...to be upset at not getting a job....PURELY because of a personality test?

[FergusSingsTheBlues]

I knew I was front runner. My interview went over by an HOUR and there was much talk of my first few projects etc. there was also joshing about how only a weirdo would fail the personality test, and not to worry etc.
oh, and haha, once somebody did fail it and HR vetoed the hire.

Guess what....a couple of weeks later I find out I was just as odd! They're not offering me the job because if that one test.

I'm so mad. And embarrassed.

I worked with a company which used psychometric testing once. It asked about various traits in terms of how other people would perceive you, without specifying which people - there would be a difference in terms of how colleagues, clients and business rivals might perceive you, for instance. It also included a rather odd literacy test which involved exercises like giving, say, the second and fifth letters of the word that meant the opposite to a given word. When it was pointed out that that was totally discriminatory against dyslexics, the company had no idea how to deal with it.

But the significant point is that it just wasn't an effective recruitment tool. Whilst some good people were recruited, there were also some who were completely wrong for the job - including the one who turned out to be quite phenomenally lazy, the racist one, and the one who turned out to have lied about his qualifications and to be undergoing police investigations for fraud. It was a mystery why they kept using this stupid test.

It is discrimination.

You could say, all potential employees of a certain skin colour are less likely to be good. Or all employees with a certain gender are less likely to be good. Or all employees with a certain star sign are less likely to be good.

Or you could say all people who come out introvert on the personality test are less likely to be good.

All of these things are discrimination, because they divide candidates into a small number of groups then say that everyone in one group is superior to everyone in another group when in reality only the averages for the groups are different.

I could be the best person for the job even though I fall into many groups who on average might be less good at the job.

Oh that doesn't surprise me at all. I had a horrific phone interview like that for Stranded Strife. I was raging afterwards:

'If you look out of the window on an aeroplane do you ever notice that one side of the mountain is greener than the other?'

What the actual fuck? It was just a publications job.

It's not discrimination. Most places wouldn't hire someone who isn't a team player. I'm not getting at you OP, please don't think I am, but if someone describes themselves as 'egotistical', and that comes across in a personality test, it would be a big no-no for most employers. Everybody wants a team player, for better or worse.
If every failed job interview was a case of discrimination, we'd have a lot of people playing that card because they were annoyed at not getting it. But well, it happens.

It's tricky as sometimes there is another reason they don't want to employ you, but they'll use an excuse like this to be tactical, although I guess this wouldn't be at all tactical (personality test).

Ask for feedback, they have to give you it. Then move on from it and apply for somewhere else. :)

'If you look out of the window on an aeroplane do you ever notice that one side of the mountain is greener than the other?'

Officially the weirdest interview question I've ever heard! I wouldn't even know how to answer that. Observations skills? Hidden way of finding out your outlook on life? Who knows!?

numanoid but you cannot tell if someone is a team player from a personality test!

That is my point about it being discrimination. You have decided that everyone who checks box A on question 16 is not a team player but that is stupid beyond all belief.

Certainly you can tell more from a 1 hour plus face to face interview than a box ticked on a questionnaire....

I can see the point of using a questionnaire to screen people before interview...but once you have met the individual it is ridiculous to go back to treating them as a faceless statistic!

So how is that discrimination? Less favourable treatment on the grounds that they didn't answer the question as expected? That's not discrimination...

It may be daft and not get the right person for the job....but it's not discrimination!

I think I'd make a complaint about their unprofessionalism for 1. Making you believe you had the job and 2. Telling you that you'd be a real weirdo if you failed it

I'd include that you were kept an hour discussing your first projects too - it sounds like they've run off with your ideas.

Sorry to hear about this job - Personality Profiling is an odd thing for them to base whether they hire somebody or not upon.

Hope you manage to find a fab job soon

Did they actually make the OP believe that tgey were to get the job or us it the OPs perception given that they have always got the jobs that they have interviewed for??

Maybe they interviewed someone after the OP who was better suited?

Sorry for the typos

OldBag - is that perhaps their point? That the "few" questions ended up being 110 questions! How exhausting to answer over the phone!

Ooh I've just remembered another one:

'Are you a more of a draughts player or chess player?'

Oh I would look on it as a badge of honour (and that attitude will also be why you "fail" tests like these ) The most miserable job I had I got despite being "borderline" on the psychometric test - showed signs of not respecting authority and not toeing the party line. Good!

Probably just that you and another candidate were equal in every other respect but she was a better fit with their personality test.

I 'failed' a personality test once on the grounds of 'not being creative enough'. Am a published poet.

They bring these test in to remove bias, to ensure whites aren't recruiting whites or posh men other posh men. So many people assess others badly in interviews. Companies would not spend money on these kinds of additional tests if they did not result in better recruitment decisions.

It sounds from the comments from the poster that she is the opposite of what they want - they want a team player, she is not; she would make colleagues challenge their employer - that is the opposite of their requirement. So the personality test has proved spot on there and they have avoided hiring someone who would not have fit in and would have been unhappy with the level of compliance they want from obedient employees. Win win all round.

Its bloody stupid. Like someone else said, whats the point of an education then if this is going to take precedence.

If I was put through a stressful interview like that if looking for work ....its very likely I would think Fuck this and go back into sex chatline work.