Forced Personality Test

Being able to work with a given team is often given at least as much importance as skills at most places. Thus, I was thinking of a way to "force" a candidate to reveal their personality. One approach is to give them about 10 potential complaints or dislikes and ask them to rank them (not rate them) ordered from worse to least bothersome, worse at top. Here are some examples:

Not enough time to finish a project
Somebody holding up a project over an insignificant detail or frequent last-minute changes
Too large a work-load
Too many distractions
Not enough team gatherings, such as lunches
Not allowed to try something new
Forced to do things somebody else's way instead of your favored way
Being berated
Being berated in front of peers
Being accused of something you didn't do
Excessive paper-work

This forces them to reveal their dislikes, or main pet-peeves. It won't be a perfect test, but it will give an idea of the personality and expectations of the person. Since they probably don't know what a given team values the most, it is hard to cheat, assuming they don't have inside info.

-- Top

I wouldn't work at any place that gave me a ForcedPersonalityTest. I know this because it happened; I was asked to do one, I did it using my 3 years of undergraduate psych knowledge, I was offered the job, and I consciously chose not to work there on account of them doing that. I disliked that experience more than anything on your list. How would you grade me? -- PeterMerel

It's probably not a question of being graded, more a question of whether you would fit. Perhaps your response shows that you wouldn't fit well in a place where people think it's important enough that you fit to give you a test that might cause them to lose your skills because you decide you don't want to be "tested". Maybe, in those circumstances, they wouldn't mind losing you.

I was tested. I passed. I didn't sign up. Whether they minded or not isn't the question. The question is, did they lose out? Or did I?

When I consider working somewhere, I expect them to value what I've done in the past, how relevant my skills are to what needs doing, and of course to try to read whether I have the right demeanour to fit in. When I'm doing the hiring I start by looking at the same things. If I feel good about a candidate I bring them in for a team interview. I have everyone ask their best questions, preferably new questions, and I encourage a free exchange to break down the usual interview stresses. I like an interview that entertains and enlightens everyone attending. I've found interviews are a golden opportunity to learn things you can't learn any other way - things outside your box. Approached as mutual learning exercises, interviews can become very enjoyable, and it's soon obvious whether an interview candidate can be sympatico or not.

One time this didn't work well, the guy in question was brilliant thinker, a lot of fun, and an excellent match skill-wise, but a certifiable political animal personality-wise. He'd have sliced through your test like a greased rat through warm gruyere. A real player. Caused me no end of heartaches after I hired him, and swiftly made himself politically impossible to dislodge. Many years later I have almost stopped kicking myself ...

I think your test wouldn't catch such real stinkers, may induce false negatives for those who outside an interview situation would find ways to adapt to and/or with your team, and will piss off some candidates who might otherwise be prize catches. Insensitivity to this is what would induce me to avoid signing up. If you don't mind losing independently minded hires, I don't believe your team will be as strong as it could be.

The main problem with this kind of a test is that a great many of the candidates will order them "safely", rather than honestly. In an interview, I would rank them approximately this way:

These 3 first, because it is very safe for anyone to say that these things really bother them.

Being accused of something you didn't do
Being berated in front of peers
Being berated

This one goes in the middle because it is innocuous -- e.g. team building is a good thing, as long as it doesn't cost the company any money / your time.

Not enough team gatherings, such as lunches

These last, because ranking them too high would make you appear to be lazy, or a "whiner", or a PrimaDonna, or some kind of cowboy hacker.

Somebody holding up a project over an insignificant detail or frequent last-minute changes
Too many distractions
Not allowed to try something new
Forced to do things somebody else's way instead of your favored way
Not enough time to finish a project
Too large a work-load
Excessive paper-work

And now, for my real, honest rankings:

Being accused of something you didn't do
Not allowed to try something new
Too many distractions
Excessive paper-work
Not enough team gatherings, such as lunches
Being berated in front of peers
Too large a work-load
Forced to do things somebody else's way instead of your favored way
Somebody holding up a project over an insignificant detail or frequent last-minute changes
Being berated
Not enough time to finish a project

So much for such a test given during an interview revealing my actual personality...

EditHint: Perhaps we should reconsider the word "forced" in the title. The idea of "forced" is not so much that you "have to take it", but rather that it is hard to cheat because it is measuring relative preferences. It is about "forcing a choice", not about forcing you to write answers or take the test. It is contrasting personality test techniques rather than suggesting they should be required. Being required or not is a separate issue. Suggestions:

"Relative Personality Test"
?

CategoryEmployment, CategoryPsychology