Workplace Personality Assess Cturner2

7/27/2019 Workplace Personality Assess Cturner2

1/13

1

Personality Assessment for Employee Development

Cindy Turner, Graduate Student

Organizational Psychology

Regis University

Psychologists have long debated the extent to which personality plays a role in the workplace, in areas such as

teamwork, job-fit, leadership, service, sales, and overall performance and satisfaction (Furnham, 2008). Today,

this is an important and pressing topic for human resources and training professionals. Consider the following

workplace scenarios:

A team of software engineers recently added several members due to an acquisition. There is mistrustbetween the existing team and the new members, and project dates are slipping due to disagreements

and lack of communication.

A new sales team has just been put together and the manager wants to assess each persons fit fordifferent types of roles on the team.

Employee surveys and turnover rates are indicating that there may be some problems with how certainmanagers are relating with their subordinates.

A technical support team is receiving poor ratings on their customer satisfaction surveys; in particularthere are customer comments about unfriendliness and impatience.

What these scenarios point out is that employee personalities can have a significant impact on an

organizations overall performance. A persons ability to understand himself as well as the personalities of

others plays a large role in his effectiveness at work (Howard & Howard, 2001, 28). So, how do training

professionals approach employee development efforts that involve personality, considering debates about

whether personality can be measured reliably and described accurately, and whether personality is even

changeable?

Although somewhat controversial in both academic and business circles, one approach is to use

personality tests in conjunction with training and development programs or interventions. Personality tests help

identify individual characteristics, provide employees and managers a common language for discussing

individual differences, promote self-awareness, and provide a starting point for group discussion, individual

coaching, and/or training (Passmore, 2008, 3). Its important that human resources (HR) and training

professionals who select and administer personality tests for employee development understand some of the

theory, research, and controversy behind them. In this paper, I will attempt to lay the foundation for this

understanding, as well as suggest best practices and guiding principles for selecting and administering

personality tests for employee development. Specifically, I will review two approaches to understanding

personality; describe two theories of personality that most personality tests are based onthe Five Factor

Theory and Carl Jungs personality types theory; discuss support and criticism of personality tests for employee

development; discuss the importance of test validity and reliability, and provide guidelines for test selection and

administration; and review some of the development-focused workplace personality tests in use today.

An individuals personality consists of relatively stable characteristics that are partly biological

(inherited) and partly shaped by social forces (upbringing, culture, etc.). For decades, personality researchers

have been collecting, sorting, and categorizing these characteristics and creating groups of common themes,


2/13

2

often referred to as traits or dispositions (Feist & Feist, 2009, 569). Theories of personality generally seek

to describe ways to understand and predict individual differences in three areas: 1) behavior, 2) performance

(school/work), and 3) relationships (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011, 7). However, even if an individual can be

described by traits or dispositions, factors such as environment, situation, moods, preferences, attitudes, beliefs,

values, and motives also influence behavior, performance, and relationships. So, although personality is

considered relatively stable, aperson can also be influencedby states of mind and situations, among other

factors (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011, 19).

As just suggested, the field of personality psychology is divided by two major approaches to

understanding personality, the dispositional approach and the situational approach; personality theorists have

been researching and debating the disposition orsituation question for decades. The dispositional approach

argues that people have consistent dispositions or traits that cause them to act, think, and feel in relatively

consistent ways independent of context or situation. The situational approach argues that people behave

differently in different contexts or situations, making it impossible to determine a persons core psychological

attributes (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011, 27).

As the person-situation debate has risen and fallen in the field of personality psychology, the field of

organizational behavior has, at times, both embraced and de-emphasized the importance of individualpersonality in organizational life. The idea that employee personalities can impact organizational behavior has

been a point of controversy, and confusion, and has resulted in many organizations choosing instead to focus

primarily on situational influences. This situational focus prevailed over the last several decades because it

provided organizational researchers and consultants with concrete advice they could give leaders for improving

organizational effectiveness and profits. Evaluating systems, processes, and work environment has been, and

will likely continue to be, an important component of any organizational change/improvement initiative

(Roberts, 2006, 4).

