To be weirded out by this candidate's personality test

[salsamillion]

I'll keep things vague for reasons of obvious confidentiality. I'm recruiting a senior manager for a role in a large company. The post includes line management of around 10 staff as well as some direct customer facing responsibility. We are through to final (third) interview this week and one candidate has included a personality test they completed at their current employer. It shows them to be organised, target focussed etc, all good. BUT it also shows them to have unusually low levels of altruism.
Does anyone know what that actually means? I've contacted the company who did the test and they refuse to comment on individual cases without their written consent, which I don't want to do at this stage.
So what does it mean in real terms? Are they likely to be a sociopathic serial killer?

It means they're proud of that "fault", too, and don't see it as a concern at all. They see it as something ok to tell you. Which I would find more concerning than the fault itself!

What it means is they may not be too pleasant on Red Nose Day. Can't you just Google the particular test used to find out whatit means?

Hmmm. I think personality tests suck but that would tell me he makes ruthless decisions, or ticked that he did, believing that being selfish/ruthless is good for business, which some would argue it is ie if he needs to fire a dad if five, he would if the company required it. Might not make him a nice guy but depends on whether you need a nice guy.

of five

I don't think so. I've no knowledge of these tests but don't honestly believe in true altruism; everything has an effect or a gain or a reason. I'd probably score equally lowly in such a test, yet work in a school with some particularly vulnerable children in a position of trust. I'm kind, honest and diligent. I also openly acknowledge that I do my job because it makes me feel good. That's not true altruism. It's not even a real thing.

Why use personality tests if you don't understand them?

I don't really think it's appropriate to be posting this on here. You're breaching all sorts of confidentiality.

Mainly it means that personality tests done by recruiters are utter bunkum with zero validity.

And since you can argue that there is no such thing as altruism anyway, its even less useful.

Had to google out of curiosity - as a manager of people I'd be concerned that he wouldn't build effective relationships with his team, lacking social skills and empathy. However, personality tests shouldn't be used in isolation and if he's gone through three interviews then it may be better to put the altruism thing to one side and go with your instinct.

Maybe he just thought bollocks and just did the test with his eyes close(so to speak) any old how - pissed off that silly tests are trying to second guess his personality above the skills and experience he may be ale to bring to the role.

Dumbelle that's what I thought too - it's not something that concerns them.

Pippistrelle there's nothing specific online that I've found useful.

Kimmy yes we need them to be "nice" ideally.

Timetomuskup I don't really know what I think regarding altruism as a thing - hence my posting here, but I'm guessing that a lot of it is a Good Thing and none is a Bad Thing! It doesn't appear on any test we use.

MovingOnUp we didn't do the test, the candidate included it in their brag file. I'm interested to hear what confidentiality I'm breaching!

Stop stop stop! You really shouldn't be using personality questionnaires if you're not trained to use them and you're jumping to conclusions like this. Who is the person trained to interpret the questionnaire - please speak to them and I also suggest they speak to the candidate and explore this with them if it's a concern.

Think the apprentice. If reckless is what you need, that's the bulldog you want (unless your company worries about ethics when focusing in success)

I haven't jumped to a conclusion (I was kidding with the comment about them being a serial killer!) and I wanted a different perspective on something which the candidate thinks supports their chances. It's something we will explore further with them but I wondered if anyone has any opinions.

I'm afraid I agree you shouldn't be posting on here - I agree about breaching confidentiality, and using social media in this way for my organisation would be gross misconduct.

Given its not a test you conducted, is added information and not part of the process, I would discount it. Surely relationships is a key topic of the interview process - surely for a senior manager it is critical and you would be testing this anyway?

That's silly to shout confidentiality! I haven't posted ANYTHING identifiable!

It means they will not share there lunch with you if you have forgotten to bring your butties.

We don't offer personality tests during recruitment but have used them for development and team building. This role needs someone with strong relationship skills which I guess is possible without altruism so long as the relationship was self serving.

Thanks BigQueenBee that summarises nicely!

Why are people shouting about confidentiality

No confidential or identifiable information has been shared here.

I worry that because you don't understand the test and the meaning of what it's revealed, that you would allow random people's opinions to colour your judgement. The people you are asking haven't seen this test.

I really hope that the decision making is nothing to do with you because this smacks of unprofessionalism to me.

I wouldn't take it too seriously. Altruism is a bit of a dodgy concept.

I hear you. But the candidate has included it and even if we don't formally use it as a decision making tool I can't unsee it, nor does the client want me to or they wouldn't have included it.

Where in the country is the op from?
Is the op male or female?
Is the interviewee male or female?
What sort of organisation is it?

We don't know, therefore there is no confidentiality breach. Calm down people.

It's a very odd thing to give a potential employer, surely it would only be meaningful if you had test results from all the candidates to compare.it would make me doubt the candidate's judgement to be honest.

I'm pretty sceptical about psychometric testing anyway. MBTI was made up out of thin air by some people in the 50s with no basis in theory or evidence but is still widely used. If anyone can link to hard evidence of it ever being any use I'd be interested to be proved wrong though!

Then ask the client about it, not randoms on a chatboard who haven't seen the test, the results nor the control markers. Does that really need saying?

You may not have breached confidentiality but you are being unprofessional. I'm sure the client would have expected you to bring it up at assessment, not post about it on mumnet.

If I were your manager and had an inkling that this was you, I'd be taking it further.