WHITE PAPER–November, 2010
Personality Tests: A Tool for Predicting
High Performing Employees
AUTHORED BY:
Clinton Kelly, Senior HR Consultant
Human Resource Services
CPS Human Resources Services | 241 Lathrop Way | Sacramento, CA 95815 | T: 916-263-3600 | www.cps.ca.gov
Personality Tests: A Tool for Predicting
High Performing Employees
BY: Clinton Kelly, Senior HR Consultant
The efficient functioning of any public agency is largely dependent upon the employees that
comprise that agency. For this reason, public agencies should not only be mindful of, but
critically evaluate the methods they use to make selection decisions. Most public agencies
use some form of a cognitive or job knowledge test to select employees. In a survey of public
agencies’ selection practices conducted by CPS Human Resource Services (CPS) in 2010, 87.3%
of respondents indicated that they currently use cognitive ability or job knowledge tests in
their selection processes. This is good news, as it has been well documented by research that
cognitive and job knowledge tests are two of the best predictors of job performance (Schmidt
& Hunter, 1998). While cognitive and job knowledge tests are proven predictors of job
performance, they are not the only effective predictors of job performance available to public
agencies.
Cognitive Tests Don’t Tell the Whole Story
Every job requires that workers possess certain competencies (i.e., demonstrated knowledge,
skills, or abilities [Shippmann et al., 2000]) in order to effectively and efficiently carry out the
tasks of that job. Administering a cognitive test to a potential employee is a way of assessing
if that person possesses important competencies required for a particular job. Competencies
can and do vary depending on the job, but it has been proposed that every competency
required by any job can be organized under the following four domains: (1) intrapersonal skills;
(2) interpersonal skills; (3) technical skills; and (4) leadership skills (Warrenfeltz, 1995).
Intrapersonal skills:
Concern self-esteem and self-control
Interpersonal skills: Effectiveness at building and sustaining relationships
Technical skills:
Proficiency at comparing, compiling, computing, analyzing, coordinating, innovating, synthesizing, etc.
Leadership skills:
Skills related to building and maintaining effective teams
Cognitive tests are most aptly suited for assessing the technical skills domain (Hogan, Davies,
& Hogan, 2007). Relying on a cognitive test as the principal selection tool however leaves
three of the four domains largely untapped. The intrapersonal, interpersonal, and leadership
domains are primarily made up of non cognitive competencies that are more appropriately
assessed using a measure of personality. The CPS selection practices survey found that the
majority of public agencies use cognitive or job knowledge tests, but found that only 39.8%
of responding agencies use tests (e.g., personality tests, biodata instruments) designed
specifically to assess non cognitive competencies. An important question that emerges
Human Resource Services
NOVEMBER, 2010 – PAGE 1
Personality Tests: A Tool for Predicting High Performing Employees
from these results is, how are public agencies assessing non cognitive competencies (i.e.,
personality) that are important job performance predictors of potential employees? In
practice, most agencies rely on interviews to assess these competencies (Hogan & Kaiser,
2010). The problem with assessing personality in an interview is that job candidates are
typically rated on internally developed rating scales that tend to be subjective and intuitive.
Research has shown that despite people’s beliefs, they are not typically effective judges of
talent when it comes to evaluating potential employees (Highhouse, 2008). In fact, the use
of intuitive judgment to rate job candidates may actually decrease the likelihood that the
best job candidate is selected (Sarbin, 1943). Given the problems of intuitive judgment, this
evaluation is best accomplished, and more reliably so, through the use of an established
measure of personality.
What is Personality?
Robert Hogan (2007) explains that there are two ways in which the term personality is used
and interpreted; (1) identity and (2) reputation. Identity refers to the “you” that you know – the
way that you see yourself. Your identity includes your values, how you find meaning, your
aspirations, dreams, and fears. Reputation refers to the “you” that other people know – the
way that other people see you. It includes how other people perceive you based on your
past performances or history. It is important to distinguish between these two definitions of
personality because they are used for very different purposes. Identity explains what drives
an individual’s behavior or in other words, why you do what you do. Reputation is useful for
predicting future performance based on past performance.