However, many organizational behavior professionals are now embracing both approaches, despite

disagreement among researchers, looking to concrete, situational approaches, in addition to empirically-provendispositional approaches for solving complex organizational behavior problems, implementing change, and

increasing employee effectiveness. Over the past ten years there has been a resurgence of research about the

role personality plays in affecting organizational outcomes such as leadership, job performance, job satisfaction,

and person-organization fit (Roberts, 2006, 2 - 4). Today, more than ever, psychologists agree that personality

can and does change over the lifespan due to factors such as maturity, environment, role changes/demands, self-

awareness, feedback, and modeling others (Roberts, Woods, & Caspi, 2008). However, the changes are usually

small and incremental, not dramatic, and many people would rather change their environment to fit their

personality than the other way around (Roberts, Woods, & Caspi, 2008). This is key knowledge for managers

and human resources professionalsthat personality can change incrementally and that person-environment fit

is important.

Organizational psychologists have played a major role in the resurgence of interest and research in

personality testing by developing tests that provide further evidence for personality traits and their relationship

to organizational behavior (Roberts, 2006, 4). There is one personality theory that has been tested and validated

over and over again, and on which many personality tests are basedthe Five Factor Theory, also known as the

Five Factor Model (FFM) or Big Five. Although many different theorists contributed to this model, Paul

Costa and Robert McRae are considered the primary theorists behind the FFM. The FFM takes a dispositional

approach, and proposes that there are five traits (dispositions) that each person has in varying degrees, namely


3/13

3

neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (often abbreviated as

NEOAC or OCEAN) (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011, 55).

Anyone involved in administering personality tests in the workplace should have a good understanding

of these five factors. Many personality assessments/tests are based on the FFM, although they may use different

terminology to describe traits and may measure more or less than five personality dimensions. The five factors

are described here (Feist & Feist, 2009, 422):

Table 1: The Big Five Traits

Trait High Score Low Score

Extraversion Affectionate

Joiner

Talkative

Fun loving

Active

Passionate

Reserved

Loner

Quiet

Sober

Passive

Unfeeling

Neuroticism Anxious

Temperamental

Self-pitying

Self-conscious

Emotional

Vulnerable

Calm

Even-tempered

Self-satisfied

Comfortable

Unemotional

Hardy

Openness Imaginative

Creative

Prefers variety

Curious

Liberal

Down-to-earth

Uncreative

Conventional

Prefers routine

Conservative

Agreeableness SoftheartedTrusting

Generous

Acquiescent

Lenient

Good-natured

RuthlessSuspicious

Stingy

Antagonistic

Critical

Irritable

Conscientiousness Conscientious

Hardworking

Well-organized

Punctual

Ambitious

Persevering

Negligent

Lazy

Disorganized

Late

Aimless

Quitting

Source: Feist & Feist, 2009

People who select workplace personality tests for development purposes look for tests that use less

psychological and more positive language, such as Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Lloyd, 2012). For

this reason, Costa and McRaes personality tests (such as the NEO PI -R, NEO-FFI-3, and NEO-PI-3) are

seldom used in business settingsthey were designed primarily for academic research or clinical settings and

contain psychology terminology and often negative language to describe personality, as Table 1 shows.


4/13

4

The MBTI is one of the most popular personality tests used in business today. It was developed over 30

years ago by Katherine Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers, who based their test on Carl Jungs theory

of personality types. Jung proposed that psychological types are comprised of two basic attitudesintroversion

and extraversion, and four functionsthinking, feeling, sensing, and intuiting. He believed that everyone

possesses aspects of both introversion and extraversion; however, one attitude manifests more dominantly in

conscious life and the other is more unconscious. When the two attitudes combine with the four functions, an

orientation or type is formed (Feist & Feist, 2009, 119). Myers and Myers-Briggs added two more

functions to Jungs theoryjudging and perceivingto come up with a total of 16 types for their MBTI. Thetest questions determine whether someone is primarily introverted (I) or extraverted (E), and then whether

someone is thinking (T) or feeling (F), sensing (S) or intuitive (I), and judging (J) or perceptive (P), resulting in

a four-letter type description, such as ISTJ (Burke & Noumaim, 2002, 57).

