Have you ever taken (or administered) a personality test, inventory, or indicator as part of coaching, training, or another development program? Every year, millions of people do so, often because their employer asked them to participate. In an article in the Canadian Journal of Behavioural Scienceopens in new window, Blake Jelley reviewed empirical research on the performance-related effects of personality-feedback interventions (PFIs). A PFI is a workplace-related program that provides feedback to people who take a standardized, nonclinical, self-report personality assessment. Proponents claim that PFIs can help participants identify tendencies and areas for improvement and motivate changes to their behavior. Jelley found that research has not yet substantiated beneficial effects from PFIs.
As a management professor with degrees in industrial and organizational psychology, Jelley has encountered questions about personality inventories in the workplace. Participants often express concerns about particular instruments or how employers use them. Jelley’s rapid evidence assessment focused on studies of the effect of providing personality feedback to individuals or teams on their performance or development. He reviewed 12 refereed studies, most of which used type-based questionnaires (e.g., the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) that classify people into type groups. Other studies featured inventories that assess distinct personality traits on a continuum from low to high. Proponents of type-based instruments are often at odds with advocates for trait-based tools. Stories of negative PFI side-effects such as confining stereotypes (i.e., “pigeonholing”) have been shared, as have positive anecdotes from a given tool’s fervent followers. Psychometric critiques and defenses of instruments are common. In his article, Jelley contends that PFI research should focus directly on better understanding the (alleged) effects of this common practice. PFI research needs to move beyond anecdotes and psychometric reviews.
Although Jelley found some indications of possible benefits, research designs in the studies under review made it difficult to attribute outcome improvements to PFIs. For example, PFIs are often paired with coaching, counseling, multisource feedback, training, or other programs that are likely to affect performance; consequently, the value a PFI may (or may not) contribute is obscured. The limited evidence base prevented formal comparison of type-based versus trait-based approaches or other contingency factors that may affect whether or how well PFIs work. More and higher quality research is needed.
It is time to set aside the uncritical assumption that PFIs have beneficial effects. They need to be investigated more closely to understand whether they work or how they can be made to work most effectively. Until then, practitioners should apply PFIs with caution and be wary of claims that research supports a given instrument for developmental purposes. The popularity of the practice and intriguing theoretical issues make this a topic worthy of meaningful partnerships among practitioners, assessment publishers, and researchers.
Note: This article is in the Industrial/Organizational Psychology and Management topic area. View more articles in the Industrial/Organizational Psychology and Management topic area.