Goldman to use 'personality test' as part of the hiring process(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Goldman to use 'personality test' as part of the hiring process
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-goldman-sachs-hiring-idUSKBN1AP2J7
69 comments
Is the Gallup test proprietary or is there some info on the types of questions asked?
My guess is that the test referred to is the 'StrengthsFinder' which you need to buy, but can take online [1]. Probably more info available by Googling that term.
What frequently happens is companies buy this and then Gallup consults with the company to design a behavior profile which the company thinks reflects successful traits in their environment.
[1] https://www.gallupstrengthscenter.com/
What frequently happens is companies buy this and then Gallup consults with the company to design a behavior profile which the company thinks reflects successful traits in their environment.
[1] https://www.gallupstrengthscenter.com/
Personality tests are awful. They don't test for the job you'll have, but rather for the personality they want. That personality they want could be white, middle class, highly educated male†, and those differences could come out in a personality test. Additionally the test could help discriminate against people with mental illness. There has been a lot written on these and how they do more harm than good.[0]
†Full disclosure: I am one.
[0]. https://www.wsj.com/articles/are-workplace-personality-tests... http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/do_job_personality_te...
†Full disclosure: I am one.
[0]. https://www.wsj.com/articles/are-workplace-personality-tests... http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/do_job_personality_te...
So, make of this what you will, but I do research on psychological measurement.
Also, I have no idea what Goldman is planning to use, so there's that.
However, all of the arguments you're making about bias, etc. could be leveled against everything that goes into a hiring decision--absolutely everything. Education, interviewing style, skills with regard to social norms in a certain setting, everything. Notice, for example, in the article that Goldman has started to consider people from non-ivies, as if it should be some revelation that there are competent individuals from non-ivy schools. It's hypocritical to be argue about personality test bias when the bias due to those other procedures dwarfs that.
The advantage of personality tests is that they're standardized, so you can quantify the bias. This is routine. You can argue about how to quantify it, but there are solid methods for doing so, and it's better than just going with your gut.
As for people mentioning previous use of personality tests: the Myers-Briggs does suck. It's why no one studying individual differences scientifically has paid attention to it for decades. If Goldman comes out using the Myers-Briggs, then complain about that. But complaining about personality tests "because Myers-Briggs" is like saying the internet shouldn't be trusted because "ActiveX on Windows 95."
About reliability: yes, there's issues about reliability, but the reliability of interviews is even worse. There are some people who make solid arguments that you shouldn't even do an interview because they have such little validity in predicting anything above and beyond what's discernable from resumes, history, and test scores.
The one argument you might make about these tests that has some weight is their "fakability." This is their Achilles heel admittedly, although the issue is more complex than it seems because people aren't as good at faking as they think they are, and it's unclear the faking is any easier than on an interview.
One reason why you're seeing increased interest in personality tests now is because of methods that have been developed for counteracting faking. There's been a lot of movement in this area over the last 10-15 years or so, and there's more ways of handling it than there used to. So, for example, in addition to quantifying a faking "style", which you could do before but was of unclear utility, now you can administer items that are controlled for social desirability but measure other dimensions (for example, have people choose between three scenarios that have been shown to be of equal apparent desirability but differ in their level of some other trait).
To be honest, expect a lot more of this. Big IO and testing corporations have been putting a crapton of money into this area and a lot of companies are showing a lot of interest in it, as they're complaining that intellectual ability and "job skills" (e.g., knowledge of algorithms) isn't really the main issues they have with employee performance--the problem is this other stuff, like emotional stability, social skills, etc.
Also, I have no idea what Goldman is planning to use, so there's that.
However, all of the arguments you're making about bias, etc. could be leveled against everything that goes into a hiring decision--absolutely everything. Education, interviewing style, skills with regard to social norms in a certain setting, everything. Notice, for example, in the article that Goldman has started to consider people from non-ivies, as if it should be some revelation that there are competent individuals from non-ivy schools. It's hypocritical to be argue about personality test bias when the bias due to those other procedures dwarfs that.
The advantage of personality tests is that they're standardized, so you can quantify the bias. This is routine. You can argue about how to quantify it, but there are solid methods for doing so, and it's better than just going with your gut.
As for people mentioning previous use of personality tests: the Myers-Briggs does suck. It's why no one studying individual differences scientifically has paid attention to it for decades. If Goldman comes out using the Myers-Briggs, then complain about that. But complaining about personality tests "because Myers-Briggs" is like saying the internet shouldn't be trusted because "ActiveX on Windows 95."