The MBTI has been criticized for weakness related to both its theoretical backing, and its validity and

reliability (Furnham, 2008, 92). Although the MBTI was developed using Jungs theory, it does not completely

represent or adhere to it (Furnham, 2008, 90). Costa and McCrae (1989) criticized the MBTI on a number of

points, including: 1) Jung believed that much of ones personality resides in the unconscious mind, which

would make the self-awareness needed for personality testing unreachable, and 2) the judging and perceiving

functions were not part of Jungs theory.

Despite criticism, the MBTI is one of the most popular personality tests used in the workplace today,

perhaps, as Lloyd (2012) suggests, because of its ability to provide people with an affirming self-

understanding (p. 31). Researcher Adrian Furnham (2008) proposed that the MBTI is completed every second

of the day around the world. Researcher Ben Dattner (2004) cites an article from Workforce Managementthat

claims the MBTI is administered 2.5 million times per year. As implied by the title of Isabel Myers-Briggs book

about the MBTI titled Gifts Differing, value judgments about which types are best or more valued are not part of

the MBTI experience. Lloyd (2012) believes this explains why the MBTI is so popular; he says, If I discover I

am an introvert, the Five-Factor model tells me I lack the much-to-be-desired trait of extraversion.

Psychological Type tells me there are many advantages to being introverted, as well as areas of life where I maystruggle. The Trait approach will leave me feeling a failure and inadequate; the Type approach will give me an

affirming self-understanding that will help me (p. 31).

Although the type and trait approaches appear very different, researchers have found similarities,

particularly between the MBTI types and the five factors. Costa and McCrae (1989) found that the MBTI

types could be correlated with the five factors, specifically that EI could be correlated with extraversion, TF

with agreeableness, JP with conscientiousness, and SN with openness. Years later, Furnham (2008) found a

correlation between the types EI and TF and the trait of neuroticism. Anyone administering a personality test

should become familiar with its unique terminology and descriptions for personality, whether trait- or type-

based, as well as have some understanding of the theory on which the test is based. Most, if not all, tests areaccompanied by detailed manuals that cover these important points.

Moving from theory to application, most workplace personality tests are self-report, meaning the test

takers answers questions only about themselves, but some include multi-source feedback, also, which is

feedback from peers, direct-reports, and managers. Employees answer somewhere in the range of 50 200

questions about aspects of their behavior, attitudes, values, and beliefs. The employees scores in these different

dimensions are then compared to a set of norms that reflect how close or how far from the average dimensions

of personality a person falls (Burke & Noumaim, 2002, 56). Most personality tests are bipolar, meaning that a


5/13

5

trait is measured on a continuum between two polar extremes, for example extroversion and introversion. Only

about 10 percent of individuals fall into the extreme scores; most people score somewhere in the middle, for

example being neither extremely extroverted or extremely introverted (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011, 42).

Within organizations, personality tests are used primarily for either selecting new employees or

developing existing employees. The personality tests discussed in this paper were chosen for their applicability

to employee development and may not be appropriate for selection purposes. It s important that people

choosing and administering personality tests understand that tests designed specifically for development shouldnot be used for selection; for example, the MBTI (Aamodt, 2012, 186). Personality tests chosen for employee

development usually offer the following benefits: promote self-awareness, facilitate personal growth, help

ascertain job-fit, encourage discussions, and promote teamwork (see Figure 1):

Figure 1: Personality Tests for Employee Development

Figure adapted from Passmore, 2008

In the workplace, despite individual differences, managers and coworkers are challenged with achieving

shared organizational goals and objectives, and research has shown that learning about personality can help to

those ends. Research has shown that much of the interpersonal conflict that occurs in the workplace stems from

individuals acting on their own interpretation of events, through the lens of their own personality. Learning

about the personalities and views of others can help minimize conflict and encourage teamwork (Carrell,


6/13

6

Jennings, & Heavrin, 1997, 19). Personality tests can help employees recognize self-defeating behavior, so

theyre less apt to explain their behavior solely as a reaction to environment or situation (Burke & Noumaim,

2002, 75). Additionally, they can build employees awareness of their preferred style of behaving and thinking

across situations, which can help them understand why some tasks or situations are more stressful for them and

which types of job roles are most suited to them (Passmore, 2008, 9). Personality tests can also serve as a

starting point for discussion about behavior and performance and help create an environment for the give and

take of constructive feedback (Dattner, 2004). Assessment of people in leadership roles is crucial;

counterproductive interpersonal behaviors are often the cause of leader derailment. Recognizing and modifyingthese behaviors in leaders has a large impact on the well-being, satisfaction, and effectiveness of their

subordinates, as well as their own future success (Nelson and Hogan, 2009).

