A Brief History of Personality Tests

First used by the U.S. Army during World War I to try to predict which soldiers would suffer from “shell shock,” personality testing today is a roughly $500 million industry, with an annual growth rate estimated at 10% to 15%. Millions of workers take assessments each year as part of personnel selection, to improve collaboration and teamwork, and to identify satisfying career paths.

But personality screening is not without controversy. In recent lawsuits, courts have ruled that the use of certain tests discriminates against protected classes of workers, particularly those with disabilities. Research suggests that many beliefs held by HR professionals about personality screening run counter to scientific evidence. And management scholars worry that fixating on personality as the primary source of conflict at work can cause managers to overlook the crucial role they play in creating the enabling conditions for teams to succeed—whatever their composition.

The industry’s robust growth, however, suggests that managers increasingly rely on personality testing as a tool to optimize their workforces. The tests are inexpensive compared with other assessment tools, and they are easy to administer—modern tests can be taken online without an examiner present. Hundreds of assessments exist today, yet over the past century, three have had an outsize impact.

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

Katharine Briggs began her research into personality in 1917 as a means to understand what she saw as an unlikely attraction between her cherished daughter, Isabel, and fiancé, Clarence Myers. Over 20 years, the mother-daughter team worked to develop the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, drawing heavily on the work of the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung. Since the 1960s, some 50 million people have taken the test, making it by far the most popular personality assessment ever created.

The MBTI holds that people have preferred modes of perception (sensing or intuition) and judgment (thinking or feeling) as well as attitudes about how they build energy (extroversion or introversion) and their orientation to the outer world (judging or perceiving). These preferences combine to form 16 personality types.

Experts argue that the categories don’t predict individual or team effectiveness. Studies have found that more than half the people who retake the test get a different result the second time. The Myers-Briggs Foundation warns against using it “for hiring or for deciding job assignments,” yet the test’s popularity persists at many blue-chip firms. Proponents find it useful for helping people understand their own and their colleagues’ styles and preferences and for reducing conflict in the workplace.

The Five-Factor Model

Often called the “Big Five,” the five-factor model is a set of personality traits derived from a statistical study of words commonly used to describe psychological characteristics across cultures and languages. The categories are openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.

Widely accepted by academics as the gold standard in the evolving field of personality research, the FFM has informed a host of other personality assessments, including the NEO Personality Inventory (developed by two of the creators of the five-factor model) and the Hogan Personality Inventory (which examines how a person relates to others). Unlike the MBTI, assessments based on the Big Five can reliably predict job performance, studies show. (The correlation is stronger for other psychometric measurements, such as IQ, however.) Research also suggests that FFM-based assessments can help predict personalities that are likely to either clash or work harmoniously together.

Strengthsfinder

A new branch of psychology emerged in the 1990s that examines how healthy minds remain resilient and flourish. “Positive psychology” has spawned various assessments; Gallup’s StrengthsFinder 2.0, the most popular, is taken by 1.6 million employees every year in more than 400 of the Fortune 500 companies. Strengths-based assessments aim to increase engagement, job satisfaction, and productivity by helping companies design jobs that take advantage of their employees’ best qualities. Other assessments that harness insights from positive psychology include the VIA Survey of Character Strengths and the Birkman Method.

Some argue that focusing only on the positive is not the optimal way to spur improvement; criticism and realistic self-assessments also contribute to better performance.

What’s Next

Increasingly, companies are abandoning brand-name and open-source tools in favor of bespoke personality tests. The goal is to improve hiring practices by identifying high performers in given roles and then reverse-engineering job descriptions on the basis of their traits.

Some academics are skeptical of these products, partly because of the proprietary nature of the firms’ methodologies. But many believe that advances in neuroscience and in tools for statistical analysis will yield a reliable way to identify the traits that lead to a high-performing workforce. Given the potential payoff, companies will continue to invest in personality screening as they battle for competitive advantage in a knowledge economy.