What are your thoughts on Myers-Briggs assessments to pre-screen applicants in your ATS?

Using the MBTI for the purposes of employment selection is not considered an ethical application of the test. Applicants will call you on this by deciding they don't really want to work for you. Myers-Briggs is a far better tool for teambuilding for already existing employees than it is for picking future employees.

I'm personally mixed on the subject. I've seen places that did use personality assessment tools to screen candidates, and while they were poor places to work, I'm not sure if that was because of what they did, or if they did some of those things because they were already poor places to work.

Hiring for "fit" and personality is seen as a good thing. Screening for personality, then, should not be less desirable if tools are used. In fact, you could make the argument that using an objective tool is more defensible than simply saying, "Candidate X just doesn't *feel* like they would be a good fit." or saying, "Candidate Y didn't mesh with the team during the interview process."

We can fool ourselves into thinking that only skill and "ability to do the job" is important, but we all know of people who are skilled in some area, but would make a poor employee in the same context that someone less skilled would excel in.

So, while I am not yet willing to pursue the use of such assessments for hiring purposes myself, I am not ready to suggest that they are evil or undesirable.

Craig's point still stands, however: If you use them, you might very well rule out a set of great candidates who don't like what such an assessment implies about your organization.

I'd be interested to hear what HR and/or legal professionals have to say about the legality of using it for this purpose...

Good comments so far -- while assessment tools can be a useful part of your pre-screening process, the MBTI is not designed to be used as a selection tool. The MBTI does not have the psychometric properties necessary to meet the legal and scientific guidelines for test use. There are any number of tools (Hogan Personality Inventory, NEO, OPQ, etc.) that can be used for pre-screening, but it is important to link the specific test scales of interest to important job outcomes.

Doug Klippel
People Development Partners LLC

My understanding in the literature I have seen about MBTI is that it has about 46% predictive capability. That is less than the 50/50 chance of just flipping a coin. Keep in mind that MBTI assesses personality and, even that, it tends to categorize and attempt to fit people into boxes.

None of us, with our many differences, sources of motivation, competencies, values, etc., fit into boxes. While I do leadership/organizational consulting and coaching now, all my degrees are in math/statistics. So I am always scrutinizing assessments from a validity perspective. There are many biases and assumptions built into subjective assessments that break down the statistical conclusions on which they are based.

So when I look at assessments as tools (and they do have their place), I first will delve into the potential validity issues and whether there is a statistical basis for using it for predictive purposes (most cannot) such as in hiring.

The one assessment I do recommend to my clients for hiring purposes is the Inventory of Workplace Attitude and Motivational Patterns (IWAM). It's very different than personality assessments and looks at 38 different motivation and attitude patterns of an individual. There is as high as 76% predictive capability.

One of the things I like about this assessment is you can develop a Model of Excellence with it -- ie., look at the patterns of your top performers. It includes the statistical strength of the top performers "similar" patterns for predictive purposes. You can use those similarities to test new potential hires specifically look at how their patterns measure up.

That said, I would never just rely on any assessment for hiring purposes solely or to predict behavior. There are many variables that drive behavior and "best fit" for a role. Aside from these motivation patterns, another very critical variable is culture fit (ie., is that person's professional values aligned with company values). I would put that well above even competencies. You can upgrade competencies. If there is poor culture fit, you and your employee will keep working at odds with each other and it will have a bigger impact on behavior and outcomes.

As many of you have answered already, there are some legality issues with using standardized testing. Also, testing is not the real issue. The real issue is that we are not taught how to conduct effective interviews. If we were, testing wouldn't matter. Author Martin Yates says that interviewing is a "dirty secret". We promote people to management, hold them accountable for the team that they hire, and don't give them the tools to be effective. I have spent the last 11 years working on improving interviewing skills for upper management. Watching my clients understand the interview process and become effective interviewers is the best part of my day! Beth Smith, President A-list Interviews

I work for an organization the believes in the value of Myers Briggs. We use it as a team strenghening exercise. My experience is that Myers-Briggs helps me understand how to communicate with others on my team as well as understanding how others will react under stress in challenging situations.

I am not sure that it is a successful pre-screen tool.

I do have a line of pre-hire assessments (not MB) and am convinced that given the high cost of turnover, it seems to make sense to use candidate assessments as a tool in the hiring process. Many of us have made hiring mistakes - too often the person we interviewed turns out to be somebody different as an employee. Assessments can be used as part of the bundle of effective hiring practices/tools.

By the way, I know my line and I'm sure others are EEOC and legally compliant.

See the LSC (learning and skills council) report on MBTI - it's a pretty lousy test full stop, it offers very low reproducability rates (i.e. people get different results regularly when tested - thus the results are random rather than scientific). It's also based on discredited Jungian profiling - see the vast body of psychological research of the last 50 years or so.

Given that it's simply unethical to use in any part of your business except as a bit of fun. Sadly this doesn't stop its misguided practitioners from swearing black is white in any case.

Rob, the MBTI publisher is quite clear about using the MBTI for employee screening---do not use the MBTI for employee screening since it does not predict job success.

