The Boston Globe from Boston, Massachusetts • 96

Boston Sunday Globe FEBRUARY 11, 2005 I THINKING BIG 1 lie cult ot personality tes F12 Opinion 1 Annie Murphy Paul A flawed but trendy management tool 6,000 US organizations and taken by as many as 5 million Americans each year. Personality tests are also given to employees already in the workplace, ostensibly to develop skills, improve communication, and promote teamwork. The use of personality tests is growing despite decades of research casting doubt on their effectiveness. Scientists judge the worth of a test by two basic criteria: validity, which indicates that a test measures what it says it measures, and reliability, which indicates that a test delivers consistent results. Too often, personality tests fail on both counts.

fir is 4MS sj at if A HEM," says your boss. It's a Mondav morning, and there are bleary eyes and yawns all around the conference table. The boss has called this meeting to introduce a new management tool. "As you may know, the Zodiac 2005 system is the cutting edge in personnel selection, team building, and management development," the boss is saying. He consults the official-looking report in his hand.

"Starting today, all Gem-inis will be reassigned to sales, which is what they naturally do best. Everyone who's an Aries will receive a promotion, since their sign makes them born leaders. And we really 1 need to add some Virgos to our team no one else can keep the books so well." Sound far-fetched? Something not so different is going on in organizations all over the United States. Personality tests are increasingly popular as management tools, yet many of them are no better than astrology at describing xharacter or predicting Faulty validity and are the of reliability just beginning the problems. I PAT BYRNES ILLUSTRATION Myers-Briggs results are 4 6 1 'M1 i it I verted-intuitive-feeling-judgers, their company's "designated management type." In many workplaces, employees are expected to know their own personality type, and those of their coworkers, by heart.

But one popular personality-testing system, Management by Strengths, leaves nothing to chance: It divides workers into four categories red (the "direct" person); green (the "extroverted" person); blue (the "paced" person); and yellow (the "structured" person) and provides them with color-coded nametags announcing their type to everyone they meet. At least these tests are of the banal sort that find something "positive" to say about everyone who completes the questionnaire. Integrity tests, on the other hand, brand those who fail them liars or thieves. One such test, it's advertised, will tell managers "whether job applicants think like trusted employees or convicted felons." Another test provider's website, Insight Worldwide, features a "Your Many integrity tests, for example, simply aren't valid: according to a review conducted by the federal government's Office of Technology Assessment, 95.6 percent of people who fail integrity tests are incorrectly classified as dishonest. Many personality tests also fall short of the other crucial benchmark, reliability.

The Myers-Briggs, for example, claims to reveal to test takers their inborn, unchanging personality type, but in fact research shows that as many as three-quarters of test takers are assigned a different type when they take the Myers-Briggs again. Faulty validity and reliability are just the beginning of the problems with personality tests. The questionnaires may also invade test takers' privacy, inquiring into their beliefs about politics, law enforcement, drug use, and the behavior of corporations queries that often have little or no bearing on the job that is to be done. Such tests are not seeking to understand an applicant's personality so much as to ensure, or enforce, a cringing conformity. And while test takers are often told that "there are no right or wrong answers" to these questions, in fact their answers could cost them a job.

The use of personality tests to assemble a uniformly conventional workforce can reach absurd heights, as with the group of executives who were told that they had six months to "become" extro- ESPN." workplace environment we're in all shape our actions in ways not captured by personality tests. Yet the tests' promoters persist in making bold promises: to screen out those who will be chronically late or absent, who will have "personal andor transportation problems," who will indulge in "counterproductive behavior" or "alienated attitudes." They even claim to predict who will be injured in a job-related accident, file a fraudulent workers' compensation claim, abuse drugs or alcohol, or engage in workplace violence. Unless these tests can be proven to provide fair and accurate descriptions of personality, without invading privacy, deepening distrust, and issuing false promises, we might as well look to the stars instead. Annie Murphy Paul is the author of "The Cult of Personality: How Personality Tests Are Leading Us to Miseducate Our Children, Mismanage Our Companies, and Misunderstand Ourselves." back. No surprise, you're an Many publishers of personality tests do not make public crucial information about how their tests were developed or how well they work, claiming that this information is "proprietary." For some personality tests, "almost no evidence at all is available beyond assurances that evidence exists," reported a task force appointed by the American Psychological Association.

The task force also found that tests are often given by individuals without adequate preparation: more than half of integrity-test publishers, for example, do not require any training or other qualifications of people who administer their tests. In addition to such lapses, all personality tests share a common flaw: an inability to account for the power of situation. Psychologists have known for many years that the situations we find ourselves in exert a very strong influence on the way we behave. The kind of job we have, the particular employers and coworkers we work with, the general photograph of smiling people dressed in business attire, over which flashes the message: "Which one physically hurt an employee? Which one faked an injury? Which one uses illegal drugs? Which one will be late for work? Which one stole $500 from their employer? We can tell you!" These sales pitches play on, and may even exacerbate, the distrust and suspicion already endemic in the workplace. Another ethical complication of personality tests: many of them make it easy to cheat.

A recent study found that as many as 88 percent of job applicants actually hired after taking a widely used personality test had intentionally manipulated their answers to make themselves look better. Personality tests thus present workers with a distasteful choice: engage in deliberate deception or lose an opportunity to someone who's willing to do so. Personality tests also present a dilemma to those employers who want to use them fairly and well. behavior. Though we may regard personality tests as harmless fun, or an annoying nuisance, in fact important decisions may hang on their results making their wide-', spread use deeply troubling.

