Using personality assessment as part of a company’s hiring process can often parallel how people deal with nutrition, health supplements, exercise, to name a few. Simply put “more is better.”
The process often times centers around assessing the personality of top and bottom performers to see which behaviors are unique to the top performers.
Once the behaviors that are unique to top performers have been identified, the tendency at times is to assume is that if the behaviors were even stronger, the job performance would also improve.
For example, an analysis of top/bottom performers revels that top performers have conceptual thinking capabilities. They can review complex data and see patterns that allow them to quickly formulate strategies. It might stand to reason that the stronger this ability, the better the outcome. But consider this:
Another example is when a top/bottom analysis concludes that a persuasive communication style is unique to the top performers. For this example, persuasive communication is defined as the motivation to change another’s thinking to conform to one’s own conclusion. It is generally accepted that this behavioral attribute cannot be taught and therefore in the certain job roles, can be incredibly meaningful and effective, especially in sales and leadership. For example, in leadership, it is invaluable when it comes to inspiring others follow a vision.
This style is most often exemplified by individuals who, at a social gathering, enjoy taking the opposite position on a topic just to see if they can persuade others to agree with their point of view. While it is a very powerful communication tool, in excess it has a dark side.
The classic top/bottom analysis is attractive because it feels both logical and intuitive, but in the era of big data this approach has been challenged. Dr. Thomas Schoenfelder, our head of research, has recently published his findings on what constitutes “top performance.” His findings suggest another model with higher predictive validity might be the way to go.
In his report entitled the “Theory of Work”, Dr. Schoenfelder has revised the widely held top/bottom theory. The gap that he identified was that testing top and bottom performers and relying on the differences fell short if further thought was not given to other factors, outside of personality. Factors that further qualified the behavioral traits deemed predictive. In a nutshell, Dr. Schoenfelder advocates returning to the basics of scientific theory. Simply put, develop the hypothesis of top performers in a job, then test the hypothesis with all the performance data available, including personality, to validate the conclusion. In this era of big data, not relying on all performance data can potentially diminish a company’s competitive advantage.