About reliability: yes, there's issues about reliability, but the reliability of interviews is even worse. There are some people who make solid arguments that you shouldn't even do an interview because they have such little validity in predicting anything above and beyond what's discernable from resumes, history, and test scores.
The one argument you might make about these tests that has some weight is their "fakability." This is their Achilles heel admittedly, although the issue is more complex than it seems because people aren't as good at faking as they think they are, and it's unclear the faking is any easier than on an interview.
One reason why you're seeing increased interest in personality tests now is because of methods that have been developed for counteracting faking. There's been a lot of movement in this area over the last 10-15 years or so, and there's more ways of handling it than there used to. So, for example, in addition to quantifying a faking "style", which you could do before but was of unclear utility, now you can administer items that are controlled for social desirability but measure other dimensions (for example, have people choose between three scenarios that have been shown to be of equal apparent desirability but differ in their level of some other trait).
To be honest, expect a lot more of this. Big IO and testing corporations have been putting a crapton of money into this area and a lot of companies are showing a lot of interest in it, as they're complaining that intellectual ability and "job skills" (e.g., knowledge of algorithms) isn't really the main issues they have with employee performance--the problem is this other stuff, like emotional stability, social skills, etc.
> [The] personality they want could be white, middle class, highly educated male
This is a horrible misuse of the word personality. Anyone of any race, wealth, age, sex, etc. can have any personality. Equating personality with race is unfortunately common these days.
[0] I like how you begin your footnotes count starting at 0. I am stealing this.
This is a horrible misuse of the word personality. Anyone of any race, wealth, age, sex, etc. can have any personality. Equating personality with race is unfortunately common these days.
[0] I like how you begin your footnotes count starting at 0. I am stealing this.
Statistically, a lot of items from the test could be very highly correlated with demographics.
And it doesn't have to be intentional. Goldman MD with yacht and golf club membership signs off on test that selects for people like him. "Hey, I like me, and I succeeded here, right?"
And it doesn't have to be intentional. Goldman MD with yacht and golf club membership signs off on test that selects for people like him. "Hey, I like me, and I succeeded here, right?"
There will always be outliers, but people with the same personality tend to have the same background/experiences. If you're using a test to determine the type of personality you want, don't be surprised if you get a lot of "similar" people.
Companies with a profit motive don't want to hire people of a certain race but rather of a certain personality, one that will earn them profit.
In many cases, they'll be looking for people who are easily instructed what to do (perhaps high agreeableness?) and likely to finish what they start (perhaps high conscientiousness?).
That is, agreeableness and conscientiousness would be highly valuable to a company that wants subservient drones.
In many cases, they'll be looking for people who are easily instructed what to do (perhaps high agreeableness?) and likely to finish what they start (perhaps high conscientiousness?).
That is, agreeableness and conscientiousness would be highly valuable to a company that wants subservient drones.
Like it or not, there is a real tangible productivity factor that comes into play if someone is not a good personality fit in a given team dynamic.
If you have a bunch of quiet, homebody people and then introduce a new brash and loud team member - irrespective of talents, you could see a massive drop in worker happiness and productivity.
If you have a bunch of quiet, homebody people and then introduce a new brash and loud team member - irrespective of talents, you could see a massive drop in worker happiness and productivity.
I'm glad they're trying to add something new to the mix. I think it's been made clear that having a degree/internships/experience on paper doesn't really correlate with a great candidate. However, I am curious what the specifics of this personality test are.
I'm also a bit concerned that hiring people with similar personality traits of "top-performers" will cut down on diversity of thought and different perspectives. Maybe it doesn't matter as much when dealing with the analytical/data driven side of finance - but I would assume having a group of high performing employees with different personalities would be more well rounded than a lot of one type of employee.
I'm also a bit concerned that hiring people with similar personality traits of "top-performers" will cut down on diversity of thought and different perspectives. Maybe it doesn't matter as much when dealing with the analytical/data driven side of finance - but I would assume having a group of high performing employees with different personalities would be more well rounded than a lot of one type of employee.
They could select for the personalities found on the "top-innovators" group if they deem innovation important
There are lots of ways this can go wrong, and the sharp-edged headline prompts many of us to start thinking about misfires. The actual text of the story, though, focuses more on a desire to find people who are good at teamwork and higher-order thinking.
That's not a bad idea. Wall Street attracts plenty of me-me-me people, who can be very high achievers -- at a price. They grate on clients; they grate on colleagues, and they seldom contribute to making the overall firm work more harmoniously.
If Goldman thinks it's got a new way of finding more collegial people, that's interesting. Personality tests, like coding tests, run the gamut from ridiculous to somewhat useful. It would be interesting to know whether Goldman is building its own or using one of the off-the-shelf options.