However, personality testing in the workplace is also controversial, mainly because the idea that people

can be categorized and summed up after taking a 50 - 200 question assessment, and perhaps judged by that

information, is a bit scary. Personality is complex and cannot fully be understood or predicted through a single

personality test (Burke & Noumaim, 2002, 75). Even though there are ways of categorizing people by

personality traits and types, theres so much more that contributes to why we behave the way we do, particularly

at work. For example, factors such as motives, needs, preferences, values, beliefs, moods, emotions,

intelligence, and abilities, as well as environment and situation. This is why using personality assessments in theworkplace can be such a complex and controversial issue (Dattner, 2004).

Adding to this complexity, social psychologists have shown that people tend to attribute their own

behavior more often to external situations and others behavior more often to personality traits , known as

fundamental attribution error (Baron, Branscombe, & Byrne, 2008, 91). In the workplace, this can lead to

problems. Teaching people about personality traits and types can lead to greater self-awareness and tolerance of

others, but it can also potentially cause people to attribute problems/conflicts to personality without equally

considering situational factors. Theres a lot of cautionary advice in th e OD field and academic literature about

personality testing in the workplace and this is just one potential pitfall to look out for: dont be too quick to

attribute an employee performance issue to his or her personality without considering that external factors maybe involved (Dattner, 2004). Working with a well-qualified consultant who has a background in administering

personality tests and explaining how to interpret and use the results can help prevent employee and manager

misuse of assessment results (Erard, 2011).

In their monograph, The Big Five Quickstart, Pierce and Jane Howard (1995) so aptly say, Just as no

two fingerprints are alike, so are no two introverts (p. 11). Personality tests provide a vocabulary for

understanding individual differences in contexts such as team building and training; however, adequate time

and attention must be given to making sure that test takers and those privy to test results understand the dangers

of labeling andjudging people based on their scores. Its important that test takers and administrators

understand that test results cannot predict how a person will behave at all times and under all circumstances.Personality test results are not absolutes. Someone who scores high on introversion can act extraverted at

times, for example. And traumatic events, stress, recent success or failure, and variable moods can change how

an individuals personality is manifested at any given time. Workplace personality tests cannot take the place of

truly getting to know people at workthe old fashioned way, through listening and communicating. In some

cases, personality tests may not be appropriate to use at all, particularly in the absences of trust (Erard, 2011).

Often, employees are mistrustful of or become anxious around personality tests, fearing that the results

may impact their jobs. Sometimes, this can lead an employee to try to choose the answers that seem the most


7/13

7

acceptable or desirable, not those that accurately represent his/her personality, resulting in intentional or

unintentional faking. Also, some people may struggle with answering questions because they lack sufficient

self-insight or become anxious when taking tests (Furnham, 2008, 69). Also, although personality tests can be

useful tools for determining job-fit, without thorough job analysis and a sufficient understanding of how traits

relate to certain roles, it would be unwise to jump to conclusions about someones suitability for a particular job

(Furnham, 2008, 67). For example, it could be wrong to assume that someone with introverted tendencies would

not make a good manager or sales professional.

Its also important to consider cultural issues, particularly in todays culturally diverse workforce. Many

of the popular tests used today were developed in North America or Europe and may use jargon familiar only in

those countries (Furnham, 2008, 70). Whats equally worth considering are cultural differences that might make

people, for example, from collectivist cultures (Asians), less comfortable with drawing attention to their

uniqueness (Baron, Branscombe, & Byrne, 2008, 345).

Just about all of the academic literature about personality tests in the workplace advises those who are

selecting and administering these tests to consider these questions: Is the test valid, meaning does it measure

only whats relevant and applicable to job requirements? Can reliability information be located for the test, to

ensure the test is dependable and consistent? Is there a plan for using the test results in a meaningful way thatdoes no harm? Does the consultant or test administrator have a significant background in psychology or

organizational behavior/development and is he qualified to administer the test?