Today personality testing is million industry, one that's -expanding annually by nearly 10 There are some 2,500 -personality tests on the market Jjust one of them, the Myers--Briggs Type Indicator, is given to "2.5 million people each year and is used by 89 of the companies in the fortune 100). In a 2003 survey of 1,149 executives, 30 percent re- ported that their companies used personality tests. Many of these tests are given to "prospective employees. People applying for jobs in retail, bank-' tag, or security-services for example, are often asked to take an "integrity" test a personality test that claims to predict if they will lie, cheat, or steal on the job. These tests are Tadministered by an estimated Shalom Saada Saar Know thyself 101 At the Center for Public Leadership, which is part of the JFK School of Government at Harvard University, we invite graduate students to go through eight workshops to learn more about themselves.

The program begins with a discussion of the difference between good and bad leadership. Then we administer a battery of assessment instruments. These include an in-depth Myers-Briggs test that identifies personality type and also indicates one's propensity toward problem-solving and decision-making. The LEAD instrument reveals leadership style, ranging from command and control to delegate and empower. We then THE RECENT interest in self-awareness among students and executives stems from the recognition that unless we begin to know who we are, the likelihood for personal or professional success is minimal.

In a society where honest feedback is rare and our desire to please others is deeply rooted, we can often lose a sense of our true self. It was Sun Tzu who stated in his famous book, "The Art of War," written more than 2,000 years ago, that knowing oneself is half the battle. Learning how to regulate our behavior when we interact with others remains a distant frontier in the landscape of the human condi feedback. He was amazed to learn that he was not a good listener, that he talked more than he should, and that his sporadic temper derailed employees from focusing on their mission. As a result of the feedback, he posted signs inside the door of his office, instructing him to "Listen more.

Talk Less. Trust More. Watch Your Temper." Over time, the dialogue between the executive, and his team became more open and honest. He believes that the change in his own behavior has improved morale and performance. The beauty of these instruments is their neutrality.

Participants know the results are for their eyes only, so they can 1 il I III 1 1 1 1 til 1 1 1 1 II Mill llll II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ril I II I Mill II ill 1 1 1 1 1 III Ml I II II 1 1 II I II If II I III II II II II 1 1 1 1 II Are You Honest? The questions on most personality tests are the property of test publishers who aren't eager to share such information with the public. However, a recent lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in California, did make available a series of questions from a test called the PASS-III D.A.T.A. Survey. That suit resulted in a $2.1 million settlement in favor of job applicants who'd had to answer this questionnaire. Similar "integrity tests," which claim to identify dishonest or high-risk workers, are still given to an estimated five million Americans each year.

Integrity tests are used by as many as 6,000 US companies, especially those in the sales, banking, and security-services industries. That's despite the fact that psychology has yet to clearly define the I construct of "integrity," let alone find a valid and reliable way to measure it A.M. P. Answer the following questions true or false: 1. Most companies make too much profit.

2. Most employers try to underpay their employees if they can. 3. Workers come last as far as most companies are concerned. 4.

Marijuana should be legalized. 5. Companies provide only what they have to for worker comfort. 6. Most employers really care about improving working conditions for their employees.

7. Most bosses are fair to their employees. I 8. The drinking age should be lowered, i 9. The government has no right to interfere with a person who chooses drugs if its doesn't hurt anyone.

10. Illegal use of marijuana is worse than drinking'liquor. 11. The police and courts are lenient on drug users. Give yourself a Personality Test I The Internet offers several online personality tests, none of which I would recommend.

However, for an alternative to personality testing, log onto the website of the Foley Center for the Study of Lives, at Northwestern University (www.sesp.northwestern.edufoley). There, under "Instruments," you can read about and download the Life Story Interview, which offers a way of understanding your personality that is a lot more meaningful than a test. A.M.P. tion. How, then, can we best learn our strengths and weaknesses? The market today is flooded with numerous be completely honest.

And by getting to know their true selves, they are then able to prepare for the challenges of leadership in both the public Many of today's graduate programs provide some form of psychological self-testing. and the private sector. We must remember, however, that these instruments of self-testing are merely mirrors of our personality, and like all mirrors, they distort. Students and executives understand that they work in a rapidly changing world. They also recognize being unaware of oneself and oblivious to others can be costly.

Statistics and numbers can be manipulated, but real progress can result from an honest dialogue. Their willingness to use these instruments enhances their ability to work efficiently with others. Being able to encourage candor and risk-taking requires confidence, which is inevitably the result of self-awareness. use a powerful instrument known as TIP, which assesses the way the mind focuses on thinking patterns. The Thomas Kilmann tool determines our orientation to conflict.

One of the most important instruments we use is the 360-degree feedback, a popular tool in business and government, which focuses on specific elements of successful behavior. Participants are asked to submit the names of people who have a good knowledge of their behavior these might include peers, employees, bosses, clients, friends, and even family members. These people rate the participant, providing suggestions for improvement, which he then can compare with his own self-assessment. Through group and personal coaching, students learn to change self-defeating behaviors. One former student, now an executive in a large organization, went through a 360-degree instruments on knowing oneself.

Many of these are statistically unreliable and often misleading. When misused by companies, these personality tests can at times do more harm than good. Some companies, so enamored of the testing they've done, have even urged employees to post their personality type on their desks so others would know how to relate to them. What these organizations fail to recognize is that by adapting such an approach they prevent their employees from becoming more than their label. However, there are some instruments that, when properly administered and carefully facilitated, can enhance an individual's self-awareness.

Furthermore, knowing oneself can serve as a solid base for exploring ways to become a better leader when dealing with conflicts, interacting with difficult people, and motivating others. 1 Shalom Saada Saar senior fellow at the Center for Public Leadership at theJFKScllbol of Government at Harvard University..