Deloitte reports that 80% of Fortune 500 companies use personality tests for a variety of reasons, including recruiting, career planning, leadership development and team building. The global consulting group adds that there are approximately 2,500 such tests on the market. In this issue of The Friedman File, we examine the experiences of two firms to consider how assessment tests can help A/E/C leaders more effectively hire, manage resources and promote employee success.

Seth Wilkinson, president of 140-person Wilkinson Ecological Design/Ecotone, says that his firm began using the Winslow Personality Test in 2014. “We were introduced to it by a third-party consultant, and we initially took it as a leadership team to understand each other’s personalities a little better,” says Wilkinson. “It resonated for many of us quite a bit, so we started using it more broadly. We now use it as part of our recruiting and hiring process for most positions.”

While Wilkinson’s experience with personality testing is limited primarily to Winslow, Chad Cousins says that his firm – 300-person McMillan Pazdan Smith Architecture – has tried several over the years, including the well-known Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Kolbe Conative Index. “The one we’ve used for the past six or seven years is Wiley PXT,” says Cousins, who is the firm’s CEO. “That’s for our leadership roles, officers and senior management. We mapped the whole leadership team to the Wiley PXT. For our younger folks and for leadership development, we use DISC Assessment.”

DISC is a model used to describe human behavior, based on four personality traits: Dominance (D), Influence (I), Steadiness (S) and Conscientiousness (C).

Beyond Myers-Briggs

Modern personality tests date back to Woodworth’s Personal Data Sheet, which was used to identify soldiers prone to nervous breakdowns during enemy bombardment in World War I. The most well-known of these tests is the MBTI. The mother-daughter team that developed it released the first version in the mid-20th Century and many organizations still use it today.

The cottage industry that Myers-Briggs birthed exists largely to help organizations build objectivity into the team-building process. Though they have the potential to be misapplied, when used correctly these tests can guide A/E/C firms toward insightful personnel decisions with far-reaching, positive results.

“As a leader, you have to guard against an excessive herd mentality or groupthink,” says Cousins. “These tools can help you interject diversity into your team.”

Here are six important considerations related to personality assessment tools:

1. All Assessments Are Not Created Equal. It is important to find a test that best suits your needs. The only way to determine this is to try out several because different tests provide unique insights tailored to specific organizational goals.

To determine which personality assessment test is right for your firm, clearly define your objectives, such as improving hiring accuracy, enhancing team collaboration or supporting employee development. Next, research and compare various tests to understand their focus areas, scientific validity and relevance to the organization’s goals.

Consulting with HR professionals, psychologists, or experts in psychometric testing can guide you toward the most appropriate tool. Additionally, conducting a pilot test with a small group of employees can help evaluate the test’s effectiveness and suitability before full implementation.

2. Stress Consistency. As important as it is to find a test that works best for you, Cousins says consistency matters as well. “Don’t hyper-fixate on which test or which method,” he says. “Use some degree of consistency. If you keep changing tests, or use a trendy test every time one comes out, it gets confusing. It’s more important to have continuity around the process.”

3. Don’t Abdicate Decision-Making Responsibility to a Test. Assessment tools should guide a decision, not make it for you. They should suggest – not dictate – a direction to follow. So while they can provide valuable information, they should not be the sole determinant in hiring or employee development decisions. Human judgment remains crucial in interpreting test results and considering the broader context of each candidate’s experiences and potential.

“People are unique and complex,” says Cousins. “They show tendencies, natural abilities and attributes; they have core factors that don’t really change. It’s how they’re wired. But you can’t pigeonhole people. We’re quick to identify someone as an introvert or extrovert, but you have to be careful to avoid saying that someone isn’t capable of doing something. People respond situationally, so you have to understand who they are as a complete person. Tests might give you a sense of how they work within a team concept, how they respond to opportunities and stress. But you can’t lump people into being a ‘this’ or a ‘that.’ It’s not that simple.”

Because over-reliance on objective scoring models overlooks unique qualities and competencies, A/E/C firms must see these tests as a supplementary tool, integrating the insights gained with other evaluative measures to make well-rounded and informed decisions. Assessment tests must be part of a comprehensive evaluation process, including interviews, skills assessments, and reference checks.

4. Use Tests to Find a Fit. Personality assessment tests can help you find people whose traits align with the organization’s culture and the requirements of a specific job. By evaluating characteristics such as communication styles, work preferences, and people skills, organizations can predict how well a candidate might integrate into their team and company culture. This alignment is essential for job satisfaction and performance.

A common theme among assessment test advocates is that their optimal use is to help find the best role for someone they’ve decided to hire or who is already working in the firm.

“We never use it as a screening tool; that’s important to note,” Wilkinson says. “I think it’s better at pulling out things like if someone’s really cut out for a leadership position. It’s more to see if someone is compatible in a position.”

For example, Wilkinson tells the story of a candidate for a production manager position whose assessment results indicated that he’d be better in a project manager role. When offered the chance to switch, the prospect agreed that he would be better and happier as a project manager. “He became a member of our team as a project manager, and we hired someone else for the production manager position,” says Wilkinson. “After a year, we asked the first candidate if he thought the personality profile was right, and he said he was so much happier and more effective than he would have been in the other role.”

5. Use Tests to Create Dialogue. Personality assessments can serve as a catalyst for meaningful conversations between employees and managers. The results of these tests can highlight individual strengths, areas for improvement, and preferred working styles, providing a foundation for open and constructive dialogue. This can lead to tailored professional development plans, better understanding of team dynamics, and enhanced communication strategies. Encouraging employees to discuss their test results drives a culture of transparency and continuous improvement, ultimately contributing to a more cohesive and engaged workforce.

“In the hiring process, we essentially use Winslow as a tool to figure out what sort of questions we should be asking, where we should be focusing discussions and what we should look at in reference checks,” says Wilkinson.

6. Use Tests to Build Balance. Personality assessments can help managers understand the existing dynamics within their teams and identify gaps or areas where additional support is needed. By strategically composing teams with a balance of traits, organizations can enhance creativity, problem-solving, and overall performance. This balanced approach ensures that different perspectives are represented and that the team can navigate challenges more effectively, optimizing the strengths of each member.

“You may have a team that exhibits certain attributes, and you may need different attributes to create a more complete team,” says Cousins. “Maybe you have some very intuitive people who spend less time looking through data, so you need to balance that with more data-oriented team members who can add that value.”

You can only realize the true value of assessment tests through thoughtful, strategic use and with the inclusion of human judgment. In this way, these assessment tests can help A/E/C firms enhance their talent management strategies, create a more harmonious workplace and drive sustained success.

What are your thoughts on personality assessments? Do you use them? Have you tried them before and found them lacking? I’d love to hear your thoughts. Write to me at rich@friedmanpartners.com or call 508-397-9213. Thank you for reading The Friedman File!