Generally, a personality test is reliable if it measures characteristics consistently and dependably. One

common measure of reliability is whether a person receives the same score each time he takes the test (known

as test-retest reliability). Another common measure is internal consistency reliability, meaning the test items (or

groups of items), measure the same thing. Validity is considered the most important factor in test selection.

Construct validity means that a test measures characteristics that it claims to measure; for example, that a

workplace personality test measures characteristics related to teamwork, such as agreeableness and sociability.

Criterion validity means that test scores are meaningfully related to behaviors or attitudes; for example, highscores in agreeableness are related to better customer service behaviors. Its crucial that test administrators

select tests that are valid for the purpose theyre being used. Test manuals usually provide administrators with

reliability and validity information by reporting on the tests reliability or validity coefficient This coefficient

is expressedby a number between 0 and 1.00 in an equation such as r = .70 where r means relationship

and numbers closest to 1.00 indicate the greatest validity or reliability. Generally, tests scoring between .70 and

1.00 are considered reliable, and tests scoring between .11 and.35 (or above) are considered valid. Test manuals

should also describe which audience(s) the test is valid for, but it is up to test administrators to know whether a

test is truly appropriate for those taking it (U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration,

2006). If a test manual or publisher Website does not provide reliability and validity information, its important

to check a resource such as the Buros Institute or the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM)Testing Center.

Anyone considering using personality tests for employee development should be aware of their

limitations. Following are some guiding principles and cautionary advice from the U.S. Department of Labor

Employment and Training Administration (2006):

Use tests in a purposeful way. Be clear about the purpose for testing. Know what needs to be measuredand why. Use only tests that are suited for development purposes.


8/13

8

Use a whole person approach to testing. A single test cannot reveal everything about a person andno test is 100% reliable or valid. Consider using several tests to measure skills, abilities, attitudes, and

other job-relevant characteristics, especially when making development/career decisions about someone.

Use only tests that are unbiased and fair to the audience. If the audience includes people raised incultures outside the United States or Europe, the test manual and/or independent reviews should be

checked for evidence of fairness.

Use only reliable tests. Test manuals or reviews should provide this information. Its important a testcan be trusted to be consistent and dependable.

Use only tests that are valid for the purpose . Personality tests are designed for different purposes; forexample, some are designed for selecting employees and others are designed for developing employees.

The best way for a test administrator to ensure a test is valid is to take the test herself and carefully

consider how the questions/results relate to the purpose for giving it.

Use tests that are appropriate for the audience. The target audience should be similar to the group thetest was developed for. For example, a test developed for a high school audience may not be appropriate

for the workplace. Its also important for administrators to consider factors such as reading levels and

language barriers.

Use only tests that provide well-written manuals. Carefully evaluate the administration and debriefinginstructions before a test is purchased. Test manuals should cover topics such as test validity/reliability,test fairness, test purpose/audience, and procedures for administering, scoring and debriefing the test.

Ensure that test administrators are qualified and trained. Consult the test publisher for informationabout how administrators become qualified and trained and then check to make sure the administrator

meets the publishers criteria. Many publishers offer training and certification programs. Also, its

important to work with someone who has administered the test successfully in the past and can describe

the process.

Ensure that test conditions are free of distractions and comfortable for all test takers . Noise,temperature, lighting, and faulty test equipment can be outside influences that affect the test results. It s

important that the test environment be suitable for test takers.

Provide reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities. The ADA requires that test sitesaccommodate people with disabilities. This could mean making sure a test is available in Braille or can

be read aloud for someone sight-impaired, or that appropriate desks are available to those in

wheelchairs.

Maintain test confidentiality or gain individuals permission to share the results with others . In adevelopment setting, for example a teamwork-oriented training program, sharing test results is common.

Its best to discuss this with the group before the test is given and get permission from each test taker to

share the results. Avoid releasing test results to those outside the group or outside the organization,

unless explicit permission is obtained from the test taker to do so. Ensure that test scores are interpreted properly. Test manuals should provide clear instructions for

interpreting test results. Its important that administrators understand how to make inferences based on

test results that have a solid basis, especially when making development/career decisions about

someone.

