[HN Gopher] Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types ___________________________________________________________________ Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types Author : samizdis Score : 34 points Date : 2022-09-07 20:23 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (daily.jstor.org) (TXT) w3m dump (daily.jstor.org) | IWillForgetThis wrote: | I was asked to take the StrengthsFinder test (imo kind of similar | to Myers-Briggs) after being hired on at my current employer. The | results basically said my strengths are ADHD, but in a really | positive way. Nobody ever followed up with me on it or mentioned | it again. Honestly it was pretty accurate. The job is extremely | laid back, no hard deadlines, no emergencies, etc. It's been a | huge challenge to maintain a similar level of output when | compared to past jobs. | themodelplumber wrote: | > And that's it--there's simply very little data on how well the | Myers-Briggs (and other type-based personality tests) measures | personality and even less on how it might predict job | performance. | | I was surprised there wasn't any mention of a very interesting | issue here, i.e. MBTI and other typological instruments come with | user manuals, training, etc., and those materials specifically | say "do not use this for hiring". | | This is true even in marketing materials...Here's an example | directly from the Myers-Briggs Company website: | | https://www.themyersbriggs.com/en-us/company/press/press/202... | | Even as a personal growth tool the instrument itself is kinda | meh, but the soft science behind it is pretty fascinating... | | And if you are concerned your employer is going to misuse your | MBTI type somehow, 1) know your type first, ideally before they | do 2) learn the associated relational blind spots and decide how | you'll work around them 3) call yourself a "reformed XXXX" | because basically the deeper theory is that any given personality | type is similar to an illness in a lot of ways. Oh and 4) this | may not be a very good workplace, good luck out there. | IncRnd wrote: | Is that really what you would do when a prospective employer | asks such a question? | | I'd never ask about this, the number of bumps on someone's | head, or if the candidate still beats their spouse. However, | the best response would be a candidate who would laugh and say, | "I think you know enough of my capabilities and personality | from this interview process, already" | themodelplumber wrote: | If they just ask you to spit it out during an interview? I'd | move on to the next interview unless desperate. I wouldn't | presume about what they know about me, I'd just say, look, my | understanding is that personality type factors are not | considered appropriate as hiring criteria, and so it wouldn't | feel right to answer that. | | I know some would give the type that they feel best matches | the position, which, I guess they are also desperate for a | job in that case. | | Unfortunately from what I've seen some hiring teams will give | a questionnaire to fill out and a) it's not labeled as any | specific type of questionnaire, plus b) you don't get to know | your results. One sales company administered a combined IQ | test and personality instrument this way. Pretty cringe. They | had no certification or corporate permission or anything, | just a copy paste test done attitude. | | Otherwise there's also the post-hire event in which a trainer | offers insights, among which is some personality type sorting | and theory, and even one on one coaching. Some of this kind | of thing is absolutely worth it depending on the situation. | For example you've identified someone you want to work more | closely with in future projects, so you want to learn how | they see themselves and their contribution. | | So it's best to feel it out, see if you can find a good way | to respond to the specific circumstances at work without | raising the stakes for yourself. Or basically broadcasting | your personal relational blind spots as part of a complaint- | driven process. :-) | compiler-guy wrote: | I appreciate it when a company asks about or tests my Myers- | Briggs type early in the hiring process, because then I know that | I don't want to work for them, and they wouldn't be happy with me | either. | | Win/win. | throwaway0asd wrote: | I feel the exact opposite. At least they are measuring | something vaguely objectively. Interviewing with most potential | employers, at least in software, is like when children guess at | picking players for sports teams while wearing a blindfold. | Everything always seems to come down to biases applied non | uniformly. | | Changing jobs is a big life investment. I would prefer it not | be a blind date with one-way conversations from somebody likely | abusive and neglectful looking for a surf to abuse. If the | potential employer is instead interested in potential they are | sending a signal they are willing to invest in you. | | Myers Briggs gets a lot of