That's not a bad idea. Wall Street attracts plenty of me-me-me people, who can be very high achievers -- at a price. They grate on clients; they grate on colleagues, and they seldom contribute to making the overall firm work more harmoniously.
If Goldman thinks it's got a new way of finding more collegial people, that's interesting. Personality tests, like coding tests, run the gamut from ridiculous to somewhat useful. It would be interesting to know whether Goldman is building its own or using one of the off-the-shelf options.
* they seldom contribute to making the overall firm work more harmoniously*
Ultimately, the point of hiring people is to make the firm work more profitably. Banks are not well known for their commitment to a harmonious workplace.
Ultimately, the point of hiring people is to make the firm work more profitably. Banks are not well known for their commitment to a harmonious workplace.
I guess this would be the opposite of a diversity program since they are going out to hire a very specific type of employee. It appears that they want a mono-personality in their halls.
> the opposite of a diversity program
What if Uber had made this announcement? New employees need to have a "culture fit" with the current staff.
Nobody knows how to hire. It's more luck and guessing than we want to admit. Temporary trials are the way forward. The problems are that employees and employers need to be secure enough to risk a trial, and compensation would need to change.
What if Uber had made this announcement? New employees need to have a "culture fit" with the current staff.
Nobody knows how to hire. It's more luck and guessing than we want to admit. Temporary trials are the way forward. The problems are that employees and employers need to be secure enough to risk a trial, and compensation would need to change.
> It appears that they want a mono-personality in their halls.
I think it's more precise to say that they are selecting for productivity. Maybe more than one personality type is productive? It's not necessarily one single type.
I think it's more precise to say that they are selecting for productivity. Maybe more than one personality type is productive? It's not necessarily one single type.
[deleted]
BREAKING: Mortimer and Randolph Duke to join Goldman Sachs Board of Directors.
A thing that seems to be missing from the discussion: this has been done before.
The early days of Meyers-Briggs saw it used at offices nationwide - getting the right result was a strict requirement for employment. But the test/retest reliability is terrible, most people exist near the boundaries of the categories, and the four sections are largely arbitrary. It appears to have created single-personality workspaces without achieving anything meaningful at all in corporate terms.
The early days of Meyers-Briggs saw it used at offices nationwide - getting the right result was a strict requirement for employment. But the test/retest reliability is terrible, most people exist near the boundaries of the categories, and the four sections are largely arbitrary. It appears to have created single-personality workspaces without achieving anything meaningful at all in corporate terms.
Meyers-Briggs is also incredibly easy to game if you know what they're looking for. Not as bad as those silly "ethics tests" some crappy entry-level jobs give ("You see a coworker stealing merchandise. Do you a) punch them, b) tell a manager as soon as possible, c) join them in stealing, d) smoke a joint and forget about it?") but not much better.
Guessing you'd be able to nail what they wanted for office jobs by just picking the organized/responsible/social/intellectual options every time you could, in roughly that order of priority.
Guessing you'd be able to nail what they wanted for office jobs by just picking the organized/responsible/social/intellectual options every time you could, in roughly that order of priority.
I was once given a "modified" MB test for a CTO position at $international_firm and had to show up at a "specialist consulting firm" to take the test (husband/wife team working from their living room) - They were nice people, we sort-of connected, and I asked them outright what profile the client was looking for. They happily shared, and said the test cannot be rigged, we designed it, it is bulletproof. I aced it, and a subsequent two tests where they asked me to fill for different personalities. Panic all-round.
I was offered the job, but declined - they put too much stock in this type of meaningless hocus-pocus, and barely asked me about my technical and organisational qualifications.
I was offered the job, but declined - they put too much stock in this type of meaningless hocus-pocus, and barely asked me about my technical and organisational qualifications.
All I can figure with this stuff is that they're trying to weed out people too dumb and/or naive to effectively lie on something like this. Or those who won't work for a place that asks them to, as with you. They're definitely not filtering for the nominal target personality, and surely they know that.
Disclaimer is I'm not taking sides, but: I wonder what sort of outrage would go down if tech companies started a similar thing, where they tested to determine whether someone is "agreeable" or a "better team player" than others.
Something about "leadership principles" and "STAR" comes to mind.
Something about "leadership principles" and "STAR" comes to mind.
Isn't this being selected for already guised under "culture fit?"
I wonder if the answers to such a test could later be used against the employee?
Something like "Hey we have proof here on paper that you claimed to be [random personnality trait] and yet you behave differently, we will have to let you go." That would be aweful!
