Behavioral Interviews for New Hires?

banetbi asks: "I am a PHP developer and FreeBSD administrator, and have been looking for a new job for a couple of months. Finally, I got a call back from a company, but they want me to take an on-line questionnaire before I come in for an interview. After doing some research I found the company that makes the test and checked out their website. It looks like this is some sort of personality test (they call it an artificially intelligent behavioral analysis). What does my personality have to do with my ability to perform in a job? Have any of you had to take a personality test to get a job? Should I do it, or just keep looking?"

Comments

Your personality is tested *regardless*...

[TripMaster Monkey]

What does my personality have to do with my ability to perform in a job?

Don't want to be insulting here, but the fact that you even need to ask that question shows that you need work in this area.

Even if all you do all day is sit at your desk and churn out code, you will have to interact with your other employees and your employer at some point or other. Your personality is a part of you that they will have to deal with, and it's no wonder that your prospective employers would like to know what they're getting. Given the choice between two technically equivalent candidates, if one has a cheerful, helpful personality, while the other has a withdrawn, antisocial one, who do you think they're going to go with?

Have any of you had to take a personality test to get a job?

Yes, I've had to take one for every single job I've ever held. They were called interviews .

While I'm sure you'll be interviewed as well, I think they're just trying to cull out some of the undesirable personality types in advance via this test, just as they cull out the unfit applicants in advance by examining resumes and applications.

Should I do it, or just keep looking?

As I said above, your personality will be tested sooner or later...if not by an actual test, then by the interviewer during the interview.

Personally, I'd much rather take the test...it's probably far easier than answering that damned question, 'What do you regard as your greatest weakness?' during the interview...

Re:Your personality is tested *regardless*...

[Sad Loser]

Behavioural interviewing is a very dodgy 'science'. It is based on the premise that if you ask someone what they would do in a certain situation, then assess their reply. Obviously there may well be a difference between what they say they would do, and what they would do.

Behavioural interviewing has been seized on by HR people as being somehow more valid than any other technique. There is no evidence to support this, and it is more likely that they are just clutching at the nearest pseudo-scientific theory to fill the inner emptiness in their lives.

It is probably more likely that the on-line test is just a Myers Briggs type test where they are looking at Introvert/Extrovert/ Thinking/Feeling/ Perceiving/Judging scales. In this case, don't worry. They still can't tell that you are a dangerous psychopath.

Re:Your personality is tested *regardless*...

[Agripa]

Behavioral interviewing has been seized on by HR people as being somehow more valid than any other technique.

It would be more accurate to say any other technique legally available. The use of tests to gauge the performance of prospective employees has a long legal history. In general, tests that are specific to the job have been deemed acceptable but tests of a more general nature are not mostly because of discrimination issues. I suspect the HR people are using the tools available to them rather then picking the ones they might prefer under other circumstances.

Re:Your personality is tested *regardless*...

[MrCool80s]

Agreed, this 'science' is very subjective and given too much weight. However it is fast becoming a crutch. I believe the best 'compromise' is to require (get an agreement in writing) a full copy of the results and any and all analysis be provided to you no later than 3 business days after the company receives it...and before an on-site interview, if applicable. Assert also that you "look forward to discussing the results with either HR or the group manager".

In my experience, the technical people are fine with this, but HR balks, claiming "confidentiality". I asked them "How can the results of a test taken by me, about me, for the analysis and presumed betterment of myself be confidential _from_ me?" I can appreciate these things cost money, but I thought they wanted to invest in me as an employee. Anyway, the tech people were understanding, but the HR people decided it was "time to part ways".

As long is one is not an employee, one has a choice not to take it. I believe that if the "tool" is really foir improvement and not a weeding-out crutch, they could just have waited until hiring and required it.

Always remember that HR is not there to benefit you, they are there to protect the company, first.

Re:Your personality is tested *regardless*...

[TheWanderingHermit]

Behavioural interviewing is a very dodgy 'science'. It is based on the premise that if you ask someone what they would do in a certain situation, then assess their reply. Obviously there may well be a difference between what they say they would do, and what they would do.

WHile a lot of what you say has been well though out, this statement is a perfect example of a major problem amoung hard science people in their view of psychology. It is like an astrologer who says they understand asstronomy because they know astrology. In short, it is a statement that, to those who know much about the field, contains within itself an admission of complete ignorance of the field, yet continues to judge that field from that stand of complete ignorance.

