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?

I am directly responsible for 15 members of staff (including hiring/firing)

There is no breach of confidentiality here. Some people need to give their heads a wobble

Lots of posters here would evidently score low on attention to detail and reading comprehension in recruitment tests.

I think for someone leading a team you need someone who will challenge poor performance. I suspect someone lower in altruism will do this more than someone with high levels. This could be a big positive. Often leaders are too kind when performance is below where it should be and struggle to have those difficult conversations.

WTF is a brag file?

Confidentiality, as has been pointed out, doesn't just extend to not posting enough to identify the candidate (although that may be a risk but I don't know how much the op has obscured) but it also extends to not talking about a confidential process like recruitment outside of the workplace.

While it may not be possible for the candidate or someone who knows them to to identify them self from the thread it is still highly unprofessional to talk about a specific and ongoing recruitment scenario on the Internet. It should be kept confidential for all the reasons given.

I'm not about to advance search the op to see how identifiable she is in RL or anything like that but it is sensible to point out how unprofessional breaching confidentiality like this is.

Is it a reputable test? If you were able to contact the company you may want to try and find independent verifucation of its validity and reliability.

My DH did a test once for an internal role along with a colleague and the results 'showed' he was much less helpful but it was a very odd test an HR agency had come up with which I'd never heard of or seen before (I studied psychology so have done most of the main ones) and based on my knowledge of him and the colleague I do not believe it was actually measuring 'helpfulness'.

I am surprised a candidate would provide something which could be perceived in a negative light... Were the other traits marked high? Did they definitely intend to provide it to you? You could ask them to provide a more detailed report orior to your next meeting, it sounds as though the testing company may have this available.

Otherwise just prepare some questions around it e.g. "How do you feel your personality traits would effect the way you perform in this role?" "Tell me about a time you have demonstrated altruism at work" "Tell me about a time you have supported a membber of your team" ...

Low on altruism means they are unlikely to do stuff unless there is something in it for them. So if they raised money for charity they would want a lot of praise and approval.
They wouldn't help someone and say nothing - they'd want acknowledgement.
If they were negotiating they would be unlikely to go for a mutual benefit solution.
If they are anything like my brother they'd also be quite mean and ruthlessly good at getting their own way - this may not be to the benefit of others or their company.

Absolute nonsense. You can't read any of that into an abstract comment such as "low on altruism"

1. Altruism doesn't really exist.
2. Almost none of these tests are reputable, they are made up HR rubbish.
3. Even if they are reputable tests, they are almost never administered or rated by professionals, so they can't be trusted to tell you anything.
4. Even reputable tests administered by professionals are still controversial and of debateable use.

In short, do what you do with most of peoples CV's; completely ignore it. IT might as well say "likes puppies" or "middle name is greek". It's useless.

Lol, at the people saying breech of confidentiality.

Some people just don't get it.

Confidentiality, as has been pointed out, doesn't just extend to not posting enough to identify the candidate (although that may be a risk but I don't know how much the op has obscured) but it also extends to not talking about a confidential process like recruitment outside of the workplace.

Where do you get that from movingonup? Unless the OP names her company what detriment is there to anyone arising out of her talking about their recruitment process?

Not everybody is talking about breach of confidentiality. Some people are deliberately holding onto that so they can support the OP in being scornful about a person who has put in an application and is hoping to get a job. & the person who has a hand in the selection process, is on an internet board suggesting he is weird, and possibly a serial killer. What an attitude, from a senior staff member who should have the wherewithal to make a decision, whether that includes taking into account altruism or not, without taking the piss out of a candidate and roping in the opinions of complete strangers as to whether to give him the job or not

The fact that some deem this to be ok probably because, you know, its fun to sit here ripping someone to shreds suggesting yeah, he'll be crap for the job, is far worse than even those who do think its a breach of confidentiality. What will happen if OP comes back and says negative comments were taken into account, and she didn't give him a job? Would there be lots of "well done OP"

No its not a breach of confidentiality but its in really bad taste. & anybody who needs to put up a post like that yet is a senior in the recruitment process, simply doesn't have the required skills and empathy for the post themself; and yet, they are in said post and possibly doing it well enough. So it stands to reason that although there's a worry re. candidate being possibly altruistic as one aspect of him, then he could very well still lbe fine for the post he's applying for. The OP should know - she's the one who's seen him and his full application.

If going for a job Id hope to be assessed by people who think about stuff like breach of confidentialty, fairness, impartiality. As opposed to someone not having the confidence in their own assessment abilities, and can't see that setting up a candidate for outside judgment by people who are nothing to do with him or the company, people who haven't seen this candidate nor his full application, is an abuse of the recruitment process.

Wonder if all the other candidates have been set up in this way? No? Equal opportunities...? After all that does apply to recruitment process as well, not just when one is in post

It was fairly clear from the title what the post was going to be about MistressDeeCee. Clearly you just clicked on it to give the OP a jolly good telling off. Perhaps your blood pressure would be easier to control if you stuck to discussions about baby led weaning and the price of prams?

MistressDeeCee I hardly know where to start with your utterly bonkers perspective! Do you always react in such a totally black and white fashion, devoid of the ability to see what's actually been asked? Do you find it easier to attempt to take an utterly misguided moral high ground?

As for "suggesting he is weird, and possibly a serial killer" perhaps every time someone posts something tongue in cheek they should also display a special icon so that someone like you will know when they're kidding?

I'll say this AGAIN. The candidate included this in their brag file. And for those that don't know what one is, it's a file that some candidates build up over their career with evidence if their most illustrious qualities and moments. Awards, kissy emails spouting their greatness, and in this unusual case, a personality assessment that the candidate clearly felt sold them well, but which included low altruism.

Some other posters have outlined what low altruism might look like, and that was what I wanted to understand. I haven't and won't be basing the decision as to whether they get the job on this one aspect. It's not pivotal, I'm just curious. And apart from anything else I'm part of a panel so I don't actually get the final say.

As for your ludicrous comment about equal opportunities, what a crock! No one is being set up, the other candidates are perfectly at liberty to put what they like in their file, or do a Masonic handshake or wear their old school tie. That's their choice! I strongly suggest you look further into Equality before you make such potty comments.

Some posters may think my asking for information about how low altruism may present itself, as being unprofessional. So fucking what! We are not work colleagues, and if you feel like that, I suggest you sieve through the entire back catalogue of MN and find every thread which includes comments about bosses, subordinates and colleagues, and add your comments that the posters are being unprofessional by even asking, and should stop immediately and call HR.

Last time I looked this was an anonymous discussion forum, not a cyber space for the professionally offended.

utterly bonkers perspective!

You come onto an internet board basically saying "a candidate has weirded me out by writing "altruistic" on a form, oh by the way I don't know what that means oooohhh is he a serial killer?" big grin.

& Im the one who is bonkers? Yeah..ok

Might be an idea to brush up on some people skills including sensitivity, a fairness, also look into ways of believing in one's own assessment and judgment skills. Although on that part it may have been wise to discuss with a colleague also involved in recruitment process. If you' thought of that

Instead of aiming to have a pop at me you could be doing something more useful actually - go on Google Scholar, look up "Altruistic". Actually, you could just look in a dictionary then ponder the definition in the context of your candidate

What a shame for that candidate that instead of a factual assessment, the person responsible for whether he gets the job or not is going to have conversations she instigated on an internet board in her mind, and is going to be biased. Altruistic is the least of it all, really

Still, you could just stay here putting more energy into sounding less and less like someone who should have a responsibility within the senior, final stages of a recruitment process if you find that more fulfilling at this time, maybe it helps

If this candidate has deliberately given you this, presumably they think it's a talking point. So it could be an interesting place to start for an interview.

"You included this personality test from 2014 - do you think it describes you accurately? ... Are there any areas it highlighted you don't like as much, and what have you done to address those?"

Gives them a chance to say "Ah yes, I'm very driven, which meant I improved my department's productivity by 12% in the last financial year, blah blah but it also said I can be timid so I've been taking assertiveness training" but also you will get some kind of insight into how they view certain personality traits, which would be more interesting in a manager than anyone else.

If they score low for altruism, that might be fine, but if it means they would automatically discourage or undervalue it in their team that might be a problem.

I guess for me it would be like saying they'd read a controversial book: the discussion it would raise is far more valuable to you than the statement on its own.

Mumsnet requires a puckered up arse hole emoticon.

No idea what the test means op but does anyone remember those drawings taught to psychology students in the 70''s? The one where you draw a house, a sun, a tree and a snake. It was supposed to tell you about your relationships with your family. My dm used to do it on us all the time to 'read' us. She still swears blind it's a legitimate form of therapy. Bit worrying really.

@ Glinda. It's good to see the proffesionally offended out in force on an HR thread but Mrs Hathway appears to have some good practical advice.

Thanks MrsHathaway that's very useful, and you're right, the discussion is more useful than the description.

And MrsDeeCee. Did you flunk comprehension at school? I ask because when you posted this:

"What a shame for that candidate that instead of a factual assessment, the person responsible for whether he gets the job or not is going to have conversations she instigated on an internet board in her mind, and is going to be biased. Altruistic is the least of it all, really"

it seems that you have assumed that
a) the candidate isn't getting a "factual assessment", whatever the frig that is,

b) I'll be deciding if they get the job in the basis of this.

c) that they're male.

As for a "bias" based on what they've submitted as a part of their supporting info, that's the bloody point of it! This candidate clearly thinks that at worst, low altruism is no bad thing, and the question I asked was how that was likely to present itself. And if they were a sociopathic serial killer, which was clearly a joke, for fucks sake.

And yes, I'm in senior management. Have been for a long time. I attribute some of my success to hard graft, some to good fortune and not a small amount to the ability to see the wood for the trees.

A more professional approach would have been to ask this as a hypothetical.
You are not qualified to interpret the test, and neither is anyone who has answered.
You cannot ask him or the company for more specifics, so any answer is meaningless. And you cannot base you decision on it as it is not information.

It could be simply that he doesnt put money into the brown envelope. Or that he worked as a bailiff. Its all conjecture.

Exactly. A hypothetical example would be better. Talking about candidates like this is really not on.

Maybe MsDC is, in fact, the candidate That would both explain everything and reduce your interview load!

And if they were a sociopathic serial killer, which was clearly a joke, for fucks sake.

Yes, we all understood that it was a joke, and you clearly thought that would be quite a funny thing to say But some of us think that joking about job candidates on social media is not very professional. It is poor form that people are applying to you for jobs, and you are on here making jokes about them.

That's the beauty of anonymous forums!

Kawliga can you please explain to me why you feel I need to be "professional" when posting about an anonymous candidate on an anonymous website?

And as I said earlier, are you going to trawl through every other thread where someone has mentioned work, and bollock them about what you perceive to be a lack of professionalism? Are you? No, I guess not.

If I was standing in reception, badged up waving this person's file and asking for opinion THAT might be unprofessional.

But as it stands, you don't even know what my profession IS!

There was a GP who posted on here with some stories about how annoying her patients are and some of the stupid things her patients do, and yes, many posters did find that unacceptable even though the doctor is anonymous on here and she didn't identify any of her patients or reveal any identifying information.

So yes, many people think everyone should uphold their expected professional standards even on social media. Many people have been fired for things they wrote on social media. And you are never 100% safe from being identified, even on an anonymous forum. Are you aware how many people google mumsnet?

If you are in a position to hire senior managers, people do expect you to behave better than you have behaved on this thread.