Forum menu
I think the measure of these tests that is reliable when used in a workplace is it shows up the folk who don't want to participate or collaborate and always think they know best or their opinion over-rules the group, etc.
I guess it works the other way as well. It exposes workplaces that value acquiescent employees over people who don't mind pointing out when Emperor isn't wearing any clothes.
I would respect companies that based their personality types on horoscopes and decided how people should interact/who to promote based on that. But then that could be because I'm a traditionalist...
Yet I've been at 2 companies who've used similar tests to understand how we might work better. I don't think it was this MB test but similar and I remember it working well overall. Useful in getting a few basic personality types engaging with each other better
Yeah, this. The "results" may or may not be definitive, but it's generally helpful to have a conversation around how different people work in different ways and how to leverage those differences in a team. Of course there are always some people who will say "it's all sh*te" and take themselves off to their corner - until they get moved on, anyway.
a large number of managers actually take this bollocks seriously which is the problem.
They are trying to achieve the low risk way to make lots of money which economic theory knows is not an option.
I guess it works the other way as well. It exposes workplaces that value acquiescent employees over people who don't mind pointing out when Emperor isn't wearing any clothes.
It probably does. Questioning something is one thing, being unwilling to participate or being obstructive is another. Interestingly (to me) the workplace where this seemed to work pretty well wasn't like that, it was just a good place for collaboration, 'anyone can have a good idea' etc, at least during the years before the new ownership that brought in that type of session.
I guess if the tests aren't backed up by psycholigical review they may just work (when/where they do to any extent) via the process and getting people thinking and talking - it's a tool for an outcome not a science apllication. If you get someone running the session who's good, maybe good result and that's more about them than the profiling system validity.
Yeah, this. The "results" may or may not be definitive, but it's generally helpful to have a conversation around how different people work in different ways and how to leverage those differences in a team. Of course there are always some people who will say "it's all sh*te" and take themselves off to their corner - until they get moved on, anyway.
If you haven't figured out how to talk to different personalities by the time you reach adulthood I'm not sure if a two hour course is going to help much.
There do seem to be a lot of people people who feel that being willing to take part in bollocks is more important than pointing out that what everyone is doing is bollocks. This goes a long way to explaining why so many project teams end up producing completely unusable products.
people who don't mind pointing out when Emperor isn't wearing any clothes.
I'm sure that such people exist, and there is a place in an organisation for free thinking iconoclastic individuals. But in practice the ones who are always grumbling seem to be just royal pains in the arse, and everyone is glad when they take their superior personalities and body odour problems elsewhere. 🙂
It probably does. Questioning something is one thing, being unwilling to participate or being obstructive is another.
If someone tries to tell you that their completely unscientific inaccurate method is scientific and accurate then I think obstructing it is your duty as someone who isn't an idiot. Pseudoscience presented as science is a blight on society.
But sure, if it's presented as a fun test to promote discussion and thinking about how we interact then I guess it's harmless. I'd still be skeptical that it's much use but I'm getting paid either way so it's all good.
it's generally helpful to have a conversation around how different people work in different ways and how to leverage those differences in a team
On one course many years ago we all did a questionnaire before the day then the first task was one where you're put into groups and have to build a Lego model that's in a room next door where only one person can go and see it or whatever.
One team got it practically spot on, the others were all sorts of wrong. Turns out the pre course test was around Belbins team roles and there was one ideal team with the others all focusing on a single trait, and the ideal team was obvs the one that got it right.
My most natural trait came out as an Implementor, the type who can't be bothered with planning or instructions and just gets stuck in working it out as you go along. That's pretty fair TBH - I was making a fair go of dismantling a washing machine at the weekend until my brother found a YouTube video to prove that we didn't actually have the right tools to fix it.
ENTJ here - reading the traits was like being nailed to a cross for some of it, I did this years ago and have been using it for self improvement ever since!
If you haven't figured out how to talk to different personalities by the time you reach adulthood I'm not sure if a two hour course is going to help much.
You might not know what someone at work's personality might be, some people have very different personal approaches at work Vs outside work, some are the same wherever they are, etc. Some people are neurodivergant and can't read body language or other cues and struggle with personal comms, some other people don't understand that and need it spelling out to them so they stop being quite as intolerant.