Testing does not always ask what someone would do. There is more to it than that. Often tests do ask what one will do, but what people don't realize is that many times the same essential questions are asked in different ways and the results are compared. If they are inconsistent, that can indicate the person is lying on the test or has ethical issues or perceives himself as being one kind of person when, in reality, he is not. A test can also ask people to pick which term out of 2 or 3 or more applies to them. One set of terms may make the person pick between compassion and logic. Another may make them pick between compassion and fairness. A few other questions with choices like that, when put together can tell that the testee THINKS they value logic over compassion and passion, but may show that they are more likely to react passionately than logically.

I've seen that many times here, on ./, where most people think they know logic and have a better grasp of it than others, but if you challenge a point they don't want to know is weak, sometimes you'll get a vicious attack that is written up as a logical argument, but instead focuses on name calling and other ad hominem attacks. That is a case of someone who thinks he is strong on logic, yet does not realize how much passion blinds him to it and does not realize just how strong his emotions are. Testing can be invaluable in finding such people that claim to funciton logically and do well in teams, but who, in reality, may have ego problems that make them poor team players and unresponsive to logic on some topics.

And to the point where a person may say they will do one thing but, in reality would do another -- did you think that a person who has several degrees in a science that studies human behavior (you don't see tests with credibility designed by someone with a B.S. only) and who has spent years in that field would not know this little detail you are sure of? Do you give psychologists credit for that little intelligence? Serioulsy -- think about it. It's to their benefit, when you're being tested, that you do not see beyond that. Tests are often designed to show what you say you'll do, yet also tell the evaluator what you'll really do.

Re:Your personality is tested *regardless*...

[SuiteSisterMary]

Here's my problem with the whole thing.

I've taken a professional, honest-to-goodness Meyers-Briggs test. Administered by somebody specially trained to give them. She spent several minutes explaining about how it shows tendancies, how it's a learning tool, made a great analogy that a right-handed person could, with effort, learn how to be a left handed person, and a given personality type could, similarly, train themselves to new tendancies. It's a spectrum, or a continuum, not an absolute thing, and so on. Test took several hours.

Great. I'm an INTP, by the way.

When a itty bitty 50 question 'MBTI' test is downloaded off the Internet by some random middle manager, who considers it to be the 100% accurate be-all and end-all of crystal balling, and given all willy-nilly, without even understanding how the terms 'introvert' and 'extrovert' are used (and no, they don't mean shy versus gregarious,) I get worried.

Re:Your personality is tested *regardless*...

[TheWanderingHermit]

You seem to want to pick on everything you can to take apart something you disagree with. Just as an side, I'm struggling with a high level of pain in my hands from way too much time spent coding recently. It makes typing rather difficult, but if I work quickly, it doesn't hurt as much. Going back and moving around to the arrow keys and other keys, moving back and forth to make corrections, though, is quite painful.

But you are welcome to judge me on whatever criteria you prefer, since it seems important to you.

I think you have that backwards. The stereotype among hard science people about psychology is that psychology is something akin to astrology, but based on cigars and violins rather than signs of the zodiac and planets.

Actually that was my point, that hard science people view it that way, but that by taking that view, they are showing the same level of ignorance, in themselves, of psychology than an astrologer would show of astronomy. In both cases, though, you are often dealing with someone who is so sure he is right that he can't see beyond his own nose and can't see that he is doing the very thing he accuses others of doing.

Since you prefer to use the ad hominem argument and attack me and my typos, rather than deal with the point of the post, I really should thank you for backing up what I said in the first place:

I've seen that many times here, on ./, where most people think they know logic and have a better grasp of it than others, but if you challenge a point they don't want to know is weak, sometimes you'll get a vicious attack that is written up as a logical argument, but instead focuses on name calling and other ad hominem attacks. That is a case of someone who thinks he is strong on logic, yet does not realize how much passion blinds him to it and does not realize just how strong his emotions are.

Instead of dealing with the issues, you attack me personally and my typing. Granted, you could not know the pain I am in and how that effects my typing, but that just goes to show that sometimes it's best not to judge without knowing all the facts and it's best not to call names or indulge in ad hominem attacks without knowing the full story. You are probably also unaware that I have a learning disability (and no, I'm not making that up and tossing it in for good measure) that sometimes, like dyslexia, makes it hard for me to visually recognize typos and other similar problems. Just for your benefit, a learning disability is a difference in the way a person's brain processes information. It often has nothing to do with intelligence, as has been shown by many high achievers with learning disabilities.

