December 10, 2012 at 12:29 pm
jbnv (12/10/2012)
Jeff Moden (12/10/2012)
What I'm suggesting is that tests such as MB ... do little in determining if someone will go postal or be an excellent employee.Again, that's not the point of the Myers-Briggs personality scale. If someone is using it in that fashion, then they should be stopped. That doesn't destroy or diminish the usefulness of the profile.
Based on my reading I'd like to second this notion. While I can disagree with the actual test in a fairly nonconsequential way, I can understand the premise. However, I'm pretty sure that everyone who's actually familiar with the topic understands it wasn't meant to be a test for employment. Obviously some HR departments aren't going to bother understanding this point, but I think we here in this thread can at least agree that its not an employment test. HR departments are going to be either competent, not competent, or any value in between.
December 10, 2012 at 1:48 pm
Jeff Moden (12/10/2012)
Ok... how are such profile tests actually useful, then?
MB in particular provides a somewhat-objective scale for assessing and expressing personality traits, particularly for new hires who haven't really enough work to reveal their personalities. The wise organization would consider these traits in assigning roles to personnel. For example, I'd recommend my extroverts for training and customer service and send them to networking events.
patrickmcginnis59 (12/10/2012)
jbnv (12/10/2012)
Jeff Moden (12/10/2012)
What I'm suggesting is that tests such as MB ... do little in determining if someone will go postal or be an excellent employee.Again, that's not the point of the Myers-Briggs personality scale. If someone is using it in that fashion, then they should be stopped. That doesn't destroy or diminish the usefulness of the profile.
Based on my reading I'd like to second this notion. While I can disagree with the actual test in a fairly nonconsequential way, I can understand the premise. However, I'm pretty sure that everyone who's actually familiar with the topic understands it wasn't meant to be a test for employment. Obviously some HR departments aren't going to bother understanding this point, but I think we here in this thread can at least agree that its not an employment test. HR departments are going to be either competent, not competent, or any value in between.
Remember that these are the same HR departments that probably don't understand the technical requirements that we face, particularly for those companies whose primary business isn't software or IT. I wouldn't trust an HR department to properly assess me based on my MB result than I would trust one that doesn't know whether or not my experience with databases qualifies me for a SLQ Server DBA position.
Jay Bienvenu | http://bienv.com | http://twitter.com/jbnv
December 10, 2012 at 4:13 pm
jbnv (12/10/2012)
Jeff Moden (12/10/2012)
Ok... how are such profile tests actually useful, then?MB in particular provides a somewhat-objective scale for assessing and expressing personality traits, particularly for new hires who haven't really enough work to reveal their personalities. The wise organization would consider these traits in assigning roles to personnel. For example, I'd recommend my extroverts for training and customer service and send them to networking events.
So they're using it pretty much as I said and like you said they're not. I can only hope the people that support these "tests" are someday rejected for a potential positition so they'll begin to truly understand why I say that personality profiling by such tests should be outlawed as a form of illegal discrimination.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 10, 2012 at 4:39 pm
I previously provided a link to a website I worked on many years ago containing rough version of the test. The website belongs to a business consultancy, that uses the real paid version of the Myers-Briggs test as part of team building programmes that it runs mainly for Law firms. It's not used to discriminate, it's used to help the team members to get along with each other and create a friendlier work environment which in turn helps them work more efficiently, ultimately benefitting the business. It's a useful instigator for a negotiation and mediation process, especially where there is conflict within a team.
This is a basic run-down of how it's used.
1) You tell it about yourself and it gives you a summary.
2) You then reflect on your summary and on the summary of your colleagues.
3) As a team you then consider if your interactions with each other are positive and reflect on how you might work together in a more positive way without pushing each others buttons or being negative and cynical. (I suspect some people enjoy being negative and cynical so that's where it probably falls apart for them. If you don't make an effort then that's your issue.)
4) The learning is then applied through workshops - adults learn best by doing. As much as I personally dislike role-playing workshops, I can admit that they work by providing a visceral experience. Experience is what makes us mature, even artificial experiences like role-plays.
