Type Ethics
By LisaFairhurst on 06-21-2008
I had an immediate very strong negative reaction. It had never occurred to me that people would use type as a divider although that really is a logical conclusion given human nature.
I told my friend that using type to decide if people are suitable candidates for the job is unethical. She replied that they have had a lot of problems with ending up with employees who are completely unsuited for their jobs. The company won’t fire them due to worries about lawsuits, so they are stuck with a bunch of dead wood. My friend said that if they are hiring for a job with requires lots of detail work, they want to be sure they get someone who is good at detail work.
My response was that type really isn’t going to help them avoid bad employees. It isn’t accurate enough to make any decisions about. On top of that, people can test as one type but have phenomenal skills normally associated with a very different type. I didn’t point out the obvious, that a person taking a type inventory is going to answer it based on the job they are applying for.
As far as I could tell, her basic position is that a few mistypings are OK if they help the company find good employees. She certainly doesn’t see it as unethical. She feels her company is right to use any methods they can find to the right employees. Nothing I said could convince that using type simply won’t help at all and will be at least at counterproductive and productive. Of course, I pointed out that even if a person tests as a ‘detail’ type and actually is one, nothing says that the person is competent, hard-working, or good at working with others.
What do you think about the advisability of using type as a pre-employment screening tool? What are the advantages and disadvantages? If you were handed the Keirsey sorter by a potential employer, how would you answer it – based on your true type or based on what the job needs? And would it really be a lie? I know a woman who tests as a Guardian Supervisor. She is a lead lawyer. On the job, that’s exactly how she behaves, but her true type is Artisan Performer.
 |
 |
| |
|
Posted by Lesley on Jun 22, 2008
Hiring people based on temperament is not a good idea. I had a job as a customer service representative, and I was surrounded by SPs. SPs everywhere. What if employers hadn't hired me for that job because I'm not an SP? That would be discrimination. Just like it's illegal to not hire someone 'cause he has a disability, it shouldn't be legal to not hire someone based on his temperament. |
 |
|
Posted by Bugrad93 on Jun 22, 2008
I don't have a problem with it if it is used with various other criteria (competency based interviewing, etc) but would not want it to be stand alone. I've taken many for jobs and could easily manipulate the outcome to be whatever I might need it to be for what's needed for that job (not sure if that is the case with all of the personality types...and I should say, I am still not convinced that I am an Idealist) so not sure how valid they are in that setting. However, I see a need for them any companies where they tend to hire the same personality type over and over again leaving little room for diversity. People often hire people like themselves instead of looking for someone who may bring a different angle or skill set. I agree to that while many people are in the wrong jobs or even work environments, I don't think employers should be the ones to determine that. (Thus, I clearly see both sides to this argument.) :) |
| |
|
Posted by LisaFairhurst on Jun 23, 2008
I can easily make the outcome any type I wish. My husband who is a Rational could probably do likewise. I understand the desire to avoid unsuitable employees, but I don't think type will help most companies achieve that goal. I agree with Lesley that people in charge of hiring will decide that only a certain type will do or that a certain type definitely won't do. They will seldom be correct. Very few jobs are that specific in what is required. |
| |
|
Posted by Bugrad93 on Jun 23, 2008
Hey Lisa, I sent you a note via the Advisor Team site ("Slightly Confused") as I do not know how to connect with you directly (is that possible?) |
 |
|
Posted by mkb32 on Jun 23, 2008
I worked as an employment placement couselor for a local staffing company for about 3-1/2 years. We used a battery of different skills assessments, personality tests, and verifying references and employment histories for considering applicants for available positions. Using an applicant's personality test can be helpful in considering the hiring company's overall "personality" or "mission" or "environment" but especially the position to be filled. Making a real "match" where both the applicant and employee will be compatable requires more than just job skill assessment. |
| |
|
Posted by mkb32 on Jun 23, 2008
[QUOTE] Making a real "match" where both the applicant and employee will be compatible requires more than just job skill assessment.[QUOTE] I meant to type "employer will be compatible". |
 |
 |
Posted by drmst33 on Jun 30, 2008
Personality type, if used as a factor in making the decision can be quite a useful tool when trying to replace a team member. Most hiring managers attempt to use personality already in this manner. I've been on innumerable interviews where the interviewer is trying to ask me questions to see if I have the temperament for the job I am seeking and if I will work well with the current office personnel. I agree it would be irresponsible to try to only use a personality test to hire someone regardless of qualifications. But would you really want to work for a company that did that? If I lost a job based solely on personality test alone, I'd count my blessings that I wasn't hired by that company and move on to "greener pastures." |
| |
|
Posted by mkb32 on Jul 1, 2008
Exactly! The "match" for an employment position MUST be right for the employee as well as the employer. If an employee is uncomfortable in a work environment or a main portion of the position includes tasks that are not something they enjoy OR can learn to enjoy, regardless of whether they are capable or not, they become unhappy & it shows in thier performance. Hence the term "dead wood". And, predominantly, if employees are unhappy in thier work, then they leave. The employer is stuck with hiring/trianing again. My personal experience is that most people do not lie. |
When I first learned of MBTI in my 12th grade English class, my teacher said she (probably illegally) got the descriptions out of a book. When my class-mates asked her why, she said because the people who knew this stuff or whatever didn't want people to use MBTI to discriminate. Is using temperament theory to determine which people to hire even legal? What of a person had a disability? It's illegal to discriminate based on that. What if people tried to convince me that I'm not an INFP? What if they think I'm something other than an INFP when I'm not? What if I act like, say, an ESFP on the job, but I'm not really an ESFP? What if applicants tell their employers that they can change their temperament at will? That he/she was an ESFP yesterday, but he's an INFP today and he'll be an ESTJ tomorrow? It would just confuse people about this whole temperament thing, and then they won't take it seriously. What about those who compare temperament theory to astrology? Wouldn't it be weird to be hired for a job just because I'm a scorpio?