Problem with personality/honesty testing

[GodaiYuhsaku]

I used to work as a temp in a company that made entry/promotional tests for various civil service positions. He was an I/O Psych Doctorate and one time he asked me and the grad students working there, "What is wrong with tests that tests honesty?" Which I at least consider similar to these personality tests. I answered correctly. "People lie." Honesty tests and personality tests both have the same problem. I know your testing me. And since the answers are usualy so vague. Its just a matter of me picking the answers you want to hear. I don't think i've ever lied personally but its the flaw of the tests themselves.

Cite please,

[way2trivial]

I feel you have pulled the content of your post out of you ass, and ask you to give a citation indcicating a law, or body of laws, or point to a webpage where I can further research the
validity of your claim.

I think you are (1) wrong (2) full of shit (3) stupid as hell or (4) all of the above.

Illegal? Hardly...

[C10H14N2]

The only things that are illegal are those that reveal "protected class" status (e.g. race, sex, religion, handicap etc.) -- and even then, it's not illegal per se to ask, it is only illegal to actually screen people out based on that information. Obviously, someone seeking a lawsuit will have a pretty strong case just from the asking, but that only means it is well inadvisable to bring it up, not that it is illegal to do so.

So, those lists of "legal" questions you may see are merely recommendations of what you can ask and not risk litigation. That doesn't mean it is illegal to go beyond those questions, just that you're getting into unsafe territory. You could, say, ask someone "what do you do for fun on Sunday." That's not literally saying "are you a Christian," and the person might be a christian but say "I go to brunch," but they might well say "I sing in the choir at my church" and voila, you could now be accused of discrimination based on religion--even though you never actually asked about it directly. Similarly, you could try to be "safe" and ferret out recreational activity on Saturday but get smacked with "Oh, I go to temple." Voila, now you're potentially an anti-semite. The point of those guidelines is to avoid questions that will give anyone the opportunity to volunteer that information--but that isn't law, it's just good advice.

"Behavioural" questions at an interview

[Space cowboy]

I'm not in HR, I have a senior technical role, but I give a fair number of interviews - I'm averaging 1 a week at the moment. I've been on the company course to understand what a good interview consists of, and it was worthwhile doing that course...

Two things:

1) "Behavioural questions" are supposed to be based on past experience, not made-up scenarios, eg: "Tell me about a time when you had to give negative feedback to your direct superior". Another example "Walk me through a time when you were working on a small team, and the team disagreed with your ideas". The idea is that there are several ways each of those questions can be taken (mainly because they're challenging situations), and the way in which the candidate chooses to perceive the question is just as much a guide to their character as the actions they claim to take. I always ask at least one question like the above, and the range of answers is quite remarkable...

2) There is no way on this good earth I will recommend anyone who I feel will be disruptive to the team I work within, unless they (a) walk on water, *and* (b) telecommute a lot. Ok, hyperbole aside, the morale of the team is one of the most crucial parts of software development - I want people who go the extra distance when needed (and only when needed, because to *need* that is indicative of a failure somewhere else, probably on my part...); I want smart, motivated, excellent-at-what-they-do engineers and QA. I take the time and effort to build a cohesive team with both a "we can do this" (backed up with some data...) and a "we *want* to do this" attitude, and I don't want Joe Random Nobody upsetting that.

Simon.

Re:"Behavioural" questions at an interview

[bkeeler]

I'm not a fan of questions like "Tell me about a time when you were challeneged and overcame it", or "Where do you plan to be in five years?" I don't think they tell you all that much about a candidate, and what you do learn can be misleading.

For starters, those questions are very common in interviews. People that answer them well have either prepared and rehearsed stock answers for them, or they've had a lot of practice being interviewed.

If they're the well-prepared type, well that's not bad in itself of course, but their answers don't tell you much about how they would handle a spontaneous, real-world situation.

If they're the well-practiced type, of course you have to ask yourself why they've been interviewed so much. Either they job-hop a lot, or they don't get many offers, and you tell which by looking at their resume.

Personally, for a coding position, I'd rather sit down with them, put some code on the screen, explain what needs to be done to it and see how they go about it. We pair-program at my company, so seeing how people fare in a pair-programming role is exactly what we need to know.