A qualified and experienced consultant or test administrator will understand and abide by these guiding

principles and take steps to reduce risk and unfavorable outcomes for both individuals and the organization. He

or she will take the time find out whether a test is reliable, and whether it measures the characteristics that are 1)


9/13

9

important to a given job role and 2) will be the focus of the subsequent training program or intervention. He or

she will also provide guidance for, and hopefully help facilitate, the training program or intervention. If the

person leading the effort (for example, a manager, trainer, or HR professional) has not been properly trained in

coaching or giving feedback, the support of a qualified consultant is particularly important. Working with

someone who has both general psychosocial knowledge, such as someone with a graduate degree in

organizational psychology, as well as knowledge of the specific personality test being given is the best scenario

(Harper, et al., 2008). Many publishers of personality tests certify people to administer them and require an

advanced degree (in psychology, organizational development, human resources, etc.) as a prerequisite toadmission to the certification course. Because of the time, cost, and possible negative consequences involved in

workplace personality testing, its worth the effort for organizations to locate a qualified consultant to work

with from the very beginning planning stages of the program or intervention.

There are so many workplace personality tests on the market today, that it could take months of analysis

to figure out which ones fit a particular organizations needs. Table 2, below, describes some of the most

popular tests. Its important to keep in mind that even personality tests with some validity and reliability

problems (such as the MBTI) may be useful in helping employees talk and think about themselves (Furnham,

2008, 67). Two credible resources for researching workplace personality tests are the Buros Institute and the

Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) Testing Center. All the tests listed in the table beenreviewed by psychology professors through the Buros Institute or are endorsed by the SHRM.

Table 2: Personality Tests Used for Employee Development

Name/ Publisher(s) Details

Myers-Briggs Type

Indicator Step I (MBTI)

Center for Appli cations ofPsychological Type

Theory: Jungs Type Theory

Description: Step I identifies fundamental personality type, which includes the eight preferences

and how they combine to form an individual's type. The aim of the MBTI instrument is to identify,

from self-report of easily recognized reactions, the basic preferences of people so that the effects of

each preference, singly and in combination, can be established by research and put into practical

use.

Validity/reliability data: Yes (Buros)

Administration: Must be certified to administer test. Test comes with a manual and debriefing

guide.

Source: Center for Applications of Psychological Type

Type Dynamics Indicator

(TDI)

Profi li ng for Success

Theory:Jungs Type Theory

Description: The TDI is designed to assess an individual's preference for one of the four principal

type scales. It is comprised of 64 rating scale items and can be completed in 20 minutes or less. It isdesigned to provide insight into the test takers preferences and provides a way for identifying

strengths, discovering areas for personal growth, and exploring potential career directions.

Validity/reliability data: Yes (SHRM & Buros)

Administration: Test comes with a manual and debriefing guide.

Source: SHRM Testing Center


10/13

10


Workplace Personality

Inventory (WPI)

Pearson

Theory: Five Factor Theory

Description: The Workplace Personality Inventory assesses sixteen work styles or work-related

personality traits that have been shown to be important to job success in a wide range of

occupations. It is comprised of 198 rating scale items and can be completed in 30 minutes. The

inventory is suitable for both selection and development. Based upon the O*NET Work Styles

taxonomy, it is designed to describe the personality requirements of a wide range of jobs.


Administration: Test comes with a manual and debriefing guide.


Hogan Personality

Inventory (HPI)

Hogan Assessment Systems


Description: Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) is specifically designed for use in business

settings. Comprised of 206 true-false items, the HPI takes less than 20 minutes to complete. The

HPI provides a comprehensive, business-based assessment of personality specifically designed to

predict occupational success that can be used for both selection and development. Specific

applications include employability, individual assessment, selection, and individualdevelopment/coaching.



guide.


Occupational Personality

Questionnaire (OPQ32)

SHL Ltd.


Description: The OPQ32 is an occupationally-based personality inventory that describes an

individual's preferred or typical behavioral style at work on 32 dimensions. It is suitable for a broad

range of applications including selection, training, career counseling, succession planning, and teambuilding.



guide.



