Pigeonholing or learning instrument? Test takers’ reactions to personality testing in management development

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

Purpose
While factors that influence test takers’ reactions to personality testing in selection contexts have been well researched, little empirical research evidence exists to determine whether these factors also apply to test takers’ reactions in the context of management development (MD). The purpose of this study is, therefore, to explore what explains different test takers’ reactions in the context of MD programs.

Design/methodology/approach
A qualitative longitudinal approach with three phases of data collection was used, resulting in participatory workshop observations and 11 semi-structured interviews with participants from two different contexts. Data were analyzed using Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA).

Findings
The findings show that test takers’ reactions vary; some are more accepting, others are more neutral or rejecting, where perceived usefulness, clarity of purpose and perceived respectfulness are identified as distinguishing factors. Individuals also differ in terms of their awareness of assumptions and their perceived emotional safety, two emerging factors that are relevant in the MD context.

Research limitations/implications
Data were collected during the MD workshops and three months after, but no records of immediate test takers’ reactions were included, which could be an addition for future research.

Practical implications
The findings of this study suggest that human resource development (HRD) professionals have significant impact on test takers’ reactions when it comes to encouraging self-reflection and learning along personality tests.

Originality/value
This study adds to existing research by offering insights into factors in MD settings where participants are concerned about aspects of fairness, learning and behavioral change.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)354-374
JournalEuropean Journal of Training and Development
Volume43
Issue number3-4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Fingerprint

personality
management
learning
personality test
human resources development
reflexivity
fairness
Management development
Testing
empirical research
Factors
methodology
interview
evidence

Keywords

  • ANTECEDENTS
  • FAIRNESS
  • FEEDBACK
  • JUSTICE
  • Learning instrument
  • Management development
  • Personality
  • Personality testing
  • Reflection
  • SELECTION PROCEDURES
  • TYPOLOGY
  • Test takers' reactions

Cite this

@article{04094aab5b994da98886e2aadea2df39,
title = "Pigeonholing or learning instrument?: Test takers’ reactions to personality testing in management development",
abstract = "PurposeWhile factors that influence test takers’ reactions to personality testing in selection contexts have been well researched, little empirical research evidence exists to determine whether these factors also apply to test takers’ reactions in the context of management development (MD). The purpose of this study is, therefore, to explore what explains different test takers’ reactions in the context of MD programs.Design/methodology/approachA qualitative longitudinal approach with three phases of data collection was used, resulting in participatory workshop observations and 11 semi-structured interviews with participants from two different contexts. Data were analyzed using Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA).FindingsThe findings show that test takers’ reactions vary; some are more accepting, others are more neutral or rejecting, where perceived usefulness, clarity of purpose and perceived respectfulness are identified as distinguishing factors. Individuals also differ in terms of their awareness of assumptions and their perceived emotional safety, two emerging factors that are relevant in the MD context.Research limitations/implicationsData were collected during the MD workshops and three months after, but no records of immediate test takers’ reactions were included, which could be an addition for future research.Practical implicationsThe findings of this study suggest that human resource development (HRD) professionals have significant impact on test takers’ reactions when it comes to encouraging self-reflection and learning along personality tests.Originality/valueThis study adds to existing research by offering insights into factors in MD settings where participants are concerned about aspects of fairness, learning and behavioral change.",
keywords = "ANTECEDENTS, FAIRNESS, FEEDBACK, JUSTICE, Learning instrument, Management development, Personality, Personality testing, Reflection, SELECTION PROCEDURES, TYPOLOGY, Test takers' reactions",
author = "Henriette Lundgren and Brigitte Kroon and Rob Poell",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.1108/EJTD-09-2018-0091",
language = "English",
volume = "43",
pages = "354--374",
journal = "European Journal of Training and Development",
issn = "2046-9012",
publisher = "Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.",
number = "3-4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Pigeonholing or learning instrument?

T2 - Test takers’ reactions to personality testing in management development

AU - Lundgren, Henriette

AU - Kroon, Brigitte

AU - Poell, Rob

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - PurposeWhile factors that influence test takers’ reactions to personality testing in selection contexts have been well researched, little empirical research evidence exists to determine whether these factors also apply to test takers’ reactions in the context of management development (MD). The purpose of this study is, therefore, to explore what explains different test takers’ reactions in the context of MD programs.Design/methodology/approachA qualitative longitudinal approach with three phases of data collection was used, resulting in participatory workshop observations and 11 semi-structured interviews with participants from two different contexts. Data were analyzed using Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA).FindingsThe findings show that test takers’ reactions vary; some are more accepting, others are more neutral or rejecting, where perceived usefulness, clarity of purpose and perceived respectfulness are identified as distinguishing factors. Individuals also differ in terms of their awareness of assumptions and their perceived emotional safety, two emerging factors that are relevant in the MD context.Research limitations/implicationsData were collected during the MD workshops and three months after, but no records of immediate test takers’ reactions were included, which could be an addition for future research.Practical implicationsThe findings of this study suggest that human resource development (HRD) professionals have significant impact on test takers’ reactions when it comes to encouraging self-reflection and learning along personality tests.Originality/valueThis study adds to existing research by offering insights into factors in MD settings where participants are concerned about aspects of fairness, learning and behavioral change.

AB - PurposeWhile factors that influence test takers’ reactions to personality testing in selection contexts have been well researched, little empirical research evidence exists to determine whether these factors also apply to test takers’ reactions in the context of management development (MD). The purpose of this study is, therefore, to explore what explains different test takers’ reactions in the context of MD programs.Design/methodology/approachA qualitative longitudinal approach with three phases of data collection was used, resulting in participatory workshop observations and 11 semi-structured interviews with participants from two different contexts. Data were analyzed using Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA).FindingsThe findings show that test takers’ reactions vary; some are more accepting, others are more neutral or rejecting, where perceived usefulness, clarity of purpose and perceived respectfulness are identified as distinguishing factors. Individuals also differ in terms of their awareness of assumptions and their perceived emotional safety, two emerging factors that are relevant in the MD context.Research limitations/implicationsData were collected during the MD workshops and three months after, but no records of immediate test takers’ reactions were included, which could be an addition for future research.Practical implicationsThe findings of this study suggest that human resource development (HRD) professionals have significant impact on test takers’ reactions when it comes to encouraging self-reflection and learning along personality tests.Originality/valueThis study adds to existing research by offering insights into factors in MD settings where participants are concerned about aspects of fairness, learning and behavioral change.

KW - ANTECEDENTS

KW - FAIRNESS

KW - FEEDBACK

KW - JUSTICE

KW - Learning instrument

KW - Management development

KW - Personality

KW - Personality testing

KW - Reflection

KW - SELECTION PROCEDURES

KW - TYPOLOGY

KW - Test takers' reactions

U2 - 10.1108/EJTD-09-2018-0091

DO - 10.1108/EJTD-09-2018-0091

M3 - Article

VL - 43

SP - 354

EP - 374

JO - European Journal of Training and Development

JF - European Journal of Training and Development

SN - 2046-9012

IS - 3-4

ER -