It's easy for us to dismiss this as useless fluff because we are hard-headed and know better and won't be told. We're all about hard numbers and facts, not airy fairy stuff like relationships and emotions. What could we possibly learn about ourselves that we don't already know?
My inclination is the same, I come from a hard science background (chemistry). But I can appreciate other people's points of view and have chosen to remove the blinkers and see what I can learn.
To those people who have closed their mind to the possible benefits of self-reflection I would say that as humans we can't shut off the emotional side like Spock. We need a bit of Bones for Balance.
December 10, 2012 at 5:07 pm
davoscollective (12/10/2012)
This is a basic run-down of how it's used.1) You tell it about yourself and it gives you a summary.
2) You then reflect on your summary and on the summary of your colleagues.
3) As a team you then consider if your interactions with each other are positive and reflect on how you might work together in a more positive way without pushing each others buttons or being negative and cynical.
Tell me why someone needs to do #1 and #2 above to successfully accomplish #3 especially when #1 is as loosely interpretive as a horoscope (IMHO... yeah... I took it in with open arms and thought the profile rating system was as about as effective).
(I suspect some people enjoy being negative and cynical so that's where it probably falls apart for them. If you don't make an effort then that's your issue.)
And I suspect that people who say such things should probably do a little more self reflection. Why does someone need to do #1 and #2 to accomplish #3. Thoughtful interaction with and by your fellow employees is much more effective in causing self reflection.
To those people who have closed their mind to the possible benefits of self-reflection I would say that as humans we can't shut off the emotional side like Spock. We need a bit of Bones for Balance.
You mistake the method for the madness. Not wanting to participate in #1 and #2 has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not self-reflection is either necessary or possible and it sure doesn't have anything to do with a closed mind for some of us. We just don't believe in the method.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 10, 2012 at 5:32 pm
Tell me why someone needs to do #1 and #2 above to successfully accomplish #3 especially when #1 is as loosely interpretive as a horoscope (IMHO... yeah... I took it in with open arms and thought the profile rating system was as about as effective).
Horoscopes are based on your birthday corresponding with some arbitrary positioning of the stars some thousand years ago - clearly nonsense. Myers-Briggs is based on a comprehensive set of questions stemming from Jungian Psychology that are balanced to avoid acquiescence bias and are answered entirely by you. It is subjective yes, but not arbitrary. The language used in the descriptions, like all language, can be ambiguous so I agree it's important to define your terminology. The language, however, is directly related to the input - your answers to the questions. Simply asking the questions is enough to trigger you to think about the answers. Perhaps you do that without prompting but most people aren't so self-aware. I can think of a few managers I've worked with who would benefit from a good dose of self-awareness. Admittedly I would too.
(I suspect some people enjoy being negative and cynical so that's where it probably falls apart for them. If you don't make an effort then that's your issue.)
I apologise for that comment, I do hope people don't enjoy that. You're right, I did need to reflect on that. I have a lot of learning to do.
Thoughtful interaction with and by your fellow employees is much more effective in causing self reflection.
I totally agree. Unfortunately conflict arises from the lack of this positive behaviour, hence the usefulness of an intervention.
If you do those things naturally and your team members already understand each other, have effective interactions and you are master of your own behaviour then there is little to gain. I think that applies to very few people.
December 10, 2012 at 11:36 pm
I showed this thread to the Business Consultant I mentioned and these are her comments. I've posted them here with permission. Note this is an accredited expert in the field, not my opinions. I added the bits in bold.
