*This is a guest blog post authored by Melvyn Payne, Commercial Director of Advanced People Strategies.

I was recently asked to support a successful senior leader – Chris – with some personal development insights from a recent 360 and set of Hogan Assessment results. Chris works in a fast-paced retail environment and has very high expectations for business success.

Having quickly achieved senior roles at a younger age than most colleagues, Chris finds it hard to understand why the broader management team and staff do not seem to respond to stretching targets. Very concerned about the potential negative impact on results, Chris recently ruled out an idea that emerged from a staff survey suggesting people who achieve their targets should be able to take time off as an incentive, rather than take a bonus.

Chris’s 360 feedback indicates an autocratic and inflexible style of leadership; demanding and somewhat intimidating. Chris’s thoughts on the 360 feedback… “I’d prefer it if they started to take responsibility and challenge me back if they think I am wrong.”

It may seem obvious to an outside observer that Chris is motivated by personal and material success. While no one wants to fail, a lack of a challenge is more demotivating to Chris than a target that others might see as unrealistic or unachievable. 

What Chris does not grasp, or prefers not to acknowledge, is that some of the most talented managers and salespeople in the organization do not wake up in the morning wanting to be the next CEO like Chris does. Unfortunately, Chris’s behaviors reflect this bias and, rather than inspire others to perform better, the relentless focus on pushing aggressively for results is having a negative impact on performance. 

The Hogan Assessments have been helpful to raise Chris’s awareness about why others might react differently to what Chris believes is ‘normal behavior.’ It has also provided some key insights for Chris about how to motivate others as their leader. 

However, what made me smile the most is when someone, hearing about Chris’s bias in this instance, said “typical alpha male.” Interestingly Chris, in this case, is a woman. As professionals supporting the development of others, how many of us really understand and acknowledge our own biases – how easily they show up and how they impact on our behavior?

Diversity in the workplace remains a top concern for HR professionals and hiring managers. Changing the hiring process is a necessary step in preventing discrimination and keeping ahead of the competition —  a recent study from the Center for Talent Innovation found workplaces that ensure diversity enjoy more success and attract more innovative employees than workplaces that don’t.

However, any institutional change will fail if leaders and hiring managers aren’t driven to build a climate that encourages diversity. It’s not always easy to spot those who will let their biases negatively impact those around them, but early research suggests those with high Bold and Excitable scales might not foster inclusive environments.

Hogan’s in-house research team is always looking to find new applications for our assessments. With that in mind, Brandon Ferrell and Steve Nichols conducted a meta-analysis of results from four Hogan Development Survey (HDS) studies to measure which personality scales hinder leaders’ ability to leverage diversity.

To search for these diversity-derailing characteristics, our researchers examined four studies with HDS data from 443 managers and executives. They compared this information with subjective ratings of the Leveraging Diversity competency from the Hogan Competency Model.

Of the 11 scales in the HDS, Ferrell and Nichols found only those who scored highly on the Bold and Excitable scales were less likely to “leverage diversity.” Although concrete explanations for this negative relationship are somewhat speculative, one suggestion from Ferrell and Nichols is that leaders scoring high on Bold may hold excessive self-worth and view individuals in other categories as less attractive in order to build their ego.

As for the Excitable scale, the authors suggest that leaders with high Excitable scores (who generally are more sensitive to criticism) may more easily perceive a person’s behavior as critical or antagonistic when that person is dissimilar demographically from the leader. This tendency, if acted upon, might give people with high Excitable scores a reputation for being poor promoters of diversity.

This line of research is just a start, as four studies and 443 participants aren’t enough to start widely generalizing. As the report concludes, future research could start to examine just how over-confidence or emotional volatility work against workplace diversity. The full report, which was presented during the 2018 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology annual conference, is available to read here.

Recent EEOC agreements with two major US companies have once again raised concerns about adverse impact resulting from personality assessment use in hiring. Just as every automobile, electrical appliance, or medicine can negatively impact people’s lives if manufactured poorly or used improperly, assessments can be poorly developed, haphazardly applied, or purposefully misused to negatively and unfairly impact peoples’ lives and employment. At Hogan, we agree with the EEOC’s investigation and intervention on behalf of plaintiffs when any selection procedure results in unfair hiring practices, because our research shows that well-developed assessments predict job performance and that well-developed personality measures help companies make fair hiring decisions.

There are two key issues to consider when using any pre-hire assessment or test, and at Hogan, we encourage assessment users to attend closely to them. The first is validity. The validity of a test or assessment regards the predictions that can be made from it. The key issue in pre-hire assessment is whether there is scientific evidence that the assessment predicts job performance, turnover, safety behaviors, or other relevant business outcomes for a job or job family. Note the following from the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (1978).

Nothing in these guidelines is intended or should be interpreted as discouraging the use of a selection procedure for the purpose of determining qualifications or for the purpose of selection on the basis of relative qualifications, if the selection procedure had been validated in accord with these guidelines for each such purpose for which it is to be used. – Section 60-3, U.G.E.S.P. (1978); 43 FR 38295 (August 25, 1978).

Employers should demand validity evidence before they implement assessments, and that evidence should be produced in a way that reflects Uniform Guidelines requirements. Unfortunately, the assessment industry is unregulated, and many improperly developed assessments are sold and used without demonstrating that they predict anything of value. This is not only a legal issue; it is a practical one. Employers use assessments because they want to make better hires. Making better hires requires accurate prediction. Accurate prediction provides value to the company. Value is demonstrated through scientific evidence of validity.

Do Personality Assessments Discriminate?

However, an assessment can produce adverse impact or unfairness even when validation studies are professionally conducted. Hogan believes adverse impact and fairness are equally critical considerations for any assessment user, and there is ample research demonstrating that personality assessment, when properly developed and used, rarely results in adverse impact. Ethical assessment providers will provide evidence of validity and a statistical evaluation of the potential for adverse impact. Any assessment publisher who sidesteps or refuses to provide such evidence should be viewed with suspicion.

At Hogan, we believe every job candidate should be evaluated using valid and fair assessments. We have worked hard over the past 30 years to democratize access to employment by providing validation research that meets the highest professional standards and assessments that provide equal opportunity based on occupational qualifications. We welcome clients’ questions about validity and adverse impact and the opportunity to demonstrate our standard-setting approach on both fronts.

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