imagine such information might be useful. For other roles (like a lot in my industry) the outcome is probably meaningless as to how a person will perform their job.

 

[_19disnA]

About twenty years ago, my employer said we were REQUIRED to take one.

What may have been legal/acceptable 20 yrs ago may not be today. Larger companies tend to avoid these things on the advice of their HR and/or legal departments since there are too many ways people can claim bias from such testing. I agree with prior poster that even when they are currently offered, perhaps in smaller companies, their real value is suspect. Just like with interviewing, some people can say all the right things but can't get along with others or just don't do well on the job. Testing for some sort of technical knowledge makes sense, not sure testing for 'personality' has any real value.