•It is only supposed to be administered by an accredited person - there is a lot to be explained including the frame of mind to be applied to responses
•The theory of MBTI teaches that no-one can tell you what box you belong in. You don't belong in a box - each of us is an unique individual and it is for each of us to decide how insightful and accurate we find the instrument to be
•There are 16 basic types however within each pair of characteristics there are significant gradations which accounts for really significant differences in how individuals present
•For those who find it useful, a strength is how it helps us to understand how others experience their interaction with us. In particular, there is helpful learning about the difference between intention (what we intended to convey) and reception (how the other person experiences our communication)
•it is just one more piece of data and was never intended as a standalone tool to capture everything about an individual
With regard to people's experiences with the test:
Doesn't it highlight:
•how badly the instrument is explained before it is administered
•how badly the instrument is debriefed (and most of these people have never had a personal debrief)
•the misuse of the instrument e.g in recruiting. As part of accreditation we have to promise that we won't use it for recruitment because it is too manipulable. It's real value is in personal, self-knowing
December 11, 2012 at 6:33 am
davoscollective (12/10/2012)
I previously provided a link to a website I worked on many years ago containing rough version of the test. The website belongs to a business consultancy, that uses the real paid version of the Myers-Briggs test as part of team building programmes that it runs mainly for Law firms. It's not used to discriminate, it's used to help the team members to get along with each other and create a friendlier work environment which in turn helps them work more efficiently, ultimately benefitting the business. It's a useful instigator for a negotiation and mediation process, especially where there is conflict within a team.This is a basic run-down of how it's used.
1) You tell it about yourself and it gives you a summary.
2) You then reflect on your summary and on the summary of your colleagues.
3) As a team you then consider if your interactions with each other are positive and reflect on how you might work together in a more positive way without pushing each others buttons or being negative and cynical. (I suspect some people enjoy being negative and cynical so that's where it probably falls apart for them. If you don't make an effort then that's your issue.)
4) The learning is then applied through workshops - adults learn best by doing. As much as I personally dislike role-playing workshops, I can admit that they work by providing a visceral experience. Experience is what makes us mature, even artificial experiences like role-plays.
It's easy for us to dismiss this as useless fluff because we are hard-headed and know better and won't be told. We're all about hard numbers and facts, not airy fairy stuff like relationships and emotions. What could we possibly learn about ourselves that we don't already know?
My inclination is the same, I come from a hard science background (chemistry). But I can appreciate other people's points of view and have chosen to remove the blinkers and see what I can learn.
To those people who have closed their mind to the possible benefits of self-reflection I would say that as humans we can't shut off the emotional side like Spock. We need a bit of Bones for Balance.
Definitely true that any situation involving human beings (or most animals for that matter) involves emotional aspects. The single biggest barrier to productivity is human emotion and reaction, after all, as any good manager knows.
The problem with the tests is not that they're touchy-feely or anything like that. The problem is that they are mathematically and scientifically and logically flawed, and don't actually measure what they are intended to measure.
I've actually done extensive research in the area.
Here are some of the flaws:
1. Questions that are presented as binary situations, which actually aren't. (Logic flaw)
2. Most of the questions are simply asserted ego-reflection; meaning, they say what the test-taker wants to believe, not what objective observation would actually support. Many, many people will overestimate abilities they aren't actually as good at as they think they are, and the same applies to basic personality traits.
3. They rely on suggestability for their test-validation. E.g.: "The test says this person is bad at communicating, doesn't like other people, and has very good detail-focus. When told this, the person agreed. Thus, the test worked." That's how they validate the tests, but it's not actually a logical conclusion that "the test worked", because it's not a scientifically valid control/variable environment.
4. They treat ratios as absolute values and that all human beings have a fixed amount of total personality that can be shared around between these traits. E.g.: I usually test out as being incredibly good at communicating, and not much good for anything else at all. Per many of these tests, I have no technical/detail/mathematical aptitude at all. But, at the same time, I have an IQ that's somewhere between 150 and 225, depending on which test I take. What the personality test is actually finding is that communication is stronger than analytical/conceptual, or (Myers-Briggs) that Extraversion is higher than Intraversion, but then it assumes that the lower trait is thus below human norm. That's a severe mathematical flaw as well as complete logical nonsense.
5. Precision severely excedes accuracy on these tests. This includes IQ tests as well as personality tests.
6. The baselines on the tests were hypothesized but never validated.
If you research the history and genesis of the tests, and how they are validated, you'll find that the flaws go even deeper than that, and are fundamental to the whole testing paradigm and the basic theories behind the whole thing. It's really interesting research.