When it comes to measuring personality in a job selection context, it is reputation and not
identity that is of primary concern (Hogan, 2007). Like the old adage says, “the best predictor
of future behavior is past behavior.” Identity is not as useful when making selection decisions
because what matters most is what you have actually done in the past and what you will do in
the future, rather than what you perceive yourself as being able to do. Today’s reality television
shows are cast full of individuals who identify themselves as great singers, dancers, athletes,
etc. The reality is that their reputation (i.e., past and current behaviors observed by others)
often prove otherwise.
As a result, most of the personality measures available are designed to assess reputation
and not identity. The most common model that is currently used for assessing reputation is
known as the Five-Factor Model. The five factors in this model include: (1) Emotional Stability,
(2) Extraversion/Surgency, (3) Agreeableness, (4) Conscientiousness, and (5) Openness to
Experience. Below is a short explanation of each factor as provided by John, Naumann, and
Soto (2008).
Emotional Stability: Human Resource Services
Contrasts emotional stability and even-temperedness with negative emotionality, such as feeling anxious, nervous, sad, and tense
NOVEMBER, 2010 – PAGE 2
Personality Tests: A Tool for Predicting High Performing Employees
Extraversion/Surgency: Implies an energetic approach toward the social and material world and includes traits such as sociability, activity, assertiveness, and positive emotionality
Agreeableness: Contrasts a frank and sincere orientation towards others with antagonism and includes traits such as altruism, sympathy, concern for others, trust, and modesty
Conscientiousness: Describes socially prescribed impulse control that facilitates task- and goal-directed behavior, such as thinking before acting, delaying gratification, following norms and rules, and planning, organizing, and
prioritizing tasks
Openness to Experience:
Describes the breadth, depth, originality, and complexity of an individual’s mental and experimental life
The Five-Factor Model has proven to hold true across cultures and languages and it provides a
common definition of personality that can be used by public agencies to select new employees.
Personality Tests and Employee Selection
The goal of any personnel selection test is to improve the likelihood that an agency will select
the best employees for a particular job. In other words, agencies want their selection tests
to help them predict with greater accuracy which job candidates will be successful if hired.
Research in the field of personnel selection has provided us with estimates about the ability of
different types of tests to predict job performance (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998; Hurtz & Donovan,
2000). For example, a public agency that uses a test of conscientiousness (one of the factors in
the Five-Factor Model of personality) as the only tool to select people for a job, is likely to have
a 60% chance of hiring a good performer (Rosenthal & Rubin, 1982). If that same public agency
uses a test of cognitive ability along with a test of conscientiousness, the odds of hiring a good
performer are likely to increase to 80%. Being able to select high performing employees 80% of
the time can result in substantial cost savings (e.g., lower turnover, lower absenteeism, reduced
recruitment and selection costs) and increased productivity for public agencies.
Some additional benefits of adding a personality test to the selection process are:
1. Provides a standardized and accurate method for assessing personality as opposed
to intuitive and subjective methods (e.g., hiring interview) (Hogan & Kaiser, 2010)
2. A more holistic assessment of the job applicant beyond cognitive ability (Hogan,
Davies, & Hogan, 2007)
3. Generally personality tests result in no adverse impact (Oswald & Leaetta, 2010)
Human Resource Services
NOVEMBER, 2010 – PAGE 3
Personality Tests: A Tool for Predicting High Performing Employees
Personality Tests and Employee Development
Personality tests can not only be used to select new employees, but they can also be used
to provide feedback and development plans to existing employees (Hogan, Hogan, & Kaiser,
2010). Personality tests make people aware of certain behaviors and tendencies that may
have otherwise gone unnoticed, and this self-awareness is the key to development (Hogan &
Warrenfeltz, 2003). In order to develop (i.e., change behavior), employees need to be aware
of how they are perceived by others and which behaviors they engage in that impede better
job performance (Hogan, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2010). For example, the results of a manager’s
personality test may indicate an extremely high score on the factor of Agreeableness in the
Five-Factor Model. This manager is likely to show genuine concern for others, be sympathetic,
and have altruistic tendencies. These behaviors and tendencies may appear to be desirable
in any circumstance, but they could possibly impede job performance if this manager needs
to discipline an employee that is not performing adequately. Out of genuine concern and
sympathy for this employee, the manager may beat around the bush when disciplining the
employee or avoid the issue altogether. If the manager is aware of this tendency that impedes
job performance, then a development plan can help establish specific strategies and goals to
improve in this area.
