“This is not a test”

How do human resource development professionals use personality tests as tools of their professional practice?

Henriette Lundgren*, Rob Poell, Brigitte Kroon

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

8 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Although human resource development (HRD) professionals enjoy the use of personality tests in their practice, the appeal of these tests to some is harshly criticized by others. Personality tests attract through optimistic descriptions and ease of use for individual and team development while often lacking predictive and discriminant validities. Despite those concerns, the personality‐testing market can be characterized as a dynamic industry, with many professionals using assessments in developmental settings such as management training and executive coaching. The aim of this article is to explore how individual meaning‐making and organizational sensemaking theories help to explain the widespread and sustained use of personality tests in developmental contexts among HRD professionals. Using grounded theory and inductive analysis, we distill meaning from semistructured interviews with 18 HRD professionals. Through pattern analysis, we establish six strategies that describe practical approaches in personality testing: 1. Ethical‐protective, 2. Scientific‐selective, 3. Cautious‐avoiding, 4. Cautious‐embracing, 5. User friendly‐pragmatic, and 6. Knowledgeable‐accommodating. We find that HRD professionals deal with cognitive dissonances and paradoxical situations in their professional personality test use practice on a regular basis. Research limitations and implications for practice and future research are discussed.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)175-196
JournalHuman Resource Development Quarterly
Volume30
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Fingerprint

Human resource development
Professional practice
Personality tests
Professional Practice
Human Resource Development
Ease of use
Cognitive dissonance
Predictive validity
Discriminant validity
Individual development
Grounded theory
Team development
Sensemaking
Industry dynamics
Testing
Executive coaching
Management training
Regular
Paradoxical Situation
Cognitive Dissonance

Keywords

  • BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR
  • HRD
  • MANAGEMENT
  • MBTI
  • PARADOX
  • WORK
  • cognitive dissonance
  • grounded theory
  • individual meaning-making
  • organizational sensemaking
  • pattern analysis
  • personality test
  • practitioner strategies

Cite this

@article{31c3b893602344a6ad0b3bd86e3c3732,
title = "“This is not a test”: How do human resource development professionals use personality tests as tools of their professional practice?",
abstract = "Although human resource development (HRD) professionals enjoy the use of personality tests in their practice, the appeal of these tests to some is harshly criticized by others. Personality tests attract through optimistic descriptions and ease of use for individual and team development while often lacking predictive and discriminant validities. Despite those concerns, the personality‐testing market can be characterized as a dynamic industry, with many professionals using assessments in developmental settings such as management training and executive coaching. The aim of this article is to explore how individual meaning‐making and organizational sensemaking theories help to explain the widespread and sustained use of personality tests in developmental contexts among HRD professionals. Using grounded theory and inductive analysis, we distill meaning from semistructured interviews with 18 HRD professionals. Through pattern analysis, we establish six strategies that describe practical approaches in personality testing: 1. Ethical‐protective, 2. Scientific‐selective, 3. Cautious‐avoiding, 4. Cautious‐embracing, 5. User friendly‐pragmatic, and 6. Knowledgeable‐accommodating. We find that HRD professionals deal with cognitive dissonances and paradoxical situations in their professional personality test use practice on a regular basis. Research limitations and implications for practice and future research are discussed.",
keywords = "BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR, HRD, MANAGEMENT, MBTI, PARADOX, WORK, cognitive dissonance, grounded theory, individual meaning-making, organizational sensemaking, pattern analysis, personality test, practitioner strategies",
author = "Henriette Lundgren and Rob Poell and Brigitte Kroon",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.1002/hrdq.21338",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "175--196",
journal = "Human Resource Development Quarterly",
issn = "1044-8004",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "2",

}

“This is not a test” : How do human resource development professionals use personality tests as tools of their professional practice? / Lundgren, Henriette; Poell, Rob; Kroon, Brigitte.

In: Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2019, p. 175-196.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - “This is not a test”

T2 - How do human resource development professionals use personality tests as tools of their professional practice?

AU - Lundgren, Henriette

AU - Poell, Rob

AU - Kroon, Brigitte

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - Although human resource development (HRD) professionals enjoy the use of personality tests in their practice, the appeal of these tests to some is harshly criticized by others. Personality tests attract through optimistic descriptions and ease of use for individual and team development while often lacking predictive and discriminant validities. Despite those concerns, the personality‐testing market can be characterized as a dynamic industry, with many professionals using assessments in developmental settings such as management training and executive coaching. The aim of this article is to explore how individual meaning‐making and organizational sensemaking theories help to explain the widespread and sustained use of personality tests in developmental contexts among HRD professionals. Using grounded theory and inductive analysis, we distill meaning from semistructured interviews with 18 HRD professionals. Through pattern analysis, we establish six strategies that describe practical approaches in personality testing: 1. Ethical‐protective, 2. Scientific‐selective, 3. Cautious‐avoiding, 4. Cautious‐embracing, 5. User friendly‐pragmatic, and 6. Knowledgeable‐accommodating. We find that HRD professionals deal with cognitive dissonances and paradoxical situations in their professional personality test use practice on a regular basis. Research limitations and implications for practice and future research are discussed.

AB - Although human resource development (HRD) professionals enjoy the use of personality tests in their practice, the appeal of these tests to some is harshly criticized by others. Personality tests attract through optimistic descriptions and ease of use for individual and team development while often lacking predictive and discriminant validities. Despite those concerns, the personality‐testing market can be characterized as a dynamic industry, with many professionals using assessments in developmental settings such as management training and executive coaching. The aim of this article is to explore how individual meaning‐making and organizational sensemaking theories help to explain the widespread and sustained use of personality tests in developmental contexts among HRD professionals. Using grounded theory and inductive analysis, we distill meaning from semistructured interviews with 18 HRD professionals. Through pattern analysis, we establish six strategies that describe practical approaches in personality testing: 1. Ethical‐protective, 2. Scientific‐selective, 3. Cautious‐avoiding, 4. Cautious‐embracing, 5. User friendly‐pragmatic, and 6. Knowledgeable‐accommodating. We find that HRD professionals deal with cognitive dissonances and paradoxical situations in their professional personality test use practice on a regular basis. Research limitations and implications for practice and future research are discussed.

KW - BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR

KW - HRD

KW - MANAGEMENT

KW - MBTI

KW - PARADOX

KW - WORK

KW - cognitive dissonance

KW - grounded theory

KW - individual meaning-making

KW - organizational sensemaking

KW - pattern analysis

KW - personality test

KW - practitioner strategies

U2 - 10.1002/hrdq.21338

DO - 10.1002/hrdq.21338

M3 - Article

VL - 30

SP - 175

EP - 196

JO - Human Resource Development Quarterly

JF - Human Resource Development Quarterly

SN - 1044-8004

IS - 2

ER -