Emotional Intelligence update: Forbes slams MBTI

There was a terrific article in Forbes (29 May 2015) by Camille Chatterjee:  Interview Test Prep: 6 Common Personality Assessments -- And How Employers Use Them.

To quote the articles beginning:

Once upon a time all you needed to land a new job was a typo-free résumé, some interview smarts, and a few good references.  But these days more and more candidates are finding that getting the gig may very well come down to … your innate personality? According to a 2014 trends report from business advisory company CEB, 62% of human resources professionals are using personality tests to vet candidates in the hiring process. That’s compared to less than 50% in 2010, per research firm Aberdeen Group.62% of human resources professionals are using personality tests to vet candidates in the hiring process.

The message that personality testing is now used by the majority of organisations is not new although I must confess I was surprise by the rapid growth in penetration. However where the article was interesting is that it went on to assess the most popular personality tests.  Three popular personality tests pass the, well, test—and two actually fail because they say very little about your at-work worthiness.

The three tests given the thumbs up were:

The Caliper Profile - This assessment, which has been around for some 50 years, measures personality traits—from assertiveness to thoroughness—that relate to key skills needed on the job, such as leadership ability and time management.  Unlike other tests, it examines both positive and negative qualities that, together, provide insight into what really motivates a person.

Gallup StrengthsFinder - This test was created a few decades ago, when research by Gallup (suggested that personality assessments focused too much on weaknesses.  Gallup looks at strengths that are real indicators of success, rather than simply sussing out people’s negatives and downsides.

16PF Questionnaire - This test was devised in 1949 by psychologist Raymond Cattell, who identified 16 

traits that we all posses in varying degrees, like warmth and tension.  The 170 questions on the test differ from those on most other personality assessments in that they ask how you might react to a certain situation on the job, rather than get you to describe your overall personality in some way.  Thanks to its focus on practical situations rather than general personality traits it is described as a “terrific instrument” for hiring and also for employee development.

The tests given the thumbs down were:

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator - Probably one of the most well-known personality tests around, the Myers-Briggs looks at where you fall in four different dichotomies—sensing or intuition, introversion or extroversion, thinking or feeling, and judging or perceiving—to come up with 16 different personality types labeled by combos of initials.  Around 80% of new hires at Fortune 500 companies are given the MBTI, and countless other companies use it as part of the actual employee selection process, according to CPP, the test’s exclusive publisher. 

Essentially, Myers-Briggs is designed to suss out innate preferences.  Although MBTI is an interesting tool for self-discovery (“Me? An extrovert?”), it has not been proven to be valid for job selection.  According to the article HR departments who choose employees based on its results could miss out on superstars who might actually excel in a given position, or mistakenly bring on workers that don’t live up to expectations—all because they relied too much on what they thought the MBTI was telling them.

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - Unlike the other tests, which can be taken online or administered by HR professionals, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2) can only be given and interpreted by a psychologist.  The information that it asks about is not business-related and companies that have tried to use it, have been taken to court, and lost.

Forbes is to be congratulated for publishing this article.  Just a pity the sub-editors cannot count.

As readers would know I like the Humm-Wadsworth because it is a practical tool for measuring the seven core components of your temperament. 

People drive performance, emotions drive people, temperament drives emotions.

Emotional Intelligence is achieving self- and social mastery by being smart with core emotions.

Self-Mastery = Awareness + Management (Steps 1 & 2 as defined by Goleman)

Social Mastery = Empathy + Social Skills (Steps 3 &4 as defined by Goleman

However the key to emotional intelligence is understanding your core emotions compared to your transient emotions.  Your core emotions are driven by your temperament – what you are genetically born with.  Based on a study of 11,000 identical twins nature is around twice as important as nurture.  I have found the Humm-Wadsworth model of seven core emotions the most practical tool for people to use and once understood (takes a day) dramatically lifts their emotional intelligence.  If you want to learn about the Humm download a free white paper on using Emotional Intelligence in either selling or management .  http://www.emotionalintelligencecourse.com/eq-free-white-papers/

My e-books available in Kindle format explain the technique in more detail.

Emotional Intelligence and the Ring of Gyges

Last week I attended two seminars in the Sydney CBD.  The first seminar, Positive Psychology@Work: The Science & Practice, was organised by the University of Wollongong Sydney Business School and was given by Dr Suzy Green, a leader and pioneer in the complementary fields of Positive Psychology & Coaching Psychology and Founder of The Positivity Institute.  The second was arranged by MGSM where Dr. David Cooperrider, spoke about the process of Appreciative Inquiry (AI).  Appreciative Inquiry is a collaborative, strength-based approach to both personal and organizational development that asserts by focusing on the organization's strengths, you can evolve into a true “center of excellence”. Rather than focusing on problems, Appreciative Inquiry elicits solutions.

Both lectures were effectively segues on the original work on Positive Psychology by Martin Seligman which was started as a 'positive' counterpart to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). While the DSM focuses on what can go wrong, Positive Psychology is designed to look at what can go right.  I am very much in the camp that says the only thing that is more contagious than enthusiasm is the lack of it.  However while at end of the both seminars the mood in the audience was definitely happy-clappy, I must confess that I walked out of the two lectures discombobulated. 

My unease can be traced back to Plato’s Republic.  One of the great passages in the Republic concerns the Ring of Gyges.  According to the legend, there was a shepherd in the service of the ruler of Lydia. After an earthquake, a cave was revealed where he discovered a ring that gave him the power to become invisible by adjusting it. He then arranged to be chosen as one of the messengers who reported to the king as to the status of the flocks. Arriving at the palace, he used his new power of invisibility to seduce the queen, and with her help he murdered the king, and became king of Lydia himself.

In the Republic, Glaucon, the brother of Plato, constructs the following mind experiment.  Suppose there were two such magic rings, and the just man puts on one of them and the unjust man the other.  According to Glaucon both men would act the same:  no man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a god among men.  So the just and unjust man would act the same and if anyone thinks that he can safely be unjust, then he is unjust.  For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice. 
 
While I do not agree that all men would be unjust I do think that there is sufficient percentage of those people in the population who would manipulate their position in a zeitgeist of positive psychology.  According to the Humm, the manipulators are the Hustlers and around 15% of the population have a higher than average Hustler temperament components.  Half of this group have a moral compass due to a higher than average Normal but the other half (7%  of the population) are Machiavellian manipulating narcissists.  History is replete with religions where a Hustler was part of a group that intended to do good but ended up doing rather well.  Judas Iscariot is one example.  The pious charlatan Tartuffe in Moliere’s eponymous play is another example.

Professor Alex Frino of MGSM carried out a study where five CEOs of the 20 biggest ASX companies were identified as narcissists.  These people are able to manipulate themselves into positions of power.  They do not necessarily do a good job when they get there, but they do get there all the same. Kevin Rudd is an excellent example of this phenomenon.

I must confess that I lean much more towards Professor Pfeffer’s concepts of power and leadership.  Pfeffer’s view is that it takes power to get things done. Without power, you’re impotent and power is not gained through intelligence (emotional or otherwise) and job performance.  This is one of the key lessons in my workshops: you do not get promoted into management because you do a good job, but because your managers think you have the potential to be a good manager.  As long as you keep your boss or bosses happy, performance really does not matter that much and, by contrast, if you upset them, performance won’t save you.

On the other hand I did learn a new definition of leadership originally provided by Peter Drucker:  “The task of organisational leadership is to create an alignment of strengths in ways that make a system’s weaknesses irrelevant.”