Great idea.
It would be better if they could do some analysis over their Facebook profile, for example.
It would be better if they could do some analysis over their Facebook profile, for example.
I certainly hope not. Social media should not be a measurement of professional character. Many kids use it without concern for how it will affect their future because they lack the awareness of it. If everything you've said when you were a child was on record and reviewed by employees chances are most people wouldn't have jobs. Additionally, it sets a bar the requires social media usage. I personally don't use any online accounts that are linked to my name. This means I would be perceived as a danger to any hiring systems that utilize social media analysis.
If no one would have a job than it will mean the analysis done on the social network profiles will be awfully wrong. The thing it will be searching for is not perfect people, but people who do some things in social networks that somehow, by some nasty AI algorithms, will qualify them to do some job, simple.
I firm believe that everything I've said on Orkut many years ago was sincere and honest and matches well with my personality. If some algorithm is looking for someone with my character and abilities it will certainly find one in my Orkut activity.
The same way, if you don't have a social media profile, then certainly you're a good match for some job that is looking for someone with these characteristics.
I firm believe that everything I've said on Orkut many years ago was sincere and honest and matches well with my personality. If some algorithm is looking for someone with my character and abilities it will certainly find one in my Orkut activity.
The same way, if you don't have a social media profile, then certainly you're a good match for some job that is looking for someone with these characteristics.
Attitudes will change.
The Army relaxed the "no tatoo" requirement because everyone has one now.
More companies allow a casual dressing code, because candidates keep on demanding it.
Future employers will relax their attitude towards social media un-professional behaviours everybody will have such a thing on their profile.
Even Obama admitted having smoked a joint. If he got a pass, a lot of other people will too.
The Army relaxed the "no tatoo" requirement because everyone has one now.
More companies allow a casual dressing code, because candidates keep on demanding it.
Future employers will relax their attitude towards social media un-professional behaviours everybody will have such a thing on their profile.
Even Obama admitted having smoked a joint. If he got a pass, a lot of other people will too.
> If he got a pass, a lot of other people will too.
1. I think presidents tend to get a lot of passes other people don't. It comes with the level of influence they have.
2. Presidents are selected by the typical American voter. Smoking a joint is cool these days with plenty of people (esp. younger), but employers are typically older and more traditional. He didn't get a pass with these people, they just weren't going to vote for him already for other reasons.
Not to say I disagree with your overall point - America is generally becoming more progressive.
1. I think presidents tend to get a lot of passes other people don't. It comes with the level of influence they have.
2. Presidents are selected by the typical American voter. Smoking a joint is cool these days with plenty of people (esp. younger), but employers are typically older and more traditional. He didn't get a pass with these people, they just weren't going to vote for him already for other reasons.
Not to say I disagree with your overall point - America is generally becoming more progressive.
What if someone does not have a Facebook profile or isn't very active on the platform? Denied by default?
My guess is liking cat videos and arguing on news posts does not have any representative value of the professonnal personnality. /shrug
My guess is liking cat videos and arguing on news posts does not have any representative value of the professonnal personnality. /shrug
I'm not claiming the ability to actually write the algorithm that will decide on these matters for all interested hiring parties.
But apparently you are.
But apparently you are.
I reckon finance people are not that keen on social media so that wouldn't work.
If it correlates with high earning, they're keen on it.
More likely social media is uncorrelated and more easily gamed.
More likely social media is uncorrelated and more easily gamed.
>more easily gamed
That's interesting. Please go on.
That's interesting. Please go on.
Why would you reckon that?
Some aspects of finance are secretive (trading, HFT) so I assume the people behind then are as well.
[deleted]
Personality tests are bogus. You can have completely different results on different days based on your mood, what you've read recently, etc. They should just go ahead and use psychics. It's probably just as good at predicting who is going to work out for them.
Genetic test is next.
> "Their answers will be compared with those of current Goldman employees, who have already been identified as exhibiting traits that mark high performance such as teamwork, analytical thinking and judgment, Jahansouz said."
Awful idea.
Awful idea.
> > "Their answers will be compared with those of current Goldman employees, who have already been identified as exhibiting traits that mark high performance such as teamwork, analytical thinking and judgment, Jahansouz said."
> Awful idea.
No, no, it's a wonderful way to ensure a monoculture and the absence of innovation!
> Awful idea.
No, no, it's a wonderful way to ensure a monoculture and the absence of innovation!
Not to mention that one of those employees can easily get all of their friends and relatives employed if having similar answers is all it takes.