Right.

[C10H14N2]

Honestly, these tests aren't very long and having seen "real" results for whatever temperments, there's no way you could tell a "deceitful" person from an "honest" person if all the answers are the same. A truly deceitful person will fly under the radar because they know the test and know the answers.

Besides, the real problem here is taking something that is actually a relatively neutral analysis and making screening decisions based on the results. In the case of Meyers-Briggs, I'm an INTJ, so how do I compare to a ESFP?

The problem here isn't that the tests are useless, it's that the tests are designed for situations where there is no incentive to deliberately skew the results. If someone's financial livelihood depends on how they "look on paper," it for all reasonable intents invalidates the foundation of the test. Sure, people do the same thing in person, but the problem is relying on these results sight-unseen and giving any credence to the supposedly "objective" results as if it retains any scientific validity.

Re:Motivated candidates?

[Red Flayer]

I ask them about out-of-office activities, since those projects are the ones where successful completion depends on self-control, not on direct and constant supervision. If they believably demonstrate that they successfully complete projects on their own, then it is likely that will carry into the office.

Hahahaha oh man

[E. Edward Grey]

What does my personality have to do with my ability to perform in a job?

Nothing at all, if you job doesn't ask you do do these things:

1. Be in the presence of people

2. Communicate with others

3. Be trusted with / near property which does not belong to you

4. Provide products or services to customers

5. Exist in the physical world of things and people

Screening for Cheerful Charlies, not Tech Skills

[xjimhb]

Ran into this when they opened a new Best Buy near us, and I thought I might pick up a little extra money as a computer tech (mostly back-room work, minimal customer contact). They asked a few (very few) questions to establish tech skills, 90% of this on-line application was this behavioral crap, which I answered more or less honestly. I could see where the thing was aiming, though, looked like they wanted everyone in the store to be "Cheerful Charlies" to fit in.

When I went over to their interview site in a nearby mall and inquired, I was told that I had not been selected for an interview. If I wanted I could try again in thirty days (by which time the roster for the new store would be filled up, of course). I didn't bother.

I no longer shop at Worst Buy, certainly not for anything like a computer, since it is obvious they are NOT selecting their PC techs for technical skills, just their beaming and radiant personalities.

Re:fact of interviewing life these days.

[Red Flayer]

"It's mostly voodoo garbage (no offense to voodoo practicers) but is a fact of life in the interviewing world."

Not just voodoo garbage -- they also serve a very important purpose -- documented justification for not hiring someone. Many large companies use personality tests to help them avoid liability in case of a discrimination lawsuit. Lawsuit prevention seems to be a major function of HR departments at most firms I've worked with.

Re:Screening for Cheerful Charlies, not Tech Skill

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing about this post, is it shows that it's probably a good idea that you weren't given the job.

If they had hired you anyway, you would have mocked the "Cheerful Charlies" that worked there, and created a hostile working environment. You would likely have taken the opportunity to degrade the "less skilled" to customers at times, since you decry them so much.

Doesn't sound like someone I'd want to hire. I find it horrible that I'm no longer amazed at the lack of people skills in many technical people ... and their ingrained thinking that people skills are not required for what they are going to do.

Ask a friend of mine who has lost at least 3 jobs in the last year and a half because his people skills and cooperation abilities were sub-par. Companies don't hire people who can't communicate with customers and co-workers very well, and who have elitest attitudes. All the technical skills in the world are useless if you're difficult to work with.

Re:Personality test i took once.

[Odin_Tiger]

They may have simply been testing how you responded to being asked more than how you answered the question. You could have shuffled the cards face down, and randomly ordered them. You could have asked whether you should order them right-to-left, top-to-bottom, the opposites thereof, or in a circular pattern. If they were rectangular, see if they should be long side down or short side down, if not if they should be set to look like squares or diamonds (rotated 45 degrees). After getting your answers, you could have asked, "Relative to my point of view, or yours?" Then you could have laid them out very precisely. Even spaces, perfectly oriented, etc. In any event, lay them out according to their rough equivalent locations in ROYGBIV and explain exactly why you did so.
Congratulations, you have emphasized your attention to detail, non-field-related intelligence, and in explaining your ordering was chosen by a fact of nature and not your own preference, you have nipped any unwanted perspectives on your personality in the bud.

