Refusing a personality test may put you at a disadvantage, writes Jim Bright.
Jenny from North Sydney has been given a "no choice" choice when applying online for a job. Seeking a role as an administrative assistant in a small organisation, when she clicked on the link she discovered that she'd have to decide whether to complete the final stage of the application, which was an "optional personality profile".
She writes: "The personality test was not compulsory but they imply doing it will assist your chances of getting the job. So do you do the test and risk discrimination, or risk them discriminating against you for refusing to do it? And what are the risks of abandoning it halfway if you don't like the way the questions are heading?"
Jenny is right to be concerned about this process. I checked out the site and discovered that candidates are given the following advice: "Taking it may help your chances of succeeding with your application". The language used is interesting because it emphasises the benefits of taking the test but neglects to mention whether there are any disadvantages - for instance, the test may be used to screen out people with profiles deemed inappropriate.
The clear implication is that candidates should do the test. If the test is so important to the employer, why not simply make it compulsory for all candidates? One wonders whether the test has been made optional to meet some legislation I am unaware of.
It seems odd because it advertises the fact that candidates may be evaluated and compared on differing amounts and types of information.
For instance, if a candidate is screened out in part or entirely on the basis of their personality profile, or if another candidate who declines to complete the profile advances to the short-list or even gets the role, it opens up equity issues and the possibility of discrimination. Personality becomes a selection criteria only for some candidates and not others. Not all candidates are treated equally and so the judging is unfair.
On the other hand, if all candidates who decline to complete the personality form are automatically rejected (in other words, if the company cannot point to any candidates who declined to complete the personality form being made job offers in the past) then it appears to make the advice to candidates that the test is "optional" and that "taking it may help" very misleading.
I cannot see why the employer would want to create such uncertainty and to introduce unreliability into the selection process. A good, fair process collects the same type of information from all candidates at each stage.
Furthermore, that information should be reasonably associated with performance in the role and more generally in the organisation as a whole.
So the information collected should not breach appropriate discrimination and privacy legislation and should be either plausibly linked to performance or preferably, demonstrated to be linked to performance. Personality can, under certain circumstances, be a good predictor of work performance, provided it is measured using a psychometrically reliable and valid instrument (this is NOT necessarily the same thing as a test that is widely used, famous, or from a "reputable" source).
However, the test must also be interpreted by a suitably qualified professional such as an organisational psychologist.
I'd recommend that Jenny takes the test, because I suspect she'd be at a disadvantage if she did not. If Jenny discovers halfway through she does not like the questioning, she should stop taking the test - but at the same time she needs to be aware that it could harm her chances of getting the role, however unfair that sounds.
Jim Bright is professor of career education and development at ACU and a partner at Bright and Associates, a career management consultancy.