Hippocrates was ahead of his time in more ways than one. Known more widely as the Father of Medicine, the Greek physician was also the first to measure the psyche. In 400BC, Hippocrates attempted to define the four basic temperament types according to a predominant body fluid or humour: blood (sanguine – optimistic), black bile (melancholic – depressed), yellow bile (choleric – irritable) and phlegm (phlegmatic – listless and sluggish)
Hippocrates was on to something that, nearly 2,500 years later, is still consuming leaders in the business world and has spawned a cottage industry of its own. That industry is commonly referred to as psychometric testing.
Psychometric testing assesses ability, aptitude and personality. There are hundreds of different kinds of psychometric measurements (evaluators shy away from using the term “test”, preferring the term “tools” or “instruments”). Many management and recruitment consultants and employers consider them invaluable assessment tools when used in conjunction with face-to-face interviews. Some are used for the initial screening of an applicant, some mid-way through the interview process, and others as a penultimate evaluation before the final callback interview. Often these same tools are used for internal promotion.
The consulting firm Personnel Decision in Minneapolis is a leader in designing and administering tests for entry-level employees and upper-level managers. “We create a model of what an employer is looking for and put an employee through a series of simulations that he or she is likely to find in the workplace,” says Lowell Hellervik, the company's CEO. “Our tests can determine anything from the likelihood of someone filing a worker's compensation claim to his/her decision-making and problem-solving capabilities.”
Some of these assessment tools are more popular than others. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, which was developed more than 50 years ago, is based on Carl Jung's theory of psychological types and is used for understanding normal personality differences. According to Jung, the four basic mental processes are sensing, intuition, thinking and feeling; individuals use these processes in different ways, depending on whether they are more extroverted or introverted.
The Myers-Briggs instruments are most often used by companies for team-building and management and leadership training rather than as a tool to predict success in employment.
The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument is designed to assess an individual's behavior in situations of conflict and can help to determine a candidate's assertiveness and co-operativeness. Take, for example, this sample question in which the reader is asked to choose which of these statements is most characteristics of his/her own behavior:
- “I am usually firm in pursuing my goals.”
- “I usually seek the other's help in working out a solution.”
For most of these instruments, there are no universal right or wrong answers. For example, if an individual scores high in the area of the test that assesses the competing behaviour mode, the test booklet asks: “Are subordinates afraid to admit ignorance and uncertainties to you?” If an individual scores low in this area, he is asked to consider “Do you have trouble taking a firm stand, even when you see the need?”
Hogan Assessment Systems is yet another instrument that was developed more than 25 years ago by two professors of psychology. Hogan instruments are designed to help predict a person's on-the-job performance, especially those aspects of performance normally associated with attitude.
Ted Bililies, director of executive and organisational development at State Street in Boston, has administered Hogan Assessment Systems to a dozen State Street employees. The company intends to put 300 more through the Hogan tests. “We use these tools in three ways,” says Bililies, a licensed psychologist who has spent more than 15 years studying psychometric testing. “They're reliable primarily for development, as well as for external and internal selection.”
Any reputable consulting firm or employer shares the results of these instruments with its candidates. “I demand of my clients that the candidates get either a written report or verbal feedback,” says Victoria Wall, a human resources consultant and career counsellor in London. At State Street, in-house employees can expect to receive two to four hours of feedback following the Hogan tests.
What can any of these tools tell about a person that an astute interviewer can't pick up in the course of a 30-minute interview? “Sometimes face-to-face interviews can be misleading,” says Shalom Saar, founder of the Center for Leadership Development in Granby, CT, who frequently uses the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in his work as consultant for corporations. “People can train themselves to come across the way they think others would like to see them. These instruments enable us to look at the same person in a different dimension.”
But can't an adept test-taker cheat on these tests? Isn't it possible to answer these questions in the way you think a prospective employer wants to see you?
“Some personality tests are more transparent than others and can be easily manipulated,” admits John A. Johnson, professor of psychology at Pennsylvania State University. For example, everyone knows that people in sales are supposed to be extroverted; it is quite easy to identify personality items that measure extroversion and answer them the way a sales person is supposed to.
Some of these instruments contain scales that can detect cases where people are trying too hard to look good. In addition, says Johnson, “My own research indicates that, when asked, people can give answers that are generally more desirable than if they were taking the test honestly, but that they often do not know what is desirable for specific job categories. Different jobs require different combinations of personality traits for effective performance.”
Just how reliable are these instruments, anyway? There are scores of websites with do-it-yourself tests that just about anyone can administer. “Online tests really discredit the whole industry,” says Wall. “They're incredibly generic and there's no real individual assessment going on.”
On the other hand, professionally developed tests are considered reliable markers for assessing job candidates. “In conjunction with an interview, these tests give you as near as you can get to a perfect picture of a person,” Wall says. (Just as crucial a component in candidate assessment, particularly at Spencer Stuart, is the taking of references.)
Jed Hughes, Jr, a former professional coach for the Pittsburgh Steelers, and now a Spencer Stuart consultant in San Francisco, used assessment tools extensively when he ran Walter V. Clarke, a consulting company that pioneered competency development and assessment. “These tools are not the end-all in making a hiring decision,” he says. “Employers need to determine a candidate's competency and skills first. Then they need to look at a person's chemistry and personality. That's where these tools come into play.”
In the end, these instruments are simply tools used in evaluating a candidate, and are no more or less important than a face-to-face interview. How a candidate performs on any of these instruments alone may not mean the difference between making the cut. But increasingly corporations are heeding the results, and for good reason.
“If you make the wrong decision in hiring someone at the VP level, you've made no less than a half-a-million-dollar mistake,” says Saar. “So whatever tools or instruments you have available to determine a good hire are critical.”
And if you balk at taking them? Well, you may not be asked back – and, in most cases, that's perfectly legal. If a test has been proven to have what is known as “predictive validity”, a company can use it as a screening tool. About 10 years ago some of the major inventories had to be revised to make sure they complied with US law; it's safe to say that the major tools used today are both legitimate and valid.
“We view these tools as a perk for our employees,” says Bililies at State Street. “It's a positive opportunity for people we view as having a high potential within the company. I think the fear factor goes away when people understand their purpose.”
Though they may be called “tests”, all consultants say there's no way to either “pass” or “fail” such a test. In any given assessment, people will score in a range from low to mid to high.
“I tell people these tools can help them, too,” says Hughes. “I'd want to know my flaws before I go in somewhere, wouldn't you?”
Donna Cornachio is a writer whose work has been published in the New York Times.