hate due to low precision but it's a | cheap and fast assessment. There are much better assessments of | personality but they take more time and are more invasive. | Barrin92 wrote: | "It doesn't work and is junk science, but at least it doesn't | work for everyone equally" is an interesting methodology. | | I'd rather take the intuition of some interviewer because at | least that's based on something real. I mean if objectivity | is the only criterion you simply may want to roll a set of | dice for the applicants because those are cheaper than Myers- | Briggs consultants. | | the attitude of replacing useful human judgements with | useless metrics in the name of eliminating bias is one of the | worst trends in modern hiring. | cosmotic wrote: | What if they were using astrology? Would that be better than | nothing? I think it would be worse than nothing because it | demonstrates the aren't competent enough to know when they | fell for a scam. | mgarfias wrote: | 100% | 1retep wrote: | Love this answer, I was thinking the same thing. | | I remember in college I applied to over 100 internships and my | friend said "I don't understand how you wrote over 100 cover | letters." My response was "I didn't. If they ask for a cover | letter I don't want to work for them." | chefandy wrote: | And if you believe you're best represented as a bullet list | of educational and professional accomplishments, I assure you | that the feeling is mutual. | eikenberry wrote: | Cover letters are one of those things that are only really | useful for the first few jobs. Once you've started working | you will get most of your future jobs via your network and | cover letters are pointless from then on. | chefandy wrote: | If you're content to work within your network or and only | care about the craft rather than the overall purpose of | your company and tasks, then sure. Jobs your friends and | colleagues get you don't require a cover letter. | notch656a wrote: | You have constructed a fictional reality. | chefandy wrote: | Your professional network extends to every organization | you'd aspire to work with, and you actually care about | those organizations' goals? I assure you- that isn't the | case for most people. | notch656a wrote: | And now you've constructed a straw man. Any other lies | you'd like to tell about networks and your specious | argument about your precious cover letter, without which | I've gotten dozens of professional jobs by cold-applying | from everything from mom and pop shops to fortune 500s? | | I'm sorry your resume is so shitty you have to write a | letter before anyone outside your network will consider | you. At least you're a good letter writer, I guess. <3 | chefandy wrote: | It's hard to imagine why you're so focused on your hard | skills. | | Edit: have you checked out https://slashdot.org recently? | The tone of the discourse seems closer to what you're | looking for. | yjp20 wrote: | Be civil | notch656a wrote: | More people here ought to speak their mind directly | rather than the passive-agressive bullshit I normally see | of packaging up their nonsense in formally constructed | rule-abiding arguments that are the intellectual version | of shit-slinging. Getting banned from this place at this | point would be a gift. But thank you, 1 karma account | created 7 months ago, who's contribution to date is an | unpunctuated pair of words. | | Suggesting you need a cover letter to get considered | outside your network is peak filthy-lie territory, and | ought to be met with ridicule and only civility to the | point that we stay within confines of the law. Offering | an unpleasant rebuttal within the legal bounds of freedom | of speech is the most civility owed here. | tempestn wrote: | I agree. I'm not interested in software that will screen | resumes for keywords or that kind of thing. Instead we ask | a simple question right in our job postings, asking that an | answer be included in the application, and that filters out | 90% of applicants who don't bother. If someone additionally | includes a decent cover letter, they go to the top of the | pile. We want people who took the time to read our posting | and want to work here, not those who are just spamming | resumes everywhere. | chefandy wrote: | Yeah. Filling a perfectly developer-shaped hole in your | team? Sure... Sort a stack of resumes by experience and | education and contact the top n applicants. Want more | than dense pull requests, snide code reviews, and lots of | "well actually" interjections even when discussing things | outside their expertise? You might be disappointed with | your options if you're only booking interviews based on | resumes. | coldtea wrote: | I don't, because it means people in less fortunate industries | that can't be pickers, but also programmers if a downturn | comes, would have more companies pulling this shit to deal | with... | ErikVandeWater wrote: | MBTI isn't scientific, but that doesn't mean it isn't useful. | | If someone says a particular type