> Candidates' results on the test will be just one factor in the final hiring decision, which also includes in-person interviews, Jahansouz added.
In-person interviews (the traditional, formal type with all your usual interviewy questions) are already mostly a test of whether you have enough sense and judgement to tell the right kind of stories with the details tuned just so, and your ability to tell them convincingly.
Yeah it's a really bad idea to hope your new employee works well in a team and exhibits good judgement.
I wonder if they're using MBTI.
I also wonder what MBTI types people here have. I'm guessing a lot of INTPs and INTJs.
I also wonder what MBTI types people here have. I'm guessing a lot of INTPs and INTJs.
[deleted]
My understanding is that the current consensus among psychologists is that MBTI is not very good.
Could anyone knowledgeable comment on this?
Could anyone knowledgeable comment on this?
I'd also be interested to know what MBTI type other HN readers are.
I keep switching between INTJ and INTP every time I do the test.
I keep switching between INTJ and INTP every time I do the test.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I did an MBTI just recently as part on a job application. INT-J
[deleted]
I went for an interview at a company that did one of these tests (company wrote them) many years ago. Was utter waste of time as they do not cater for people with aspergers and as such they try and pigeonhole you into somebody who is proactive or reactive. This ignores somebody who is capable of excelling at both and even though outlined instances in which I had been both they seemed to not grasp this and ended up going in circles for 5 whole hours. Utter waste of my time, for some types of people and they lost out.
I seriously miss the time when you'd be asked questions relevant to your job and have your experience evaluated to get hired.
Now, this could be because I'm Swedish and here it's taken as self evident truth that you should have a smörgåsbord of benefits, but if they're having problems beating the benefits offered in Silicon Valley, their solution is to invest money into finding people who are equally skilled but don't value security and work-life benefits as much as money? Shouldn't this instead be a signal that work-life balance and security is highly sought after among skilled individuals, and that if the competition can offer it so should they?
You'd think that being economists they would look at their counterparts in Silicon Valley and the Nordic Countries, especially their outstanding economic performance, and think "hmmm, maybe we don't have to reinvent the wheel after all, maybe we should try out these benefit thingies that are proven to work?". This test looks more like the answer to "can we find other people to validate our opinion that everything's fine?".
You'd think that being economists they would look at their counterparts in Silicon Valley and the Nordic Countries, especially their outstanding economic performance, and think "hmmm, maybe we don't have to reinvent the wheel after all, maybe we should try out these benefit thingies that are proven to work?". This test looks more like the answer to "can we find other people to validate our opinion that everything's fine?".
> He said future job candidates would be given the test before their second round of interviews at the bank. Their answers will be compared with those of current Goldman employees, who have already been identified as exhibiting traits that mark high performance such as teamwork, analytical thinking and judgment, Jahansouz said.
In practice, this is nothing more than an IQ test. If you can't figure out what answers are beneficial to your application, you're not smart enough to work there. It likely says little about the actual traits of these job seekers.
In practice, this is nothing more than an IQ test. If you can't figure out what answers are beneficial to your application, you're not smart enough to work there. It likely says little about the actual traits of these job seekers.
It depends on the test that they use. The widely used psychological tests are designed to detect adversarial responses.
> designed to detect adversarial responses
Sounds like an interesting topic. I'd love to read some articles/literature on it.
Sounds like an interesting topic. I'd love to read some articles/literature on it.
They are designed to detect inconsistent responses, not adversarial ones. Which means that if you can remember for the duration of the test what personality you'd like to present, you're good to go.
Well, that, and you have to be able to recognize indirect questions. But it's really not adversarial proof.
Well, that, and you have to be able to recognize indirect questions. But it's really not adversarial proof.
Well, I'm not talking about adversarial responses.
I'm not sure if "adversarial" is the right word, but I'm talking about people trying to game the test with dishonest answers.
I agree with you. I think most people, including me, would answer the question as, "What do they want to hear?", and not, "What answer is most relevant to me?"
A question like "have you ever considered shouting at your manager?" would filter out candidates that are too [ stupid | honest | self-respecting ] to pick the expected answer...
Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman, has talked a lot over the years about how important he thinks it is for young people to try to become really well rounded with a broad range of interests and experiences. He's talked about how it makes them more interesting and dynamic individuals which leads to higher success in business and with all interpersonal relationships, generally.
Wells Fargo (circa late in the housing boom 2005-07, etc) used to use a personality test developed by Gallup. I heard from more than one higher-level manager that it basically selected for the exact kind of traits that would eventually lead to a sales culture where thousands and thousands of employees were committing fraud.
Goldman needs to be careful what they select for.