You need help

[nate nice]

"What does my personality have to do with my ability to perform in a job?"

It's not how it affects your job but how you might affect others. You clearly need work in this area. Personality is more important when hiring new people than raw skill. Especially out of college.

If the group doing the interview doesn't think they could work with this person for long, they have no chance.

Of course your skills matter but if you don't get by the personality test, good bye.

Why not ask them?

[dmuth]

I'm serious.

An interview isn't just a one-way process where the company asks you questions, it's also YOUR chance to ask the company questions. For example: Questions about the product they sell, questions about the workplace environment and policies, and questions about who you would be working for and what sort of hours you'd be expected to keep are all legitimate.

That being said, I think it's perfectly legit to ask them why they'd like you to take the chance. I wouldn't be surprised if the answer was, "We had a past employee with real attitude problems and don't want anyone like them here again".

That's my two cents. IANAI (I Am Not An Interviewer)

Um... did you not just prove the parent's point...

[figgypower]

Your reply amounts to name calling... this is what the parent poster said some Slashdot poster's do... and believe it to be entirely logicial. You're judging his intelligence on something as useless as poor spelling... Psychology is based on cigars and violins? I'm a huge fan of the hard physics (I'm a math and computer science major) and give my psych major girlfriend a ton of shit for her major, but even I know that there is some truth to pyshcology. It would be a dumb idea to base a person's hiring worth entirely on one test, but coupled with an interview and a resume, the behavioral test is certainly valid. Oh and yes, I've had one on every single job... I think they're fairly easy to "trick". :-)

Easy - Burn It!

[rmckeethen]

About six months ago, I met a young woman in a bar who'd just gotten back the results from one of these 'personality' tests she took for a potential employer. Amazingly enough, they'd assigned her a letter grade on this test: she scored a D+ . Wonderful. How sweet. After a half hour of discussion, I convinced her to walk outside and burn the stupid thing. The barmaid got pissed with the fire, but fuck it -- incineration is the only appropriate way to deal with this kind of garbage.

In my opinion, passing judgement on anyone's personality is a pointless and elitest exercize. It's the same with drug testing. In my experience, it's a sure bet that companies which utilize these tests never expect to maintain the same standards they want to hold me to. When potential employers start offering the results of their owners/executives/managers personality tests, I'll be more willing to take them. Until that time -- and I'm not holding my breath -- I'll look elsewhere for work. I'm just not that interested in being someone's worker drone.

Lost a job because of one of these.

[M0b1u5]

I have LOST a job I held as a direct result of these type of tests - but it was a few years ago.

I was hired as a salesman, in New Zealand's biggest appliance store - there were 15 sales "men" there (no women at the time!) and I was head-hunted from the competition. I was on a great salary, plus commission, and I had achieved all my sales target except 2 (and they were artificially high, it would have ranked me at #4 in the store after 4 months there!).

Did I mention that the head office, was directly across the alleyway from the store?

In the 6th month I was required to take some kind of test like this - which I dutifully did.

Anyway, I took the test, and two days later was involved in a stand-up shouting match with the sales manager and the marketing manager, who accused me of "failing to achieve your sales targets, and your profile brands you as 'not a salesman'" (which was pretty funny, seeing as I was ranked at #7 for that month.

The short version is that they gave me notice right there and then.

I was only 22 years old, and crushed! I cried for about an hour as I cleared out my gear.

The #1 sales guy found me sobbing in the warehouse and asked what was going on. I told him what'd happened, and he said "Shit, sorry Chris, I should have told you that was coming, because I figured you'd be gone this month."

I asked why, and his response was that it was obvious to him, that despite being a fine salesman, I wasn't going to be happy there 5 years from now, and would want one of the management positions in thehead office - less than 50 metres away.

He said, and I fully believe, that the test I took showed I had "management potential" and that the managers promptly fired me so they wouldn't have to deal with me 5 years down the track, by which time, I would be gunning for their jobs...

Anyway, a word to the wise: be careful how you come across on these things - because if you don't fall into the "right" category according to the tester, even if you are fully qualified for it you probably won't get a job.

Middle and upper management (I know this now!) spend most of their day shitting themselves that someone will find out that they have not a single clue about their job - and the rest of the time they are office politiking to ensure that no one can grab their job.

It mustbe hard work to be such a dirt clod, but there you go.