fits them well, that helps | you understand them quickly. And if they say the type they get | doesn't describe them, then you don't need to use that | information. | erdos4d wrote: | Same for any "personality test" you find in the hiring process. | Huge red flag. | biomcgary wrote: | When I was managing, I informally typed people during the | interview process, which was very helpful in predicting both | how they would interact with other team members and how they | would do at particular tasks. However, I learned not to rely on | self-reported personality types or tests, which are often | answered aspirationally, not realistically. | | To me, MBTI or Big 5 (not the actual tests, but their framing | of aspects of personality) are mental tool kits for trying to | make better predictions from limited data (i.e., the interview | process). As a manager, I've found them incredibly helpful for | avoiding problems (i.e., assigning the wrong task to a person). | | Interestingly, in my personal experience, I've found logicians | (ISTJs in MTBI) seem to be the most resistant to quantifying | aspects of personality. | Waterluvian wrote: | Better yet, you should scan the shape of each candidate's | skull and use that as a metric to aid in decisionmaking. | biomcgary wrote: | A stethoscope in the hands of a doctor is a useful, if | limited, tool. Don't judge its value if you have never seen | one except in the hands of the village idiot. (One could | say the same about various programming languages.) | | If measuring skull shape during the interview process was | a) socially acceptable and b) actually predictive of | outcomes, why not? The problem is that it is neither. The | reason that it is not a) is because it was not b) and thus | easily misused to justify stereotypes. | Waterluvian wrote: | A galvanometer in a physician's hand is even more | dangerous than that of the village idiot. Just ask my | late grandmother who was preyed on until the board de- | certified that "doctor." | YurgenJurgensen wrote: | Are you asserting that MBTI is either of those things? | drchopchop wrote: | My company gave managers Clifton Strengths tests, and it was | fairly interesting (and tracked with my own self-introspection). | Wasn't used for hiring or performance, but more as a tool to | people recognize their traits and how others may differ. | | https://www.gallup.com/cliftonstrengths/en/253790/science-of... | IWillForgetThis wrote: | Same, it was surprisingly on point when I took it. | YurgenJurgensen wrote: | Does your self-introspection read something like this? | | " You have a great need for other people to like and admire | you. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a | great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your | advantage. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are | generally able to compensate for them. Your sexual adjustment | has presented problems for you. Disciplined and self-controlled | outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside. At times | you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right | decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount | of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by | restrictions and limitations. You pride yourself as an | independent thinker and do not accept others' statements | without satisfactory proof. You have found it unwise to be too | frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are | extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are | introverted, wary, reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to | be pretty unrealistic. Security is one of your major goals in | life. " | PaulKeeble wrote: | The thing that has always amused me about the personality types | is that everyone is all of these things and how much they are of | one or the other depends on the circumstances. You can change the | questions very slightly and get wildly different results. While | interesting in a way to understand human interactions and some | form of classification of that they aren't usually something | fixed, they don't really measure personality because its a whole | lot more complex than these measures. | | Most people still believe that your peak heart rate is 220 - age | when the paper that determined this showed no one actually met | that at all and the variance was massive, the same is true of | Myers Briggs we are a long way away from the original science | with the use of these tests and since no one reads the papers | they don't realise how badly its being applied. | daniel-s wrote: | If they tested horoscopes we would roll our eyes but larp as | academics and it's taken seriously. | 4ad wrote: | The article makes the mistake assuming that companies are using | these tests to maximize for performance, when in fact they are | trying to maximize internal culture fit. | YurgenJurgensen wrote: | Where said internal culture is either "people who'll believe in | fortune tellers if they're wearing lab coats" or "people so | desperate for employment and/or validation they'll cast aside | their values to fit in". | UncleEntity wrote: | People who study for the "correct" personality alongside the | code quiz questions which all have very little to do with the | actual job they will be doing. | | No right minded person would hire me for an "energetic, | outgoing go-getter" job. | nitwit005 wrote: | This doesn't answer the "Why" in the headline "Why Companies Are | So Interested in Your Myers-Briggs Type". | CharlesW wrote: | It's a bit buried, but the gist appears to be (italics mine): | | "And that's it -- there's simply very little data on how well | the Myers-Briggs (and other type-based personality tests) | _measures personality_ and even less on how it might _predict | job performance_. " | YetAnotherNick wrote: | > there's simply very little data on how well the Myers-Briggs | (and other type-based personality tests) measures personality and | even less on how it might predict job performance. | | Any personality test is bad in my opinion and I wouldn't like | being tested in it but this statement and article feels like feel | good pseudoscience. Is there any data on any kind of test that it | works? At least for Myers-Briggs it has been tested and it hasn't | been proved or disproved. | brnt wrote: | In Europe I've never seen these tests as an entrance exam; just | yesterday I watched Persona and was surprised that McDonalds of | all companies seems to require such testing. | | What's the deal here? Companies are so desperate for any | criterion to reduce the pile of applicants? Do they believe it | helps? Do they look for a few of these profiles and never the | others? | | Hiring is hard, I know, but I only know of these models in the | context of understanding existing teams, not hiring for | individual positions. | poulsbohemian wrote: | >What's the deal here? Companies are so desperate for any | criterion to reduce the pile of applicants? Do they believe it | helps? Do they look for a few of these profiles and never the | others? | | Yes. They are looking for anything that lends credibility to | their choices and that they believe objectively guides them | toward the right candidates. Truth is, it's a total crapshoot | but no one wants to acknowledge or believe that. | abraae wrote: | The dirty secret of recruitment software/processes is that | recruiters are dealing with hundreds or thousands of resumes, | the vast majority of which they will end up rejecting somewhere | along the funnel, and they are eager for better ways. | | It's actually pretty draining and difficult doing multi-way | comparisons between so many candidates, let alone doing it day | after day. And recruiters/HR are only human. | | So any technology or approach that can attach a number/rank a | job application is seen as hugely welcome. If Bob scored 56 out | of 100, and Sue scored 87, then even if we have doubts about | the methodology, surely we can still go ahead and reject Bob | based on such a large difference! Then we don't need to spend a | lot of time looking at Bob's resume, we can screen him out | early on. | | The dirty secret is that it doesn't even matter that much | whether the scoring process has any real science behind it - | the mere fact of attaching a number is so desirable that | employers are wide open and begging for this kind of | capability. At the end of the day, who really cares if Alice | was better that Bob or not? Virtually no companies have the HR | performance monitoring in place to even know this anyway. | | That's why in the HR world, psych testing firms are not quite | fly by night, but they are the kind of companies an | entrepeneurial type can set up in a couple of weeks with very | little tech but a lot of powerpoints, and immediately start | selling to really big companies that will funnel a lot of money | their way. Such companies normally make a big song and dance | about the scientific verifiability of their | technology/approach, even to the extent of having on-staff | psychologists. | | Many people would feel though that the process has little more | validity than reading tea leaves, or drawing up astrology | charts. | gmarx wrote: | The author says each of the big 5 is on a "sliding scale". I | admit this is a bit pedantic, but isn't each just on a plain old | scale? Wouldn't a sliding scale imply that one score could affect | how another was graded? | xvedejas wrote: | I always thought "sliding scale" was a redundant phrase. If it | does mean something beyond a continuous scale, then the author | may be making the same mistake as me. | gmarx wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sliding_scale_fees | | I learned the term WRT insulin for diabetes. I think the key | is that the scale you use for determining something (fees, | insulin dose) changes depending on other characteristics of | the person | StevePerkins wrote: | Myers-Briggs is essentially horoscopes for people who spend too | much time on LinkedIn. | slothtrop wrote: | The analysis is, but "types" are just preferences/tendencies | that everyone has, reflected back from the test. It says "I | tend towards introversion or not, being detail-oriented or not" | etc. That's it. Mind you, that's of no use to your employer who | wants you to do your damn job whatever it happens to be. If you | want the job, it's for you. | YurgenJurgensen wrote: | The types themselves are also nonsense. There's sixteen of | them, and all sixteen have significant tendencies in all four | axes. It seems extremely unlikely that someone would always | have a tendency in every axis all the time, so the types | themselves are set up wrong. They're not even acknowledging | the possibility of an inconclusive result. | | It's also easy to see the financial incentive of removing the | possibility for someone to get an "unremarkable" result. | Telling people that they're mostly average, even if for a lot | of people it's the truth, doesn't convince them they're | getting their money's worth. | rasz wrote: | Im sure there are tutorials on the net on how to pass for | particular desired type. As anything, once you measure something | it becomes the goal. | thatjoeoverthr wrote: | It's business horoscopes. My Myers-Briggs type is Pisces. | YurgenJurgensen wrote: | I would also have accepted "Golgari", "Hufflepuff" or "Lawful | Evil". | LordGrey wrote: | Apple went through the Myers-Briggs phase in the 90's, along with | a lot of the other tech giants. | | It was a half-day seminar. "Professionals" gave the tests and | told everyone their type. That took only an hour. The rest of the | time was spent doing role-playing, where you were supposed to use | your coworkers' MB types to adjust your interaction with them in | various settings. | | It was a waste of time then and I bet it still is. | anonymousiam wrote: | I never worked for Apple, but I went through a similar exercise | in the late 1980's. I found the role-playing useful, and I | found the techniques we were trained on to be enlightening. Not | everybody thinks the same way, and even though it's not valid | to categorize people into 16 personality groups, it's useful to | understand that people prioritize things and think differently | from each other. Here's a great example of that: | | https://generallythinking.com/richard-feynman-on-thinking-pr... | airocker wrote: | Helen Fischer's work on personality types may hold some value | that various hormones cause personality traits. Myers Briggs imho | is just messed up thing no better than horoscopes. | | It used to be used at a large company that I worked for. The | preferred types were RED and BLUE around 2010. GREEN AND YELLOW I | remember were overlooked for promotions. Everyone was trying to | be the biggest idiot in the room to prove they were RED person. | It propogated bullying and prevented good teamwork. Credit | Stealing was legitimized with preference for RED. If Helen | Fischer is correct and RED people are the closest to testesterone | heavy people, the RED people have the shortest neural circuits. | savryn wrote: | It's funny how defensive hn and other parts of the internet are | about being put in made-up 'no-evidence' /psuedoscience boxes.... | | yet everyone here completely understands the dozens of archetypes | and human personality portraits invoked by hundreds of ever | changing memes and meme-speak... | | "don't be that guy" "tell me youre x without telling me ..." ms- | paint wojacks, etc | | I think people who's pattern recognition works great on | classifying others in the private (read:petty) freedom of their | own mind are also the exact brittle, neurotically vulnerable | hypocrites bristling about other's pattern recognition seeing | them... (I'm all the latter but embrace it lol) | | The same crowd that loves quantified self and concrete "evidence" | would hate to be seen as they are by actual tally of what they do | and how their time is spent, or especially to have their most | common interpersonal reactions categorized into a dozen buckets, | of gut-reactions, core values, status stuff, etc. | | Any whiff that someone has figured you out and hark, all of a | sudden you contain multitudes! Meanwhile, developing advertising | software to build ever more accurate portraits of consumer | types... | | MBTI is as useful as you make it, as are harry potter groups, | memes, vibes, DSM-mental illness groups, shakespeare's tragedies, | etc. | | They work great if you put them to work, shrug. It's just a word- | substrate to better deal with the intuitions you already have | going on about people subconsciously. | | meh, I guess I'd just much rather know exactly what stereotypes / | impressions I invoke in others with my looks/identity markers | (age sex race etc), behaviors, class mannerisms, aesthetics, | posture etc.... and then take it from there if I don't like what | I see in the mirror. | | (seeing people seeing us is always a mirror i think) ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-09-07 23:00 UTC)