11/13

11


DISC

Ameri can Management

Association / Human

Synergistics


Description: The AMA DISC Survey is an assessment designed to provide feedback about the

ways that people approach their work and relate to others within their organizations. It measures the

four basic styles of behavior derived from the DISC framework (Directing, Influencing, Supportive,

and Contemplative). Taking approximately 20 minutes to complete, participants indicate the extent

to which 80 statements are descriptive of how they behave when they are on the job. The AMA

DISC Survey is designed to be used for developmental purposes with individuals, groups, and

organizations and can assist in fostering personal development, team building, and organizational

change.



guide.


Manchester Personality

Questionnaire (MPQ)

Hogrefe Ltd


Description: The MPQ is a tool specifically designed to provide a comprehensive assessment of thekey personality traits likely to have a high impact on work success. It is a powerful tool for

understanding an individuals strengths, weaknesses, and areas of competence and is designed for

selection, training, as well as development. The MPQ generates a norm-based score for each scale

as well as a narrative detailing the candidates personality characteristics, personal competencies,

team roles, management style, selling style, occupational interests, as well as developmental

suggestions. It is comprised of 120 items rated on a five-point scale that takes approximately 30

minutes to complete.

Validity/reliability data: Yes


guide.


Support for personality testing for employee development is continuing to grow in the human resources

and organizational training fields. The American Management Association recently published a revised version

of the popular DISC assessment, and now offers MBTI administration certification. Articles and advice about

using personality tests for employee development abound in trade publications and on the Web, along with

many case studies and research studies published in academic journals.

Its now widely accepted that individual personality influences workplace behavior, and many studies

have shown that personality and/or behavior can be altered or impacted through workplace training programs or

interventions, providing practitioners with evidence-based models to follow (for example: Bauman et al., 1997;

Garrety et al., 2003; Goldstein & Lanyon, 1999; Ineson, E., 2011; Ogunyemi, et al. 2011; Roberts, 2006;

Sample, 2004). Training and development programs that use personality tests can help empower people, not just

in the workplace, but in all aspects of their lives (Harper, et. al., 2008). With this goal in mind, consultants,

managers, and HR and training professionals have the responsibility of helping organizations use personality

tests responsibly and for the purposes they were designed.


12/13


13/13

Howard, P. & Howard, J. (1995). The Big Five Quickstart: An Introduction to the Five-Factor Model of

Personality for Human Resource Professionals. Charlotte, NC: Center for Applied Cognitive Studies.

Ineson, E. M. (2011). The contribution of personality to graduate managerial training.International Journal of

Hospitality Management, 30(3), 630638.

Lloyd, J. B. (2012). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and mainstream psychology: analysis and evaluation of

an unresolved hostility,Journal of Beliefs & Values, (July), 3741.

Ogunyemi D., Mahller Y., Wohlmuth C., Eppey R., Tangchitnob E., Alexander C. (2011). Associations

Between DISC Assessment and Performance in Obstetrics and Gynecology Residents.Journal of

reproductive medicine, 56(9-10), 398404.

Passmore, J. (2008).Psychometrics in coaching: Using psychological and psychometric tools for development.

London England: Kogan Page.

Roberts, B. (2006). Personality Development and Organizational Behavior. Research in Organizational

Behavior, 27(06), 140. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(06)27001-1

Roberts, B. (2009). Back to the Future: Personality and Assessmentand personality development.Journal of

Research in Personality, 43 , 137-145.

Roberts, B., Wood, D, & Caspi, A. (2008). The development of personality traits in adulthood. In O.P. John,

R.W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.),Handbook of personality: theory and research (3rd edition, Ch 14,

pp. 375-398). New York, NY: Guilford.

Sample, J. (2004) The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and OD. The Organizational Development Journal, 22(1),

6776.

Spies, R., Carlson, J., & Geisinger, K. (Eds.). (2010). The eighteenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln,

NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration. (2006). Testing and Assessment: A Guide

to Good Practices for Workforce Investment Professionals. Retrieved from:

http://www.onetcenter.org/dl_files/proTestAsse.pdf

Documents

Workplace Personality Assess Cturner2