Common Criticisms of Personality Testing
One of the most common criticisms of personality testing is that it is not highly predictive of
job performance and therefore should not be used in employee selection (Morgeson et al.,
2007). However, research has consistently shown that well constructed personality tests are
indeed useful predictors of job performance (Mount & Barrick, 1995; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998;
Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Ones et al., 2007). The argument for including personality assessment
in the selection process in no way reduces the importance of cognitive ability, as cognitive
ability is one of the best predictors of job performance. However, by adding a personality
test to a selection process that already includes a measure of cognitive ability, an agency
significantly improves its chances of selecting high job performers.
A second criticism of personality testing concerns faking. Faking in personality tests occurs
when job candidates alter their responses in an attempt to present themselves in a more
desirable manner. Critics state that it is relatively easy for candidates to fake in order to improve
their scores, which decreases the validity (predictive power) of the test (Donovan, Dwight, &
Hurtz, 2003; Murphy & Dzieweczynski, 2005; Morgeson et al., 2007). Hogan, Barrett, and Hogan
(2007) conducted a study with actual job applicants who were motivated to fake and found
that the job applicants were just as likely to decrease their overall score as they were to increase
their overall score, leading to the conclusion that trying to improve a score by faking may not​
be that easy. Proponents of personality testing say that if faking does occur, the research
indicates that it does not have an effect on the predictive power of the test (Schmitt & Oswald, 2006).
Human Resource Services
NOVEMBER, 2010 – PAGE 4
Personality Tests: A Tool for Predicting High Performing Employees
A third criticism of personality testing regards its use for employee development. Some
critics believe that personality tests are not effective tools for helping employees improve job
performance. It is true that personality tests by themselves are not effective for employee
development. Personality tests create self-awareness, which is the key to development
(Hogan & Warrenfeltz, 2003). Research has shown that in order to successfully use this selfawareness for development, a personality test should be accompanied by feedback from a
coach who helps set specific development goals and that these development goals should be
shared with coworkers (Smither et al., 2004).
Questions to Ask When Looking to Use A Personality
Test for Employee Selection
If a public agency is considering the use of a personality test in their selection process, there
are certain questions that should be answered prior to implementation.
1. What is the personality test designed to do/tell you and does that match up with what
your agency needs?
2. Is the personality test supported by a technical manual that includes information on
the development and validation of the test?
3. What process will your agency need to follow in order to determine if the personality
test is appropriate for your particular job at your particular agency?
4. How are pass points / cutoff scores set?
5. What kind of support will you be provided if you decide to use the test?
6. Has the test ever been legally challenged? If so, what was the outcome?
Obtaining satisfactory answers to all of these questions will help ensure that the personality
test you have selected will improve the likelihood that your agency will hire and develop high
performing employees.
The CPS Solution
CPS has partnered with Hogan to provide quality personality assessment to public
agencies. The Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) was the first test of normal personality
based on the Five-Factor Model that was developed specifically for use in business. Some
of the features and benefits of the HPI are:
Human Resource Services
•
Based on the Five-Factor Model
•
Developed exclusively on working adults
•
Normed on more than 150,000 working adults worldwide
•
Validated on more than 200 occupations covering all major industries
NOVEMBER, 2010 – PAGE 5
Personality Tests: A Tool for Predicting High Performing Employees
•
No invasive or intrusive items
•
Instantaneous scoring and reporting output
•
No adverse impact
•
Online administration by protected access
•
15 to 20 minute completion time
•
Simple and comprehensible items based on a 4th-grade reading level
•
Over a million job candidates have been tested with the HPI
•
Successfully predicts occupational success in all major job categories
Contact a CPS consultant to learn more about how you can implement the HPI and other
Hogan inventories to improve the ability of your agency to hire top performers and
develop existing employees.
About CPS
CPS is a self-supporting public agency providing a full range of human resource services to the
public and nonprofit sectors. We have unique expertise in delivering HR management and consulting
services, employment testing and assessment services to government agencies throughout North
America. We assist organizations across the talent management continuum in recruiting,
selecting, developing employees, and providing organizational assessment and development.