So, my problem isn't with people finding out more about themselves, or about their teammates. Those are good things. My problem with these tests is that they promise what they cannot deliver. They don't have the scientific or mathematical validity to deliver it.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
December 11, 2012 at 7:47 am
Hiring someone because they got certain letters from a personality test is wrong. Hiring someone because he's the boss's nephew even though he is completely unqualified is also wrong. Both happen in the real world. That doesn't invalidate the personality test entirely. Nor does it mean that the personality test should not be used to assess employees who are already on the payroll and make better use of their particular aptitudes. And to say that assessing someone's personality is "discrimination" and should be outlawed is an insult both to the researchers who developed these assessments and people who have suffered real employment discrimination.
Let's not also confuse the assessment scales with the tests that are used to measure people against them. Yes, self-assessment questionaires have many scientific flaws. They are not appropriate for making absolute, permanent assessments, but do serve as a good starting point for further and ongoing reflection. Let's condemn the tests if we have to, but not the assessment scales, the research that went into them, and the real benefit that they provide to humanity.
davoscollective, thank you for referring this to your consultant and sharing her comments.
Jay Bienvenu | http://bienv.com | http://twitter.com/jbnv
December 11, 2012 at 8:30 am
jbnv (12/11/2012)
And to say that assessing someone's personality is "discrimination" and should be outlawed is an insult both to the researchers who developed these assessments and people who have suffered real employment discrimination.
I don't see how my comment has "insulted people who have suffered real employment discrimination". In fact, I see it as quite the opposite if employers use such "tests" for any such evaluation.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 11, 2012 at 9:25 am
Jeff Moden (12/11/2012)
jbnv (12/11/2012)
And to say that assessing someone's personality is "discrimination" and should be outlawed is an insult both to the researchers who developed these assessments and people who have suffered real employment discrimination.I don't see how my comment has "insulted people who have suffered real employment discrimination". In fact, I see it as quite the opposite if employers use such "tests" for any such evaluation.
And I agree with you that such assessments are not appropriate for hiring. But you didn't stop there. You called for personality tests to be banned outright. And personality assessment of any sort is hardly among the most egregious form of employment discrimination out there.
Jay Bienvenu | http://bienv.com | http://twitter.com/jbnv
December 11, 2012 at 9:42 am
jbnv (12/11/2012)
Jeff Moden (12/11/2012)
jbnv (12/11/2012)
And to say that assessing someone's personality is "discrimination" and should be outlawed is an insult both to the researchers who developed these assessments and people who have suffered real employment discrimination.I don't see how my comment has "insulted people who have suffered real employment discrimination". In fact, I see it as quite the opposite if employers use such "tests" for any such evaluation.
And I agree with you that such assessments are not appropriate for hiring. But you didn't stop there. You called for personality tests to be banned outright. And personality assessment of any sort is hardly among the most egregious form of employment discrimination out there.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 pretty clearly lays out how personality tests may be used in employment screening.
Banning personality tests from employment screening would pretty much eliminate the whole interview process. Interviewing is a form of personality testing, just (usually) less formal and less codified than the written forms of personality testing.
My main action in interviewing is a formal, verbal, "personality test". Hasn't failed me in 25 years of use. Thousands of others use the same testing technique, with similar results. Doesn't require any paperwork, and would look like a conversation to an untrained observer, but it's rigorous, formal, follows an exact pattern, and has adequate accuracy for hiring purposes.
Ban "personality tests in hiring", and take that tool away from people like me, and I guarantee that the lawsuits protesting the ban will win when it hits the Supreme Court.
(Please keep in mind, there are certain tests that I consider valid, and others I consider worse than a bad joke. When I make negative comments about some of the tests, don't take that as a general "all tests are bad" statement. I realized I hadn't been clear about that in some of my prior posts, so thought I should mention it here. Primarily, DISC and Myers-Briggs are useless, per my research. Same for Psychogeometrics - useless garbage. I've never yet found an instance where any of those resulted in any sort of verifiable, positive return-on-investment for companies that have used them.)
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
December 18, 2012 at 5:14 pm
By the way, if anyone is still interested: http://www.smh.com.au/world/myersbriggs-test-not-all-psychologists-type-20121217-2bigg.html
Per this article:
Even Katharine Downing Myers concedes that "psychologists had no use for the indicator; they felt that Jung was a crazy mystic".
In other words, yeah, it's not scientific and was never intended to be so.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
Viewing 13 posts - 61 through 72 (of 72 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply