The recent US Supreme Court decision invalidating race-conscious admissions programs at colleges and universities marks a significant change for affirmative action. The implications of this decision extend beyond higher education to diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workforce.

At Hogan Assessments, we are completely committed to our founding principles of social justice and fair hiring practices, irrespective of changes in affirmative action legislation. Our core purpose is to help people and organizations succeed using data-driven talent insights. Implicit in our purpose is that success should be accessible to all rather than a select few.

Aligned with these values, we will continue to use our assessments to provide unbiased evaluations of potential and predict workplace performance. We will continue to enable organizations to make equitable decisions about people, and we will continue to help organizations identify and develop leaders who will create and sustain inclusive workplaces.

We will always prioritize equal opportunity in our business practices. We urge all our clients, partners, and stakeholders to join us in advocating for diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Last month, the Hogan team was given a warm welcome by distributor Talent Assessments Vietnam (TAV) when we joined them on a whirlwind tour across the country. This trip was an excellent opportunity to continue the positive progress that TAV has already made. TAV planned a productive schedule, including launching their first Hogan Assessments Certification workshops, promoting thought leadership events, and conducting several business development meetings.

The vibrant, bustling streets of Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi provided exciting backdrops for the duration of the trip. Krista Pederson, Hogan’s managing director of Asia-Pacific business development, and Dan Bass, solutions manager at TAV, presented their perspectives on inclusive leadership. They discussed how scientifically validated assessments can help promote equitable selection practices and foster an inclusive organizational culture. Interestingly, Vietnam is already on the path to inclusive leadership due to the diversity among its business leaders. Globally, Vietnam has one of the highest proportions of women in the workforce.¹ The country also beats the global average for women in senior leadership positions.² Nathan Cornwell, MS, Hogan’s senior consultant for the Asia-Pacific region, also joined in supporting meetings and workshops to share how Hogan can provide businesses with a competitive advantage.

Fueled on Vietnamese coffee and feeling Inquisitive, the team took the opportunity to immerse themselves in the local culture whenever possible. They sampled the cuisine, explored different city districts, and even experienced a light (but fortunately harmless) taxi collision.

Given the unique opportunities in Vietnam, Hogan plans to continue expansion in this market. As we collect more data, we will study the nuances of Vietnamese leadership styles and leaders’ personality trends.

We are delighted to be partnered with TAV and are excited to continue supporting their impressive growth in the market.

This blog post was written by Nathan Cornwell, MS, senior consultant, and Krista Pederson, managing director.

References

1. Vietnam Has One of the Highest Shares of Women in Work in the World. (2019, June 8). The Economist. https://www.economist.com/asia/2019/06/08/vietnam-has-one-of-the-highest-shares-of-women-in-work-in-the-world
2. Vietnam a World Leader in Having Women in Top Corporate Positions. (2020, March 10). Vietnam Plus. https://en.vietnamplus.vn/vietnam-a-world-leader-in-having-women-in-top-corporate-positions/169889.vnp

For many people in the United States, the second Monday of October is a day to honor Indigenous people and their ancestors. Whether you know the day to be Indigenous Peoples’ Day, Native American Day, First Peoples’ Day, or Discoverers’ Day (Hawaii), the day honors Indigenous people, their cultures, their histories, and their perseverance. The day also celebrates the contributions of Native Americans to contemporary society and honors tribal sovereignty.

In 1992, the city of Berkeley, California, was the first locale to celebrate Indigenous Peoples’ Day in lieu of Columbus Day.¹ Berkeley formally renamed the holiday to show respect to Indigenous people and protest the legacy of violence and genocide against Native peoples led by Christopher Columbus and other European explorers. The city even declared 1992 the Year of Indigenous People.

Despite the 30-year history of Indigenous Peoples’ Day, it has yet to be codified federally. Nevertheless, observation has become more widespread over the years. Today, numerous state and local governments throughout the United States acknowledge the day in some way, whether as an observance or a public holiday. In 2021, President Joe Biden issued a proclamation to formally recognize Indigenous People’s Day,² and Rep. Norma J. Torres (D-CA) introduced a bill in the US House of Representatives to designate it as a legal public holiday, replacing Columbus Day.³

Even if the holiday isn’t (yet) official where you live, your organization can still choose to observe Indigenous Peoples’ Day. Here are a few key ways you can do so meaningfully.

Make Indigenous Peoples’ Day a Holiday

This one is simple: Declare it a company holiday! Observing Indigenous Peoples’ Day is more inclusive than the federally recognized Columbus Day. As the HR Certification Institute points out, recognizing Columbus Day with paid time off “raises questions about equitable paid-time-off policies.”⁴ For some employees, the implications of observing Columbus Day may be emotionally painful.

HR professionals seeking to create more inclusive and equitable organizational cultures can also advocate for flexible paid time off policies. With a flexible PTO policy, people can take time off to observe days of personal significance at their own discretion. Inclusive to every demographic of employee, flexible PTO can be particularly impactful within global organizations.⁴

Keep the Programming Respectful

Make sure that any organizational programming is genuine and respectful. For advice on planning programming, Hogan recently spoke with Amanda Clinton, who is a Cherokee Nation citizen and the owner and principal of A. R. Clinton Strategies. Clinton spoke about the diversity of cultures across Native American communities and the importance of respectful, authentic programming.

Seek Indigenous Expertise

­According to Clinton, a first step may be determining which of the federally recognized tribes in the United States may have a reservation, a seat of tribal government, or some other presence nearest to your organization. “If you are implementing an event, reach out to a federally recognized tribe and ask for advice on programming, speakers, demonstrations, or other ways to provide a meaningful experience,” she advised.

Cultural authenticity and recognition of tribal sovereignty are key, she told us. Tribal nations share a government-to-government relationship with the United States, which is the foundation of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. Only tribal nations can determine citizenship or membership within their respective tribes. This right to self-determination may be based on kinship, a shared culture and heritage, or ties to a community. Hiring speakers who lack this shared experience or legitimate knowledge of Indigenous lifeways, cultures, and traditions could be problematic. It may also be offensive or uncomfortable for Native American employees with existing community and cultural ties to their tribe. Without proper consultation or vetting, even well-intentioned HR professionals might find that they’ve ended up offering misdirected education—doing more harm than good.

Clinton told us there are 574 federally recognized tribes, and each is eager to share their culture and heritage in their own way. Organizations located in certain areas of the country might need to look to other states within their region. Pennsylvania, for example, currently has no federally recognized tribes. Fortunately, the US Bureau of Indian Affairs has a useful database to facilitate your search.

Start Small and Be Thoughtful

When it comes to activities, “start small and be mindful of what you’re asking for,” Clinton suggested. Do you know if your organization employs any Native Americans, and if so, which tribal nations are represented in your employee base? Do your employees know one another? Many Native Americans may be hesitant to discuss their tribal affiliation in a day-to-day setting, but Indigenous Peoples’ Day is an opportunity for them to share their experiences.

And no matter what, she said, “don’t ask a tribal representative or speaker to share knowledge about sacred ceremonies, dances, or other sensitive topics that may not be for public consumption.” For instance, you might ask the tribe you contact to recommend a performer or storyteller. If you do, you should plan to compensate them for their time.

If you organize a book club, focus on books by Indigenous authors. Consider 2021 Pulitzer Prize winner The Night Watchman by Louise Erdrich (Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians). Another popular choice among book clubs is 2019 PEN/Hemingway Award winner There, There by Tommy Orange (Cheyenne and Arapaho). If the group has an interest in poetry, you might look to the work of three-term US Poet Laureate Joy Harjo (Muscogee Creek Nation).

Finally, don’t assume your Indigenous employees will necessarily want to participate in any events or activities you plan. They might not, and that’s OK. If you receive constructive feedback about your programming, be sure to listen to it carefully—but don’t expect that from them either.

Don’t Limit Effort to Indigenous Peoples’ Day

Most importantly, don’t limit your efforts to Indigenous Peoples’ Day. Aside from the basics, such as fair pay, you might consider the following approaches to cultivating a more inclusive and equitable organizational culture.

Start an Employee Resource Group

Creating an Indigenous employee resource group can be a wonderful way to build community among employees and facilitate inclusion and belonging in the workplace. But don’t let it turn into a genealogy club. According to Clinton, Indigenous ERGs can unintentionally become venues where people try to prove ancestry to a tribe. This can be harmful for tribal citizens with established and legitimate ties to their communities or those with shared ancestral trauma from decades of federal policies such as Indian removal and Native American boarding schools. Establishing objectives for the ERG and creating an ERG charter can help you avoid this.

Mitigate Bias in the Workplace

Looking beyond the holiday also means taking measures to mitigate bias in your organization. One of the best ways to achieve this is by incorporating nondiscriminatory personality assessments in your talent acquisition and talent development strategies.

While many workplace assessments can discriminate (or be misused to conceal discrimination), well-validated and reliable personality assessments don’t produce any meaningful differences between demographic groups. What this means is that personality assessments can preserve diversity in applicant pools, making employment opportunities more equitable for historically excluded groups, including Indigenous people.

Our research shows that personality is a strong predictor of performance for nearly any type of role, in any industry, and at every job level. Using the right tools, hiring managers can identify the candidate who is best suited for the job, instead of selecting the one who is most similar to them—which is what often happens when interviews are the primary evaluation method in selection decisions. In this way, personality assessments can make it easier for Indigenous people and other members of marginalized groups to make it through the talent acquisition process and get the job offer.

Of course, diversity among employees matters little without a foundation of inclusion.⁵ Fostering an inclusive environment starts with hiring and promoting leaders who are capable of inclusive behavior—and personality can help with that too. Hogan’s data scientists have even identified competencies that can help you identify leadership candidates who will display sensitivity to the needs of others, relate to people whose perspectives differ from their own, treat others with respect and tolerance, discourage prejudice, and more.

Conclusion

As you can see, there’s much to do to prepare not only for Indigenous Peoples’ Day, but also for the other 364 days of the year—and personality assessment is just one small part of a comprehensive diversity, equity, and inclusion program. But we’re here to help you and your organization create an environment where everyone has a sense of belonging. Once you’ve wrapped up your programming this October, get in touch with us to get started.

References

1. Associated Press. (1992, January 12). In Berkeley, Day for Columbus is Renamed. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/12/us/in-berkeley-day-for-columbus-is-renamed.html
2. Biden, J. (2021, October 8). A Proclamation on Indigenous Peoples’ Day, 2021. The White House Briefing Room. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/10/08/a-proclamation-indigenous-peoples-day-2021/
3. Torres, N. J. (2021, September 30). H.R. 5473 – Indigenous Peoples’ Day Act. 117th Congress of the United States. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5473/text?r=43
4. Chiappetta, C. (2022, February 14). 3 Ways to Create Inclusive Holiday Policies. HR Certification Institute. https://www.hrci.org/community/blogs-and-announcements/hr-leads-business-blog/hr-leads-business/2022/02/14/3-ways-to-create-inclusive-holiday-policies
5. Sherbin, L., & Rashid, R. (2017, February 1). Diversity Doesn’t Stick Without Inclusion. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/02/diversity-doesnt-stick-without-inclusion

A recent article in the Washington Post identifies many roadblocks for Black football coaches getting one of the 32 most-coveted jobs in the NFL: head coach. The Rooney Rule—a National Football League policy requiring teams to interview “at least one external minority candidate” for head coaching and senior football operation jobs—was established in 2003.¹ At the time, there were only two Black head coaches in the NFL. In nearly 20 years since, the number of Black head coaches has never been higher than seven, even though more than 50% of NFL players are Black. Why is this the case? While the Washington Post article covers many roadblocks many Black coaches face, I focus here on one key point the article makes:

“. . . the roadblocks faced by Black coaches stem in part from the fact that so many owners don’t know how to identify leaders.”

The inability to identify leaders is not just a problem for NFL owners—many organizations struggle to select effective leaders—but this does provide a poignant example of why so many organizations are so bad at it.

The Job Interview Is the Problem

Like leaders in many other organizations, NFL coaches are selected largely based on an interview with the owner and other executives. NFL owners and executive teams are often white and tend to have affluent backgrounds. Moreover, a typical job interview might last anywhere from a few hours to a couple of days. Being so short, these interviews offer little opportunity to get to know someone but ample opportunity for the hiring party to decide who they “like.”

This is where the trouble starts. Research shows that one of the most important factors in getting a job offer is being liked by the interviewer. Being liked is even more important than highlighting your achievements, as one field study showed.^2,3 Likeability has such a powerful effect on interview outcomes that I regularly give one piece of advice to job candidates who are preparing for interviews: you win the interview if they like you; you make them like you by ingratiating them, not by demonstrating your knowledge, talent, or capability.

And this is where the trouble continues. The research on ingratiation, or what makes someone like you, shows that similarity is one of the primary factors driving liking in initial interactions.⁴ In fact, one study showed that candidates with similar biographical characteristics to the interviewer were rated higher by the interviewer.⁵ All other things being equal, we tend to like people who are like us. This is particularly true when we have limited opportunity to get to know people beyond superficial characteristics, such as those experienced during a brief interview.

Returning to the typical NFL coach interview, this is a situation where a Black coaching candidate is trying to appeal to a white, affluent team owner in competition with a white coaching candidate who is likely more similar to the team owner. I think you can see the advantage is in the white candidate’s favor.

Unconscious Bias in Job Interviews

Now I want to be clear here. Bias is not always conscious. In fact, I suspect most team owners are making an earnest effort to hire the candidate who gives their team the best shot at winning. But similarity and liking are powerful and operate subconsciously: “I don’t know why, but I just have a good feeling about this person.” I believe this is the root cause of the hiring bias against Black head coaches in the NFL: owners largely hire the candidate they like the best, regardless of other qualifications, and they are more likely to like someone who shares their background.

Unfortunately, this is a problem for hiring managers everywhere. Evolution tells us that people are biologically wired to like people who are similar to them. The most common method for hiring—the interview—is all about liking. Furthermore, almost everyone thinks they are a good judge of talent, but the reality is that at least 50% of us aren’t.⁶ In fact, the entire business model for Hogan Assessments is founded on the notion that people are generally poor judges of talent and that personality assessments bring some objectivity to talent identification.

But talent identification is what makes the NFL coaching situation so much more problematic. More than 50% of the NFL players are Black. This suggests no bias against hiring Black players. Why is this the case? The answer is simple. Players aren’t evaluated largely by an interview. Players are judged based on their observable talent, their proven past performance, a huge number of objective metrics (including assessments), and their ability to get results.

Can you imagine what the NFL might look like if teams could decide who to hire based on only job interviews? That is precisely what happens with coaches.

An Equitable Leadership Selection Method

A better way to identify leadership talent exists. High-quality personality assessments—assessments with a proven track record of being accurate, fair, and unbiased against historically excluded candidates—are an obvious solution to the NFL’s biased coaching selection problem.

And they are a solution to your organization’s leadership selection problems too.

This blog post was authored by Chief Science Officer Ryne A. Sherman, PhD.

References

1. Sheinin, D., Lee, M., Giambalvo, E., Galocha, A., & Morse, C. E. (2022, September 21). How the NFL Blocks Black Coaches. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/interactive/2022/nfl-black-head-coaches/
2. Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Influence Tactics and Work Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24,89–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.181
3. Higgins, C. A., & Judge, T. A. (2004). The Effect of Applicant Influence Tactics on Recruiter Perceptions of Fit and Hiring Recommendations: A Field Study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 622–632. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.622
4. Byrne, D., Baskett, G. D., & Hodges, L. (1971). Behavioral Indicators of Interpersonal Attraction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1971.tb00358.x
5. Rand, T. M., & Wexley, K. N. (1975). Demonstration of the Effect, “Similar to Me,” in Simulated Employment Interviews. Psychological Reports, 36(2), 535–544. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1975.36.2.535
6. Alicke, M. D., & Govorun, O. (2005). The Better-Than-Average Effect. In M. D. Alicke, D. A. Dunning, & J. I. Krueger (Eds.), The Self in Social Judgment (pp. 85–106). Psychology Press.

The category for Jeopardy! is Bias in Hiring. Your clue: the talent acquisition process that led to Mike Richards being named as the new Jeopardy! host may have been influenced by this psychological phenomenon.¹

If you answered “what is unconscious bias?” you are spot-on.¹ Of course, unconscious bias can be hard to prove, but there must be some explanation for Sony to have chosen an internal candidate with a documented history of racist, sexist, and offensive comments, despite a diverse hiring pool that included Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers, Reading Rainbow’s LeVar Burton, and Big Bang Theory’s Mayim Bialik, PhD.¹ While the exact cause of the Jeopardy! hiring debacle will likely remain a mystery, this high-profile example of a subpar internal candidate winning out over more qualified ones presents a good opportunity to examine bias in hiring, specifically unconscious bias.

What is Unconscious Bias?

We all have unconscious biases because we are all driven by values.Values are part of the human condition.They define our identities, our goals, and our decision-making processes. Our values come from our environment and are consistently reinforced by our family, neighborhood, school, peer group, and larger culture, often without us realizing it.² These values powerfully shape the way we work, play, and manage relationships.² So, what is unconscious bias? Unconscious bias occurs when we project our values onto others and therefore hold them to unfair (and often unknowable) standards.² These inclinations affect how we handle conflict, what type of behavior we reward or punish, our ability to form and maintain a cohesive team, and yes, who we hire and promote.²

The Perils of Unconscious Bias

People who make hiring decisions based on their unconscious biases unsurprisingly tend to hire candidates who closely match their own values.² Furthermore, leaders who mold work environments according to their unconscious biases will probably make employees with dissimilar values feel silenced and underappreciated, leading to disengagement and turnover.²

Enron, a company responsible for one of the largest bankruptcies and audit failures of all time, is a clear example of what happens when leaders are led by their unconscious biases.² When Jeffrey Skilling took over the company as CEO, his disposition toward risky behavior in the name of competition and big rewards became the company’s prevailing ethos.² He hired candidates who pandered to this approach and terminated those who didn’t.² Considering Enron’s fate, this approach was clearly mistaken. If there was ever an office that needed a dissenting opinion, it was his. This brings us to our next peril of unconscious bias …

Your clue: a cursory glance around the office can sometimes (not always) diagnose this organizational deficiency related to unconscious bias in hiring.

If you answered, “what is a lack of diversity?” you are spot-on. Sustained diversity in race, ethnicity, gender identity, disability, and age is an outward sign of an employer’s efforts to reduce bias in hiring. In many societies around the world, diversity and inclusion are not naturally self-sustaining and must be continually nurtured.³ Employers in the United States, for example, have to contend with the fact that women are dropping out of the workforce en masse because of issues related to childcare and pay inequality.⁴ Meanwhile, people of color say they prefer remote work because it helps them avoid in-office microaggressions, and people with disabilities prefer it for more easily navigating accessibility issues.⁵

Workplace Diversity Goals

Although no cure-all exists for diversity and inclusion efforts, using well-validated personality tests during the talent acquisition process can promote fairness in selection and create a foundation for a more inclusive workplace.⁶ Our research shows that personality is a strong predictor of job performance, but there are no meaningful subgroup differences across members of protected classes.⁶ In other words, well-validated personality tests don’t discriminate based on race, gender, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability status.⁶ As a result, personality can help level the playing field so organizations can hire the best talent without discriminating against any group.⁶

Employers should treat fostering a diverse and inclusive workplace as a daily goal. As a committee in apartheid South Africa once concluded when comparing integrated and nonintegrated colleges: “Diversity contributes to the discovery of truth, for truth is hammered out in discussion, in the clash of ideas.”⁷ Indeed, diversity holds the same strategic importance in the business world — organizations with more diversity and inclusion practices tend to have fewer gaps in knowledge, absenteeism, and turnover, but better organizational innovation and performance.⁶ This is why it’s not enough to control bias in hiring; it’s also critical for leaders to make sure their unconscious biases do not undercut an inclusive atmosphere.

Workplace Inclusion Goals

An inclusive workplace makes people feel safe, valued, and fully engaged. It provides an atmosphere where they can be fully themselves in ways that recognize and appreciate their full range of social identities.⁶

Leaders who want to foster inclusive work environments can incorporate personality tests into their talent acquisition and development strategies to ensure they select and promote people whose behaviors will be inclusive. People who take personality tests such as Hogan’s Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory, or MVPI, can get insight into their peer and lifestyle preferences, their aversions, and their beliefs. These characteristics greatly influence the type of work environment they will create.² When leaders become aware of their core values and motivations, they can manage their biases to make more informed personnel decisions.² Personality data can be useful in making these decisions because it ensures that the final hire is the person most competent for the role and not someone who appeals to the hiring manager’s biases.²

Contrary to popular misconception, using personality for talent acquisition does not create a workforce of people who have the same personality profile, even when creating a more inclusive organizational culture is the goal.³ Selection profiles are usually specific for each job and change across jobs.³ Furthermore, personality profiles for a particular job typically only screen for a few personality characteristics that are key to success in the role.³ Other personality characteristics likely will vary substantially among people within the same role.³ Using personality data in hiring decisions, employers can trust that they’re hiring people whose personalities are alike in ways that will positively impact their job performance but who will be unique in their other qualities and behaviors. 

Practical Tips

Rooting out unconscious bias from talent management processes will help organizations thrive and avoid hiring ineffective candidates. So, what are some practical recommendations for employers to limit the effects of unconscious bias in the workplace? First, use personality tests in talent acquisition to improve diversity in hiring. Second, use well-validated personality tests to assess and develop leaders who will foster an inclusive work environment. Third, provide development feedback to employees to enhance their awareness of their people skills, their shortcomings, and their core values and unconscious biases. And finally, understand that while these strategies can help you progress toward creating more objective talent acquisition and development processes and a healthy organizational culture, they should be part (not all) of a comprehensive diversity and inclusion program.

References

1. Singletary, M. (2021, August 24). Chaotic Search for a New ‘Jeopardy!’ Host Is a Lesson in Hidden Hiring Biases. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/s/business/2021/08/24/jeopardy-host-search/
2. Hogan Assessment Systems. (2011). The Power of Unconscious Biases. http://www.hoganassessments.com/sites/default/files/Unconscious%20_Biases_2011_F.3.pdf
3. Gregory, S. (2020, June 30). Clones, Diversity, Innovation, and Personality. Hogan Assessment Systems. https://www.hoganassessments.com/blog/clones-diversity-innovation-and-personality/
4. Miller, K. (2021, May 13). Microaggressions at the Office Can Make Remote Work Even More Appealing. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/05/13/workplace-microaggressions-remote-workers/
5. Vesoulis, A. (2020, October 17). ‘If We Had a Panic Button, We’d Be Hitting It.’ Women Are Exiting the Labor Force En Masse – And That’s Bad For Everyone. Time. https://time.com/5900583/women-workforce-economy-covid/
6. Hogan Assessment Systems. (2020, July 21). Improving Diversity and Inclusion: Practical, Evidence-based Recommendations. https://www.hoganassessments.com/blog/improving-diversity-and-inclusion-practical-evidence-based-recommendations/
7. Lemann, N. (2021, July 6). Can Affirmative Action Survive? The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/08/02/can-affirmative-action-survive

The protests against systemic patterns of racism and police brutality following George Floyd’s death, the success of female heads of state leading their countries through the global pandemic, and the recent United States Supreme Court decision prohibiting workplace discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation are just a few of the topics that are spurring discussions about diversity and inclusion (D&I) right now.

Although these current events have brought D&I to the forefront, this topic should not be new in the workplace — addressing D&I concerns should be a critical priority for all organizations. However, many organizations struggle to create diverse workplaces, especially at the highest levels, and to promote cultures that allow all employees to feel heard and included.¹ Fortunately, organizations can leverage Hogan assessments to help address these concerns and create a more diverse and inclusive culture.

Defining Diversity and Inclusion

There are different ways to define D&I in the context of the workplace. These borrowed definitions are helpful ways for us to better understand what we are referencing when discussing diversity and inclusion²:

• Diversity concerns all the ways people differ from each other. Though this is often limited to race, ethnicity, and gender, it more broadly includes age, nationality, religion, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, education level, marital status, language, and physical appearance. Diversity also includes differences in ideas, perspectives, and values.
• Inclusion concerns creating working environments where everyone feels welcomed, respected, supported, and valued. Inclusive environments embrace diversity.

Why Should We Care about Diversity and Inclusion?

Both diversity and inclusion should be important to organizations as they seek to do the right thing, avoid legal recourse, and deliver key business outcomes. Given these reasons, it’s not surprising that the majority of survey respondents (75%) in a recent study by Pew Research consider it important for their organizations to promote diversity in the workplace.³

Even if there were no moral imperative or risk of legal challenges, organizations could not ignore the strong business case for creating a diverse workplace. As one example, some estimates suggest that organizations with higher levels of gender diversity can outperform organizations that lack female representation by up to 58%.⁴

The positive impact does not stop there. Organizations with more D&I practices tend to have lower levels of absenteeism and turnover and higher levels of organizational innovation and performance. However, even with these notable outcomes, many employees still say their organizations are not doing enough to create inclusive environments.

How Can Hogan Help Your Diversity and Inclusion Goals?

There are a few reasons you should consider using Hogan’s personality assessments in your D&I efforts. First, personality assessment promotes fairness in selection. Our research shows that personality is a strong predictor of performance without producing meaningful subgroup differences. This means we recommend solutions that can help you identify the best talent without discriminating against any group, thereby preserving diversity in applicant pools. Contrary to popular misconception, using personality for selection does not create a workforce of people who have the same personality profile. Hogan creates selection profiles that are specific for each job and would vary across jobs within the same organization. Within a job, we typically only screen on a few personality characteristics for which people will have diverse scores on scales in the profile range and even more so across other personality characteristics.

Second, you can use Hogan’s personality tools to identify and develop leaders who will promote diversity and inclusion. We analyzed data from more than 5,000 individuals to explore the components of Hogan’s personality inventories that predict supervisor ratings on behaviors, such as

• discouraging discrimination and prejudice;
• relating well to a variety of people;
• recognizing the unique potential of each person;
• showing respect, tolerance, and open-mindedness;
• respecting views different from one’s own;
• treating others with respect regardless of race, gender, appearance, religion, and beliefs;
• valuing diverse perspectives;
• displaying sensitivity to issues related to diversity and culture;
• having the ability to see the world through the eyes of others; and
• displaying sensitivity to the needs of others.

We meta-analyzed within-study correlations across 47 organizations and found that Adjustment, Interpersonal Sensitivity, Prudence, and Altruism had positive relationships with behaviors related to diversity and inclusion. Additionally, Excitable, Skeptical, Bold, Mischievous, Recognition, and Power had negative relationships with D&I behaviors. This suggests that people who are optimistic, perceptive, warm, conscientious, tolerant, open-minded, not defensive, trusting, modest, humble, honest, sympathetic, and concerned about helping others will work to foster an environment of inclusivity, regardless of race, age, gender, background, and ideas.

Implications

The importance of diversity and inclusion and the steps you need to take to make your workplace more diverse and inclusive cannot be outlined in a short blog. In fact, half-baked attempts at improving D&I initiatives can have negative impacts. An appropriate organizational culture is necessary to nurture diversity and inclusion. Some research suggests that organizational diversity structures alone, such as diversity policies, diversity training, and diversity awards, can cause white males to have illusory perceptions of fair decision-making procedures impacting minorities (i.e., a “we checked the box” attitude).⁵ This can lead to white males reacting harshly to claims of discrimination because they might assume all D&I issues have been addressed. Further, we haven’t even touched on the complexity of thinking about diversity in a global context.

While we cannot give you a silver bullet, we do provide these practical recommendations for consideration in your larger D&I initiatives:

• First, use the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), Hogan Development Survey (HDS), and Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) to select and promote all employees to increase diversity, hire qualified candidates, and promote fairness in hiring. Using assessments that do not discriminate will lead to more diversity at all levels.
• Second, use the HPI, HDS, and MVPI to select, promote, and develop leaders who will create a diverse and inclusive environment.
• Finally, use the HPI, HDS, and MVPI to provide feedback to employees and enhance their awareness of biases they might have that could stifle D&I efforts.

For more information, make sure you check out our webinar on the topic. You can also listen to our recent The Science of Personality podcast episodes, “Women in Leadership” and “SCOTUS LGBTQ Decision and What It Means for Your Organization.”

*This post was authored by Amber Burkhart, Kimberly Nei, Chase Winterberg, and Jessica Walker.

References

1. Jones, S. (2017, June 9). White Men Account for 72% of Corporate Leadership at 16 of the Fortune 500 Companies. Fortune. https://fortune.com/2017/06/09/white-men-senior-executives-fortune-500-companies-diversity-data/
2. Kapila, M., Hines, E., Searby, M. (2016, October 6). Why Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Matter. Independent Sector. https://independentsector.org/resource/why-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-matter/
3. Horowitz, J. M. (2019, May 8). Americans See Advantages and Challenges in Country’s Growing Racial and Ethnic Diversity. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/05/08/americans-see-advantages-and-challenges-in-countrys-growing-racial-and-ethnic-diversity/
4. Moran, G. (2017, January 23). How These Top Companies Are Getting Inclusion Right. Fast Company. https://www.fastcompany.com/3067346/how-these-top-companies-are-getting-inclusion-right
5. Kaiser, C. R., Major, B., Jurcevic, I., Dover, T. L., Brady, L. M., & Shapiro, J. R. (2013). Presumed fair: Ironic effects of organizational diversity structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(3), 504–519. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030838

People sometimes ask whether using personality assessment for selection will create an organization full of clones, decrease diversity, and narrow the range of innovative thought available to solve company problems. Their concern is that if they hire people with similar personality characteristics, they will create a culture of groupthink. Some assessment providers have fostered this view by (a) suggesting that personality assessment can enable you to clone your best workers’ personalities by hiring more like them, and (b) arguing that would be a good thing. Neither is true.

Because no two people have identical personalities, it is not possible to create a workforce of personality clones, regardless of the assessment used. We can’t clone personalities; even identical twins, who share 100% of their DNA don’t have identical personalities. The concern about personality assessment creating a workforce of clones is simply misguided.

When selection is done right, the core focus is on understanding and predicting future performance on job requirements, not on the personalities of existing workers. Any professionally developed selection process starts with conducting a job analysis, which is a systematic process for identifying the core requirements of the job. Although job analysis can help understand and specify the characteristics required for successful performance, its focus is on job requirements, not on duplicating the personalities of current employees.

Although research shows that personality predicts many different work and life outcomes, not all personality characteristics predict all outcomes. Effectively using personality assessment for hiring is based on identifying core job requirements and then identifying the subset of personality characteristics that predict performance on those requirements.

Personality consists of many facets, and the key is understanding which facets predict which performance outcomes. Hogan’s research archive contains thousands of data points that demonstrate the links between requirements of different jobs and the personality characteristics that predict success in each of them. Because different jobs require different personality characteristics, using personality assessment promotes personality diversity across the organization.

Let’s assume we have a job that requires positive customer relations, following systematic procedures, and resilience in the face of heavy workloads. Job analysis would help us scientifically identify and show evidence that those three requirements are more important than others.

Now let’s assume that we use a personality assessment to measure characteristics related to positive customer relations, following systematic procedures, and resilience and that we create an algorithm to combine measures of those characteristics into a final score to use for hiring decisions. We’re basing those decisions on personality characteristics we know will lead to better performance and, equally as important, we are ignoring lots of other personality characteristics that we could measure, but that we know aren’t important for success in this particular job. If we do that well, we would hire candidates who are interpersonally skilled, rule-following, and resilient but who also could be outgoing or quiet, visionary or tactical, leaderlike or comfortable following others, and/or decisive or cautious, to name a few possibilities. Although those candidates might resemble other successful people in the job on certain personality characteristics, they also would bring a diverse set of characteristics.

Using personality assessment for selection will not create clones. In fact, using personality assessment makes it more likely that you will have employees who are similar in ways that matter for job performance but who are diverse in many other characteristics and behaviors. In addition, because personality doesn’t systematically measure differences in race, gender, age, and other demographic characteristics, you can confidently use personality to hire the best employees while also hiring a diverse workforce that will bring differing personalities, perspectives, life experiences, demographics, and ideas to your company.

On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) delivered a monumental decision for equal employment opportunity in our country, resolving a legal uncertainty haunting the LGBTQ community since the enactment of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964). The result? SCOTUS made clear that Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of gender identity or sexual orientation. As the public engages in ongoing and collective pleas for equality and social justice across the nation, the time was ripe for this outcome.

Why Was This an Uncertainty?

Even before this decision, some state laws, federal circuits, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission already agreed with the result, but other states and federal circuits disagreed. This is apparent in the procedural posture of the case at hand. Specifically, in Bostock v. Clayton (2020), SCOTUS joined three separate cases from distinct circuits in the U.S. Court of Appeals: the 2nd, 6th, and 11th Circuits. At the appellate level, the 2nd and 6th Circuits held that the prohibition against sex discrimination also prohibited discrimination on sexual orientation and gender identity, respectively. On the other hand, the 11th Circuit held that Title VII did not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

This means that the courts would apply the law differently depending upon your region or jurisdiction. If, for example, you were a homosexual person in the 11th Circuit, which includes Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, you would not receive protection in the federal courts against employment discrimination due to your sexual orientation. And that was the case despite the EEOC’s stance. However, if you were in the 2nd Circuit, which includes Connecticut, New York, and Vermont, you would have such protection. Finally, in other circuits where this issue had not yet been decided, this protection was uncertain and not guaranteed. This piecemeal protection was clearly inadequate for our nation to achieve equality and unity. Hence, the Bostock (2020) decision resolved this dispute for the entire country in favor of protection for gender identity and sexual orientation.

Analysis of the Bostock (2020) Majority’s Reasoning

What’s most informative about this landmark opinion is, not the result, but how SCOTUS arrived at their decision. Adopting, for the sake of argument, the parties’ narrowest definition of “sex,” Justice Gorsuch reasoned that any difference in treatment based on gender identity or sexual orientation necessarily involves sex discrimination. Specifically, the Court examined the applicable definition of “sex,” interpreted “because of,” and unpacked the meaning of “discriminate,” all from Title VII’s statutory language.

Definition of ‘Sex’

In Bostock (2020), the Court explained that influential statutory terms must be interpreted in light of their plain meaning at the time of enactment, which was 1964. The employers contended that the term “sex” at that time, meant only the biological reproductive status of an individual. The employees countered that the term more broadly referred also to norms concerning gender identity and sexual orientation. For sake of argument, the Bostock (2020) Court adopted the employers’ definition. To the untrained eye, this seems as though the Court attempted to stack the cards against the employees. To the contrary, this approach helps ensure the outcome is more resistant to counterarguments. If a desirable result is still reached based on reasoning that concedes the opposition’s main assumptions, there are fewer factors the opposition can attempt to unravel.

Interpreting “Because of” Sex

SCOTUS further reasoned that the phrase “because of” incorporates a simple test of causation, known as but-for causation. The way this works is that, if you take consideration of sex out of the scenario, and the employment outcome changes, then sex was a but-for cause. In other words, but for the individual’s sex, discrimination would not have occurred. As the Bostock (2020) Court explained, the implication is that sex need not be the only, or even the primary, motivating factor in the employment decision at issue. If sex was a factor at all, the outcome was “because of” sex in accordance with Title VII. In addition, this reasoning takes away any defense grounded in the fact that some other permissible reason was also at play in causing the decision.

Applying this approach to gender identity and sexual orientation, the majority illustrated that it is impossible to consider either without considering sex. For example, a person is considered to be homosexual only because their sex is the same as the sex to which they are attracted. If you take a homosexual male and a heterosexual female, they both are, by definition, attracted to males. However, an employer with a policy to fire homosexual people would only fire the male but tolerate the same behavior (i.e., sexual attraction to males) by the female. Thus, the individual’s own sex is a but-for cause, along with the individual’s sexual orientation. The same reasoning also applies to gender identity. Each concept is defined in terms dependent upon the individual’s sex.

Meaning of “Discriminate”

The Court further demonstrated that, in the context of Title VII, “discriminate” means to treat an “individual worse than others who are similarly situated” (emphasis added). SCOTUS interpreted “individual” here to essentially rule out a defense that the bottom-line impact on males and females as a class was equal. In other words, for example, it is of little significance to a defense that an employer fires both male and female homosexual people equally based on sexual orientation. The Bostock (2020) Court showed, instead of preventing liability, this would constitute a double violation of Title VII.

Practical Implications

The most obvious implication that follows from this recent SCOTUS decision is that employers nationwide cannot intentionally discriminate against individuals based on their gender identity or sexual orientation. In other words, employers should not even consider gender identity or sexual orientation in making employment decisions. Although the Bostock (2020) case applied only to firing, there is no reason to suspect the analysis would not generalize to other employment practices, such as hiring.

A more nuanced implication is that employers should not only monitor treatment of males and females as a class, but also differential treatment of individuals within such classes. Based on the Court’s interpretation of “discriminate” just mentioned, tracking only how females and males are treated collectively will likely miss problems when gender identity or sexual orientation discrimination is applied to both sexes.

Because the Bostock (2020) case involved only intentional discrimination, or disparate treatment, it is not yet perfectly clear how this applies in the context of unintentional discrimination, or disparate impact. Nonetheless, one thing is certain: This decision lays the groundwork for gender identity and sexual orientation protection in unintentional adverse employment outcomes as well. Although intentional discrimination claims stem from Section 703 (a)(1) of Title VII, unintentional discrimination suits stem from Section 703 (a)(2). A side-by-side comparison of the language of each provision reveals that the only factor from the above analysis that may not have a direct application to unintentional discrimination is the reasoning relevant to the meaning of “discriminate.” The reason is that this word is not used in Section 703 (a)(2). Instead, it deems it unlawful for an employer to “adversely affect [a person’s] status as an employee.” However, it does analogously use both “sex” and “because of.” In sum, it would be reasonable to expect a court to find an adverse effect based on gender identity and sexual orientation a violation of Title VII. It is less clear whether the adverse impact must only be on one sex at a time to support a legal action, which would be distinguished from the individual focus of “discriminate” in terms of intentional actions. Nonetheless, even though Section 703 (a)(2) does not use the term, “discriminate,” it does indicate it is meant to also protect individuals:

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer — to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. (emphasis added)

Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge SCOTUS cannot and did not create an additional protected class. Such an improvement would require congressional action. Rather, the Court demonstrated that gender identity or sexual orientation discrimination is a specific type of sex discrimination. In other words, a separate protected class is not needed because the protection is, or should have been, already there. Yet, the reasoning that allowed the Court to orient gender identity and sexual orientation within sex points to many other potential forms of sex discrimination based on combining sex as a but-for cause with other potential factors. Considering Justice Gorsuch’s example, firing a woman because she is a Yankees fan while allowing men to remain Yankees fans is still discrimination because of sex. It is analogous to firing a woman because she is attracted to women but not men who are attracted to women. Therefore, the proactive employer should be creative in monitoring how sex, or any other protected class, is combined with other seemingly insignificant factors in driving employment decisions.

Societal Implications

The fact that this opinion was a 6-3 decision and not unanimous — and that a circuit split even existed on the issue — reveals an uncomfortable truth about our nation’s legal system: There is much more work left to do in terms of ferreting out social inequality. Justice Gorsuch showed compellingly that the protection for gender identity and sexual orientation has been there since the enactment of Title VII. So, any previous differential protection highlights the role of subjective biases in judicial interpretation.

The Bostock (2020) majority provides many other examples of how the proper legal reasoning only meets resistance when it is applied to protect groups that are politically disfavored by some, such as a provision in the past that was applied to postal workers without opposition but was resisted when applied to prisoners. There are also examples within Title VII litigation itself. For instance, as the court also pointed out, no one thought twice when sex discrimination was applied to prohibit sexual harassment. Then, using the same reasoning, this current case applied it against vigorous resistance to protect individuals who are homosexual and those who are transgendered. Just as minority groups should not have to endure unequal employment opportunities, so too should minority groups not have to endure unequal legal protection. In fact, the U.S. Constitution calls for equal protection of all citizens.

From the beginning, Hogan has consistently advocated for fairness in employment practices and personnel decisions. The Bostock (2020) ruling that employers cannot discriminate on gender identity or sexual orientation is in line with our commitment to fairness in hiring practices. As a result, we will confirm our assessments impact such demographics fairly as we continue to ensure our assessments are fair to all individuals regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. Based on the available evidence, there is no reason to suspect personality assessments produce differential scores by gender identity or sexual orientation.

[1]Disclaimer: Although the author is a licensed attorney, as an employee of Hogan Assessment Systems, neither he, within the scope of such employment, nor Hogan engages in the practice of law. Therefore, this document is not intended as legal advice but is instead a general interpretation of recent developments in the case law useful for broad audiences. Readers needing consultation on a specific individual legal issue should obtain independent legal counsel.

During the past few months, we all have experienced heartbreaking events and challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic. During the past two weeks, it has become impossible to ignore another crisis, which the American Psychological Association labeled a “racism pandemic.” Sadly, the racism pandemic has been and continues to be a much more enduring, primary, intractable, and destructive one, which most recently was highlighted by the murder of George Floyd by a police officer.

This double pandemic intensifies our typical yearning for meaning. Considering the recent death and destruction, we might be tempted to conclude that there is nothing we can do to make things better. Like many of you, I have spent a lot of time thinking about Hogan’s history of commitment to social justice, and it is critical that this commitment is not only part of our history, but also our future. It is poignant that Hogan’s headquarters is located in an area once known as Black Wall Street that has a history of racial violence — because even before the official founding of Hogan, antidiscrimination and equal opportunity were core values and drivers of action for our founders.

For example, during the 1960s protests in Berkeley, Robert Hogan proposed and carried out research to improve police officer selection, despite being met with indifference (at best) from other researchers. His focus on research to improve social justice became an enduring one. Throughout her career, Joyce Hogan worked with the Department of Justice on many high-profile discrimination cases to create more equitable opportunities for women in traditionally male-dominated fields, such as heavy industry and police and fire departments.

Robert and Joyce started Hogan Assessments with a vision to create equal opportunity in the workplace. The confluence of three factors provided an opportune moment:

1. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made discrimination in the hiring process illegal.
2. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was established to enforce the antidiscrimination part of the Civil Rights Act.
3. The mainstream field of I/O psychology primarily focused on using IQ tests for selection, despite clear evidence that such tests discriminated against minority applicants.

Through the Hogans’ early research and the research that continues today, Hogan has shown again and again that personality measures predict performance across all jobs — without creating unfair discrimination based on demographic or non-job-related variables. Using personality measures in selection helps ensure that the best person for the job gets the job. That is key to social justice.

Aside from the ongoing and daily impact of the fairness of our approach, we continue to do research and seek opportunities to put our assessments to work in ways that benefit all. For example, we are actively engaged in research and proposals to improve hiring practices for law enforcement. This week, we put a small team together to expand use of our research and assessments in public safety settings, and we recently worked with a partner to implement a diversity and inclusion assessment for leaders.

Today, our impact on social justice is global. Even in countries where discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or social status is condoned or overlooked, companies that use our assessments are providing fair evaluations of job applicants, even if unwittingly so.

If, like me, you have been struggling over the past couple of weeks about what you can do to reject discrimination and support equality, you can be confident that our collective work at Hogan promotes social justice every day and in every region of the world. Social justice is not just our history. It is alive, critical, and a calling in which we all can find meaning.

Of course, we can and should do more collectively and individually to address this pandemic of racism and discrimination. But let’s at least take a brief moment to reflect on our founding principles. Let’s reaffirm Hogan’s commitment to social justice, antiracism, and equal opportunity for all. And let’s remember how our work every day is an opportunity to continue the principled action that Robert and Joyce started. Clearly, we have a lot of work left to do.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion. If you work in human resources, or a related field, you’ve heard these terms before and, odds are, you have some idea of what they mean. But just so that we are all on the same page, I’ll use the following, heavily borrowed, definitions for diversity, equity, and inclusion:

• Diversity includes all the ways in which people differ from each other. Though this is often limited to race, ethnicity, and gender, it more broadly includes age, nationality, religion, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, education level, marital status, language, and physical appearance. Diversity also includes differences in ideas, perspectives, and values.
• Equity concerns fair treatment, access, and opportunity for all people. Equity is about providing recognition, promotion, and compensation that is consistent with one’s work and qualifications. No one should be provided special treatment or privileges based on anything but performance.
• Inclusion concerns creating working environments where everyone feels welcomed, respected, supported, and valued. Inclusive environments embrace diversity.

There are at least three reasons organizations should care about diversity, equity, and inclusion. The first is moral. Basic standards of human decency tell us that all people are of value and have something to contribute to society. Moreover, all people – regardless of background – deserve to be treated fairly, sharing equally in the benefits and burdens of society.

The second reason to care about diversity, equity, and inclusion is legal. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. The act also established Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) which further expanded Title VII to include discrimination based on age, gender, and disability. Ultimately, organizations found to be in violation of the laws are subject to legal ramifications including fines.

The third reason to care about diversity, equity, and inclusion is to do better business. Solving business problems like growing market share, understanding clients for different markets, and ensuring your advertising isn’t off-putting to certain groups is easier and more efficient with people from a diverse set of backgrounds. In 2015, Bud Light added the tag line “The perfect beer for removing ‘no’ from your vocabulary for the night” to their label. The advertising was immediately criticized. One cannot help but think that if the marketing team had included just one woman, they would have immediately realized this was a really bad idea.

The good news is that many organizations today get it. In 2005, fewer than 20% of the Fortune 500 had officers/programs for diversity and inclusion. In 2016, that number was closer to 60% and is poised to climb even higher. Diversity, equity, and inclusion are good for the organization and they are here to stay. But many organizations still struggle to increase their diversity and inclusion. The purpose of this essay is to make the scientific case for the use of personality assessments as a direct way to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion. 

Making Personnel Decisions

When it comes time to hire someone, or to promote someone to a higher role, there are lots of valid ways organizations can go about doing this. Obvious options include asking for referrals, looking at resumes, and conducting an interview. All these methods, to various degrees, are valid predictors of workplace performance. Unfortunately, all these methods are also heavily subject to bias. Referrals practically guarantee that you will reduce diversity (i.e., people tend to only refer people with whom they are familiar, and we tend to be most familiar with people who are similar to us). While resumes may appear to be unbiased, they frequently include opportunities for implicit bias to occur. For example, some names may reflect ethnicity (e.g., John Logan vs. Juan Lopez) and even educational experiences may be a better reflection of parental socioeconomic status than ability to perform on the job. And, of course, interviews are full of opportunities for bias to creep in. The data are clear, with classic methods of making personnel decisions, you get increased workplace performance, but also increased bias. Ultimately, this reduces diversity, equity, and inclusion.

The good news is that it is easy to eliminate bias from personnel decisions: just make decisions at random. That is, if you decide to hire or promote people on a completely random basis (i.e., rolling dice, drawing names out of hat), it is guaranteed that you will not be making biased decisions. Unfortunately, it is also guaranteed that you will not be making the most effective decisions in terms of your organization’s long-term performance.

But there is still one more alternative, one way that you can increase both long-term performance and increase your organization’s diversity, equity, and inclusion: scientifically validated personality assessments. Decades of research on personality assessment (broadly speaking) show effectively zero differences in scores due to race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, language, physical appearance, education level, or disability. (There are age differences, but these reflect maturity and are not biased against older adults.) At Hogan, we gather personality data from millions of people – from virtually every ethnic background – all over the world on an annual basis. Our own data show no meaningful differences in test scores as a function of group status. As just one example, the figures below show average scores on our three core assessments – the HPI, the HDS, and the MVPI – for different U.S. racial categories. The scores are so close that they are virtually identical.

But with personality assessments, you don’t just get diversity, equity, and inclusion. As already mentioned, you can do that simply by choosing people at random. With scientifically-validated personality assessments, you also get a track record of predicting workplace performance. Yes, you can have your cake and eat it too.

TL; DR

The point here is simple: If all personnel decisions were made using scientifically-validated personality assessments, unfair discrimination in the workplace would cease to exist. Personality assessments lead to increased productivity and engagement, as well as increased diversity, equity and inclusion. If you are serious about increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion in your organization, using scientifically-validated personality assessments is an easy way to do that.

Want to learn more about personality tests? Check out The Ultimate Guide to Personality Tests