A whole person assessment is your best choice.

Dan, according to some experts such as Dr. David Kline in his book "Handbook of Psychological Testing", 2nd edition, 2000, Ipsative instruments should be used for employee development but not for employee selection, see quotes from the book at the following web page.

http://www.gatelyconsulting.com/pp01rg22.htm

I love MBTI, but agree with others, it is more of a self-development tool. It is not appropriate to hire based on MBTI. If you want to stay with MBTI, a better approach is to ensure that the job description is worded in MBTI language that will attract the kind of profile you want. However... there are better alternatives.

You might want to explore the Kolbe A -- it is more focused on workplace behavior preferences (how we like to DO things) than personality preferences (which is MBTIs strength).

There is a system to create job descriptions, and also match people -- it might be more suited to your plans. I'm new to the Kolbe instrument, I learned about it quite recently, but found it incredibly helpful personally, and plan to use it in my hiring process.

http://www.kolbe.com/

Before selecting a pre-employment assessment you might like to read "TESTING AND ASSESSMENT: AN EMPLOYER’S GUIDE TO GOOD PRACTICES," U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration 1999.

If you would like to receive the guide, please send an email to bob@gatelyconsulting.com with SEND DOL REPORT as the subject.

Just a note....think ethical and legal...based on the voluminous research referred to above and the idea of "using" a test or assessment device repetitively to chose potential employees, you must be able to show that the assessment tool is valid and reliable.

That is, it has been validated against the population from which you obtain potential new hires--that the test yields the results you claim in chosing a potential new hire; and the assessment tool results will reveal the same kinds of things every time it is used. A test is reliable when it measures the same thing consistently.

Validity and reliability are esp critical when using the assessment tool to make critical decisions about people or situations. And even more critical when assessing those people in protected classes (age, gender, religion, ethnicity, et al).

My point is that if HR is using an assessment tool in the hiring process it is absolutely critical that they can show an EEO auditor or a jury that the "test was tested" (i.e., all the statistical details of the validity and reliability testing). As someone that has constructed, used, and defended pre-hire testing, this point is critical in the defense of the Company's actions.

(Tip: just because the test provider says its assessment tool has been validated and reliable doesn't make it so. Ask to see the statistical results, or have someone with expertise in test construction review the results, to ensure you are on solid ground in using it,prior to having to defend its use.)

Very good question in today's employment environment. Personality testing and fitness testing of a potential employee to an organization is just bull. My experience with companies that use such testing are poorly managed, employees poorly trained and a new employee is a target of company's troubles. Intentionally or unintentionally the new employee becomes a scapegoat for company's difficulties and a failure in the company. A good interview(s) is all you need for a new employee. In today's work environment, HR folks and hiring managers have very poor interviewing and conversational skills. An employee joins a company to make the company successful and enhance his/her own career. A fired employee is a failure of the company - not the employee. My observations are true when an employee is let go within three years of service.

Dear Bob,
I LOVE your "flip of a coin" category! Thanks for a great laugh-out-loud first thing Monday morning! Beth Smith

How much pre-screening is ideal depends on the accuracy and cost of the pre-screening assessment, the selection ratio (number of candidates/opening), and the business impact of making hiring mistakes. Since personality type indicators (MBTI or DISC) have not proven to be accurate, any amount of cost spent on them is wasted.

I would be most interested in seeing the citations that support Bob Gately's numbers, particularly those associated with "after adding Interest Tests and Job Matching" since those numbers are not consistent with the cumulative published research.

Performance-keyed vs. personality-keyed tests, combined with tests of mental abilities, have the strongest track record of success. Structured behavioral interviews have demonstrated added value, but take time and training to perform in the field the way they do in the lab. PeopleAssessments.com is the only pre-employment screening solution that combines best practice measures of future potential with an online assessment of confirmed past performance.

Summing up, assessing all eligible candidates with short, valid, measures of future potential and past performance is ideal, particularly when it costs the same or more to test just the top 3-5 on personality-keyed tests that don't work.

I think it works great for finding high aptitude, but it should not be used at the detriment of promoting within when there are strong resources who have proven themselves but do not necessarily test well, behavioral tests or otherwise.

Assessment tools tend to be as good as the people using them, misused, of course they are worthless.

MBTI was never intended as an employment assessment tool, in fact in my training it was reiterated over and over that it was NEVER to be used as such.

Those who are correctly trained in Myers Briggs are taught that is absolutely not to be used as an employment tool, as this would be unethical and frankly with discrimination laws, illegal. Unfortunately it is used poorly in most organizations, as doing the assessment and not following up with training is like giving an egg to someone who has no idea how to cook it. It will look good for a while, but then it just begins to stink.

The power of Myers Briggs is found in its use in a training environment, to help people understand the differences in how they communicate and operate with others in a working environment, which in turn fosters understanding and helps team leaders to position people so that they can work to their strengths.

The fact that Myers Briggs normally does not get past the point of employees walking round the corridors with their chests puffed out chanting I am a **** is a real waste of time and resources, and of course the route of misunderstanding of this and many other tools.

