Got Psycho?

Bob Weinstein is a journalist who covers technology, project management, the workplace and career development.

  Career Development  

Sorry, there is no simple answer. To prevent employees from packing their bags when a competitor dangles a fat salary in front of their noses, many high-tech and Internet companies are resorting to personality tests to retain their workers. It beats chaining them to their desks.

Testing is a world unto itself. Simply, the average personality test identifies traits based upon a profile of ideal traits for a particular job. That's nebulous to begin with. How can a test actually predict loyalty or stability traits in job candidates? Let's drop the psychobabble and start dealing with the real world. Should job candidates have to endure psychological tests, which have proven to be unreliable indicators? And, more importantly, from an ethical standpoint, are they not an invasion of candidates' privacy? The only thing employers should be testing for is whether job candidates have the right skills for the positions they're trying to fill.

Every test is different. Tests can be invasive or non-invasive. Non-invasive tests, such as the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Strong Interest Inventory Test, measure candidates' interests, skills and personality types. These tests are fairly innocuous. But, invasive tests like IQ, Rosharch and the Thematic Apperception Tests ascertain if candidates have psychological disorders.

Tom Burke, a labor …

Please log in or sign up below to read the rest of the article.