Workplaces are a mixed bag, some cultures are great, some are awful and getting people together to figure out why things are one way or the other can be worth it. Some managements are hopeless and this won't fix anything, some sessions are with people who really are just know it all PITAs (and they come from all levels).
@brucewee sure, if it was presented as science it would deserve questioning. If it's presented simply as an exercise on learning about people's personalities and workplace realtionships (etc/whatever) then it's probbaly going to be what you and others make of it.
There do seem to be a lot of people people who feel that being willing to take part in bollocks is more important than pointing out that what everyone is doing is bollocks.
When presented with the option of doing some actual work or attending a "team-building exercise" which involves dropping an egg onto toilet paper and building a bridge out of straws, the choice people make will tell you more about them than any (arguably pseudoscientific) psychology test.
I once worked at a place where fully at least 40% of my time was in meetings. Most of these meetings a) didn't concern me anyway and b) largely consisted of people complaining that they were too busy. When I pointed out the BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS flaw in this arrangement everyone looked at me like I'd just flown in from Mars. You don't need a half-hour all-hands breakfast meeting before doing a scrap of work in order to hand over from the night shift when the morning crew can simply check the ticketing system to look for status alerts in red boxes. On the rare occasion that something absolutely positively needs a 'drop everything and look at this immediately' response you could've fired out an email and we'd all be half an hour into fixing it by now.
ISTP - T virtuoso
As an ISTP (Virtuoso), you are a bold explorer of the tangible world, driven by a restless curiosity to understand how things work. Your hands-on approach to life is matched only by your adaptability, allowing you to navigate challenges with a unique blend of practical logic and spontaneous creativity. You thrive on solving immediate problems, your mind a toolbox of skills and knowledge ready to be applied at a moment’s notice.
Actually thats pretty close to how I would describe myself.
Pseudoscience presented as science is a blight on society.
But sure, if it's presented as a fun test to promote discussion and thinking about how we interact then I guess it's harmless. I'd still be skeptical that it's much use but I'm getting paid either way so it's all good.
I think that's right, though I think we are in blight territory here as people can take pseudoscientific nonsense like Myers-Brighs quite seriously as we see in this thread, and so too can HR departments.
And that's not to say the whole thing is bollocks, there is some demonstrable albeit modest validity to some personality assessment. And even if there wasn't as with horoscopes, it's a way people can think about themselves and their lives, and how they relate to others - I can share my MB results (to zero interest obv. Why would any of you be) which I can see have some bearing on what I think I'm like. Or I could say I'm a fairly typical Leo which probably tells you more
When presented with the option of doing some actual work or attending a "team-building exercise" which involves dropping an egg onto toilet paper and building a bridge out of straws, the choice people make will tell you more about them than any (arguably pseudoscientific) psychology test.
It may also tell you something about their job and the company they work for. Or, it'd be a risky assumption to make about people if you didn't already know about the management culture.
This popped up for me today. My personal favourite is that introverts prefer not being in a crowded gym.
Regarding the OP, the outcomes for these tests are always inaccurate for me. This is probably a case of the Barnum effect, but I find it challenging to answer the questions in a way that I find satisfactory. I assume this is part of it. Any results that don't match your personality, you can discount as being a result of your inability to answer accurately.
While many aspects of this type of approach in business are used to divert blame from poor management (IMO), my previous employers have demonstrated that there is a certain amount of ignorance surrounding how to integrate different personalities/learning styles into existing teams effectively—especially for those among us who have their mental challenges.
Fifteen years ago, I took a personality test for a job. They declined to employ me, apparently because of the test results. I was told that I would be more likely to challenge authority, and that was not what they wanted. Interestingly, they stated that they would not retest me if I applied for a position in the future, assuming I would not change my personality type.
. I was told that I would be more likely to challenge authority, and that was not what they wanted.
Now there's a double bind! The only way to prove them wrong being to agree and go away...
Now there's a double bind! The only way to prove them wrong being to agree and go away...
Honestly it sounds like this is just them trying to weed out potentially neurodivergent employees so yes, it is not a scenario the interviewee is supposed to escape from.
Not saying that the this poster is neurodivergent, by the way. Just that if you make a drag net you are going to catch everything.
https://theweek.com/business/jobs/how-personality-tests-are-locking-autistic-people-out-of-jobs