The fault lies not only with companies who are only willing to pay for half a solution, but also with practitioners who have either not gone through adequate training or are not versed in explaining that the benefits of MBTI are reached through follow-up workshops and training/coaching. (Read poorly trained)

As I said earlier, taking an assessment and then doing nothing with the information is a complete waste of time and money. If assessments are not to be followed up with one-to-one debriefs and then group workshops, my personal advice to companies is, “don’t put your employees through the assessment process in the first place! This applies to both DISC and Insights MDI too.”

Krissy Jackson
MBTI I + II Certified
Through the American Management Association

Tall Trees Executive Coaching, Consulting and Training
www.talltrees.ch

Having worked in the field of formal assessment for over 25 years and having completed my Thesis on the MBTI, in my opinion there is no place for the MBTI in job applicant screening.

Many of the point already raised are directly relevant as to why the MBTI should not be used for job applicant screening but I particularly draw your attention to points made by Bob Gately, Mike Kunkle and Beth Smith.

If you are interested in using a valid, reliable, legally defensible job applicant screening tool with a very high predictive index to identify an applicant’s wellness of fit then you should consider using the RoleFit Survey. It has an alpha coefficient of .80 with a degree of probability of .05 and comes with an Administrative Control Panel. It has been tested and deemed appropriate as bias-free with respect to age, gender and 1st language. The Admin Control Panel is extremely useful - within 1 minute of a job competition closing, regardless of the number of job applicants, you can rank order ALL job applicants and allow you to see and export any of the output reports you would like to see. Send the output reports to an ATS, Hiring Managers and interviewers and you have a very powerful way of reducing cycle time and resources - specifically compress the 7 - 10 weeks of researching resumes to establish your short-list for interviews into 1 minute. The RFS comes with a competency-based Master Job Inventory of 850+ Job Descriptions which means you can copy and paste them into your job postings and supplement them with some organizational information and contextual job information.

The RFS® measures an individual’s capacity to perform a specific behavior in a given role, on a consistent, day-to-day basis; allowing you and your organization to have an element of reliable predictability regarding new hires, anticipated job-relevant performance, career pathing and strategic succession planning and management.

Whether you anticipate 1 or 1,000 applicants to your job posting, if you are interested in a free trial contact me at Gary.Melling@EPIC-Soft.com. We are working with satisfied clients that currently have anywhere from 50 to 60,000 applicants per month. The RFS can be used as a stand-alone tool or in conjunction with any ATS.

I have taken both the MBTI and the DISC assessment tests. I found the MBTI did not even come close to my personality

Looks like everyone agrees Myers Briggs is not a selection test.

Below is an unvalidated formula but it has proven successful over the years.

When evaluating canidates.
30% of the grade is past work experience.
30% is the interview
30% is testing
10% is references unless they are bad and than it becomes 100%

If you want more on how to use the formula let me know.

Myers-Briggs is an interesting data point, but I don't think is very effective in corporations. Knowing what someone's Personality is does not necessarily say much about their Behavior, and Behavior is much more important in a corporate setting. Hence, I think a test like this one that assesses actual behaviors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DISC_assessment

Is much more relevant in a corporate setting. Just because you think or believe things should be a certain way doesn't mean you'd necessarily act that way in a corporate setting.

Understanding how people will act in a team seems much more relevant than what they believe.

Star, "My experience with companies that use such testing are poorly managed, employees poorly trained and a new employee is a target of company's troubles."

If an employer is using the MBTI to select employees, your comment is correct. Employers that use the MBTI for employee selection are guilty of mis-management since the MBTI publisher says not to use the MBTI for employee selection.

"A good interview(s) is all you need for a new employee."

Many managers seem to believe it.

How effective are the various methods of screening job applicants?

Here are the correlation coefficients that I have seen:

0.00 for a Flip of a Coin
0.14 for an Interview Only
0.26 after adding Background Checks
0.38 after adding Personality Testing
0.54 after adding Abilities Testing
0.66 after adding Interest Testing
0.75 after adding Job Match Testing

plus a few random ones…

0.18 for Job Experience (years)
0.38 for Unstructured Interviews
0.41 for Integrity Tests
0.51 for General Mental Ability Tests
0.51 for Structured Interviews
0.54 for Work Sample Tests

As you can see testing out performs the non-test methods. Imagine what could be done with structured interviews followed by job match testing?

Sandi, you are right to be skeptical. If the MBTI were a successful pre-screen tool, why would the publisher not say so? Employers are well advised to use a Normative not an Ipsative assessment.

MBTI users ought to add a whole person assessment to their offerings to help their clients avoid abusing the MBTI. Stop by the following web page and clink on the bottom five links to see how a state-of-the-art whole person assessment identifies future successful employees.

http://www.gatelyconsulting.com

The five web pages show the graphical presentation of the results. There are other reports such as Placement and Coaching plus morel

The whole person assessment has over 300 questions and takes about an hour of the applicant's time to complete it on the Internet. Reports are created as soon as the applicant has completed the assessment and the reports can be emailed immediately to the hiring manager, HR, etc.