Personality Tests in the Workplace

On a recent episode of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, a listener asked the panel's opinion on personality tests, specifically the enneagram personality type test and the Myers-Briggs test. Generally under Title VII and California's FEHA, employment decisions (including hiring, firing, promotion, demotion, etc.) may not be made on any of the protected categories (sex, race, religion, disability, etc.).

However, case law restricts the use of hiring/advancement tests which are discriminatory or have a "disparate impact" on one of the protected groups. Once shown to have a disparate impact, such tests are impermissible in the workplace unless "shown [by expert opinion] to be predictive of or significantly correlated with important elements of work behavior which comprise or are relevant to the job or jobs for which candidates are being evaluated." Albemarle Paper v. Moody.

Among the factors which will affect the legal validity of employment tests, the courts look at whether: the test-makers conducted a suitable job analysis; the test-makers used reasonable competence in constructing the test itself; the content of the test is related to the content of the job; the content of the test is representative of the content of the job; and the scoring system “usefully selects from among the applicants those who can better perform the job.” Gulino v. N.Y. State Ed. Dept.

Additionally, the courts consider the EEOC's Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures to bear on the analysis.

The rogues in Skeptics Guide found the enneagram test to devolve into magical thinking, and the Myers-Briggs test to merely parrot back the employee's responses in a conclusory manner. Though these opinions are informal, they don't bode well for an such tests to pass muster under the cases. As such, employers should thoroughly examine these tests before implementing them into any employment decision.