Pigeonholing or learning instrument?

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.

Trainer perspectives on personality-based group training: Learning objectives, training outcomes, and best practice recommendations.

“…Various neutral reactions were reported. Some claimed that trainees often forget their personality feedback shortly after the training or never mention it again (Boas, 1996;Coe, 1991Coe, , 1992Lundgren et al, 2019). Some trainees reported that the workshop had no apparent effect on work behavior or group dynamics (Clinebell & Stecher, 2003;Sutton et al, 2015).…”

“…In some cases, trainees may not know the purpose of these trainings (Jelley, 2021). One trainee reported, “It is something [organizational leaders] have invested money in but never really told us how to use” (Lundgren et al, 2019, p. 364). Moreover, there is no static set of learning objectives, because many training interventions are customized for clients.…”

“…Beyond fulfilling the learning objectives already mentioned, some have stated that personality-based trainings can enhance work-related attitudes and performance. For example, some have stated that such workshops can improve relationships, respect for coworkers, team cohesion, and team motivation (Doré, 2002; Lundgren et al, 2019; Payne, 2014). The reasoning is that better understanding of differing personalities increases empathy for others, which eases interpersonal tensions.…”

“…Increased self-awareness may sometimes be uncomfortable; following MBTI training, one participant reflected, “Shit, maybe I really am a bit more of a dickhead than I thought I was” (Garrety et al, 2003, p. 215). Participants whose personality characteristics differ sharply from the rest of their group sometimes feel stigmatized (Lundgren et al, 2019). Additionally, some argue that personality feedback is used to excuse inappropriate behavior, such as the trainee who remarked, “[They] say, ‘Hello, I’m an INFP.…”

“…The most common recommendation was to avoid stereotyping or “pigeon-holing” trainees, framing the personality test as a snapshot in time rather than a definitive summarization of the person (Berry et al, 2007; Evans, 2019; Sample, 2004). Less commonly mentioned recommendations included emphasizing that no personality type is good or bad (Coe, 1991; Varvel et al, 2004), treating personality feedback as confidential (Lundgren et al, 2019; McCaulley, 2000), focusing on strengths rather than weaknesses (Coe, 1992; Moyle & Hackston, 2018), using dimensional rather than typal personality models (Berry et al, 2007; Lundgren et al, 2017), training early in a team’s formation (Bohlander & McCarthy, 1996; Clinebell & Stecher, 2003), and relabeling personality tests to avoid potential negative connotations (Lundgren et al, 2017). Much of this guidance concerns avoiding upsetting or embarrassing trainees about their personality feedback.…”