Human Resource Services
NOVEMBER, 2010 – PAGE 6
Personality Tests: A Tool for Predicting High Performing Employees
References and Additional Reading Material
Donovan, J. J., Dwight, S. A., & Hurtz, G. M. (2003). An assessment of the prevalence, severity, and verifiability of entry-level applicant faking using the randomized response technique. Human Performance, 16, 81-106.
Highhouse, S. (2008). Stubborn reliance on intuition and subjectivity in employee selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 333-342.
Hogan, J., Barret, P., & Hogan, R. (2007). Personality measurement, faking, and employment selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1270-1285.
Hogan, J., Davies, S., & Hogan, R. (2007). Generalizing personality-based validity evidence. In S.M. McPhail (Ed.), Alternative validation strategies: Developing new and leveraging existing validity evidence (pp. 181-229). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2010). Management derailment: Personality assessment and mitigation. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), American Psychological Association handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 555-
575). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-
performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 100-112.
Hogan, R. (2005). In defense of personality measurement: New whine for old whiners. Human Performance, 18, 331-341.
Hogan, R. (2007). Personality and the fate of organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Elrbaum Associates.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2007). Hogan Personality Inventory manual. (3rd Ed.). Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2009). Hogan Development Survey manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2009). Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
Hogan, R. Hogan, J., & Warrenteltz, R. (2007). The hogan guide: Interpretation and use of Hogan inventories. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. (2010). Personality. In J. C. Scott, & D. H. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of workplace assessment: Evidence-based practices for selecting and developing organizational talent (pp. 81-108). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Human Resource Services
NOVEMBER, 2010 – PAGE 7
Personality Tests: A Tool for Predicting High Performing Employees
Hogan, R., & Warrenfeltz, R. (2003). Educating the modern manager. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2, 74-84.
Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2008). Personality testing and industrial-organizational psychology: Reflections, progress, and prospects. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 272-290.
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan. J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The big five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869-879.
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In John, O. P., Robins, R. W., & Pervin, L. A. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 3rd edition (pp. 114-158). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007). Are we getting fooled again? Coming to terms with limitations in the use of personality tests for personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 60, 1029-1049.
Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The Big Five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human resources management. In K.M. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 13, pp. 153-200). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press
Murphy, K. R., & Dzieweczynski, J. L. (2005). Why don’t measures of broad dimensions of personality perform better as predictors of job performance? Human Performance, 18, 343-358.
Murphy, K. R. (2010). Individual differences that influence performance and effectiveness: What should we assess? In J. C. Scott, & D. H. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of workplace assessment: Evidence-based practices for selecting and developing organizational talent (pp. 3-26). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60, 95-1027.
Oswald, F. L., & Leaetta, M. H. (2010). Personality and its assessment in organizations:Theoretical and empirical developments. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), American Psychological Association handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 153-184). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Roberts, B. W., & Hogan, R. (2001). Personality psychology in the workplace. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1982). A simple, general purpose display of magnitude of experimental effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 166-169.
Human Resource Services
NOVEMBER, 2010 – PAGE 8
Personality Tests: A Tool for Predicting High Performing Employees
Sarbin, T. L. (1943). A contribution to the study of actuarial and individual methods of prediction. American Journal of Sociology, 48, 598-602.
Schmidt, F.L. & Hunter, J.E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.
Schmitt, N., & Oswald, F. L. (2006). The impact of corrections for faking on the validity of noncognitive measures in selection settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 613-621.
Scroggins, W. A., Thomas, S. L., & Morris, J. A. (2009). Psychological Testing in Personnel Selection, Part III: The resurgence of personality testing. Public Personnel Management, 38, 67-77.
Smither, J. W., London, M., Reilly, R. R., Flautt, R., Vargas, Y., & Kucine, I. (2004). Discussing multisource feedback with raters and performance improvement. Journal of Management Development, 23, 456-468.
Shippmann, J. S., Ash, R. A., Carr, L., Hesketh, B., Pearlman, K., Battista, M. et al. (2000). The practice of competency modeling. Personnel Psychology, 53, 703-740.
Viswesvaran, C., Deller, J., & Ones, D. S. (2007). Personality measures in personnel selection: Some new contributions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 354-358.
Warrenfeltz, R. B. (1995). An executive-level validation of the Borman and Brush taxonomy. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
Human Resource Services
NOVEMBER, 2010 – PAGE 9