The Behavioral Science Behind Personality Assessments
Personality Testing Is All The Buzz — Rightfully So?
Interview with Kajsa Asplund, PhD
Kajsa is a Psychologist, specialising in talent management, she is Lead People Science at Alva Labs where they aid clients in better decision-making with the help of science-based and data-driven solutions. She has also authored a popular book on the topic and is a regular keynote speaker on topics related to industrial and organisational psychology, evidence-based HR, and talent acquisition.
Habit Weekly (HW): What led you to start working with personality tests and assessments, and what initially sparked your interest in this field?
Kajsa Asplund (KA): I first started working with personality tests and other psychometric assessments during my psychology studies at Uppsala University in the early 2010s. I did an internship at an assessment provider and quickly realized the many benefits companies could get from working with scientifically grounded tests for selection, in terms of accuracy, objectivity, and efficiency alike.
I was really fascinated by the fact that many of the most common selection methods were so ineffective in finding the best candidates for the job.
I first became interested in this topic because I was introduced to the vast research that had been conducted on the accuracy and predictive capacity of different selection methods. I was really fascinated by the fact that many of the most common selection methods were so ineffective in finding the best candidates for the job. But also, of course, that there were other methods that were all the more accurate, but less well-spread.
Can you share an example of how personality assessments improved team dynamics and outcomes in recruitment?
KA: I have seen so many cases where personality assessments have helped improve selection processes, particularly when being used at the early stages of selection. When organizations switch from a manual CV screen to an automated personality test screening, they are often stunned by the increase in diversity among candidates that make it to the first interview.
For some reason, however, when something is called a ‘test’ or an ‘assessment’, people sometimes seem to be more prone to see the result as the truth.
From your experience, what are some of the limitations of using personality assessments in hiring decisions?
KA: Like with all selection methods, it’s important to keep in mind that a personality assessment does not paint a complete picture and does not say everything about an individual. There are always more pieces of the puzzle that need to be taken into account.
For some reason, however, when something is called a ‘test’ or an ‘assessment’, people sometimes seem to be more prone to see the result as the truth. What I usually tell organizations is that personality assessments do their best job early on in the selection funnel, to help make the decision on which candidates to move forward to the next stage. Once they get there, interviews and case exercises are examples of methods that will help paint a more nuanced and contextualized image.
How should cultural differences affect the design and use of personality tests?
KA: In today’s globalized world, it is of course very important to cross-validate personality models and — tests in various different cultures, to make sure that they remain reliable and valid across settings. It might, for instance, be important to consider cultural differences in how candidates use response scales. In some cultures, people are more prone to use the extremes (e.g., ‘completely agree’ and ‘don’t agree at all’), whereas in other cultures, candidates might stick more to the mid-points of the scale.
Overall, however, personality assessments have turned out to hold up pretty well against different kinds of cultural biases, which is a clear advantage of this method.
Based on your work and experience, how should the effectiveness of personality assessments be measured, and what indicators should we track?
KA: The most important success indicator of all is accuracy: To what extent is this personality assessment capable of identifying the candidates most suitable for the job?
This requires some work, obviously, but it’s such an important thing to try to capture. The most straight-forward way is to make sure to document how candidates that get hired fare, and then put that in relation to their personality scores.
Secondly, we want to see that the personality assessment produces a fair and objective selection, i.e., that it is not prone to bias or adverse impact against any protected group.
Third and finally, we also want the personality assessment to be efficient and ideally result in time saved for the hiring team. If you, for instance, replace a manual CV screen with a personality test at the beginning of the process, there is usually a very substantial increase in efficiency. Manually reading through a large number of CVs and making your selection based on this is not only very subjective, it’s also extremely time-consuming. An automated, digitized personality assessment can save you tons of time while also improving objectivity.
Can you share insights into how your company customizes or tailors personality assessments to align with its unique organizational culture, values, and job requirements?
KA: Needless to say, there is no one right or wrong personality: You always need to consider the specific requirements of the organization, team, and role. At Alva Labs, we use so-called test profiles which represent the ideal scores that we would like to see for the role. These can differ a lot depending on the position and company. Sometimes, companies have certain personality traits that reappear in basically all their profiles, because they consider them key to their culture.
What future trends do you see in personality assessments and recruitment, especially related to the evolving technological landscape?
KA: First and foremost, I think the trend to focus more on candidate experience is only in its infancy. Over time, we will see a lot more innovation on how to save time for candidates, help them prepare and take away personal learnings from the test, and use these insights later on.
AI might help us get more specific and concrete in personality assessment, by e.g. focusing more on specific situations and work contexts.
I’m also really excited to see what the future of AI will bring to personality assessment. Perhaps we will see new and innovative interfaces, perhaps more conversational and contextualized. AI might help us get more specific and concrete in personality assessment, by e.g. focusing more on specific situations and work contexts. It might also help us ask questions more specifically tied to the role, culture, and industry that one is applying to. At the same time, there are numerous risks here: So far AI, is a black box in terms of how the outcome is actually produced, so we need to be very attentive to how objectivity and transparency are affected.
Bonus Question: What are your thoughts on astrology and horoscopes?
KA: Fun fact: I was absolutely obsessed with astrology as a teenager! To this day, I think there is an aesthetic and narrative beauty to this space that gets the imagination going. This is probably one reason why it’s still so attractive to people. In terms of substance when it comes to actual decision-making, however, it’s obviously no better than a children’s game. If we are talking about hiring in particular, don’t let it anywhere near your recruitment process!
Hear, hear Kajsa! And thank you so much for sharing your insights. Want to connect with Kajsa? You can find her on LinkedIn, and we also recommend exploring one of her blog posts explaining the Big Five Method — an amazing read!
