Supposing these tests have any validity, using them for hiring is a terrible idea. People are likely to be very reluctant to hire people who they know they are likely to clash with. But in reality that's what you actually need to provide the variety of perspectives (one might call it diversity) necessary for resilient decision making.
Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types
61–70 of 251 posts
Re: Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types
#62The article title: "Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types"
The article's answer: "We just don’t know."
Whole bunch of words in that article and some interesting background, but zero effort to address the title of the piece. It's like they meant to be going somewhere, provided some interesting background information, and then just stopped. No hypotheses, no interviewing a company to ask them why, just a shrug.
If you wanted to say "Companies shouldn't use Myers-Briggs," you should have made that the title.
Re: Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types
#63Apple went through the Myers-Briggs phase in the 90's, along with a lot of the other tech giants. It was a half-day seminar. "Professionals" gave the tests and told everyone their type. That took only an hour. The rest of the time was spent doing role-playing, where you were supposed to use your coworkers' MB types to adjust your interaction with them in various settings. It was a waste of time then and I bet it stil…
Dear god I am glad they stopped this by the time I got there. I probably wouldn't have quit on the spot or anything, but I do not think that there exists a universe where it wouldn't taint the job in my eyes.
Though Apple did a pretty good job of doing that already.
Re: Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types
#64A previous company used Real Colors, an MBTI knock-off, and it was striking how attached people got to those results. People openly stereotyped whole groups of people because they appeared to cluster in one sector (e.g., SDEs must be Green). They disregarded all counter-examples because they conflicted with these biases. It was weird.
Re: Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types
#65Apple went through the Myers-Briggs phase in the 90's, along with a lot of the other tech giants. It was a half-day seminar. "Professionals" gave the tests and told everyone their type. That took only an hour. The rest of the time was spent doing role-playing, where you were supposed to use your coworkers' MB types to adjust your interaction with them in various settings. It was a waste of time then and I bet it stil…
We had a similar event.
HR was so patronizing, like, "I bet you wouldn't have known that about yourself if it wasn't for us!"
"Uhhmm... yeah I would. ENTJ every weekend and INTJ most other days."
Re: Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better yet, you should scan the shape of each candidate’s skull and use that as a metric to aid in decisionmaking.
A stethoscope in the hands of a doctor is a useful, if limited, tool. Don't judge its value if you have never seen one except in the hands of the village idiot. (One could say the same about various programming languages.) If measuring skull shape during the interview process was a) socially acceptable and b) actually predictive of outcomes, why not? The problem is that it is neither. The reason that it is not a) is…
Citation needed on the actually predictive of outcomes. Myers-Briggs has been about as predictive as a horoscope for me.
Re: Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel the exact opposite. At least they are measuring something vaguely objectively. Interviewing with most potential employers, at least in software, is like when children guess at picking players for sports teams while wearing a blindfold. Everything always seems to come down to biases applied non uniformly. Changing jobs is a big life investment. I would prefer it not be a blind date with one-way conversations fr…
"It doesn't work and is junk science, but at least it doesn't work for everyone equally" is an interesting methodology. I'd rather take the intuition of some interviewer because at least that's based on something real. I mean if objectivity is the only criterion you simply may want to roll a set of dice for the applicants because those are cheaper than Myers-Briggs consultants. the attitude of replacing useful human…
> I'd rather take the intuition of some interviewer because at least that's based on something real.
That something real is called discrimination.
Re: Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types
#68Re: Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel the exact opposite. At least they are measuring something vaguely objectively. Interviewing with most potential employers, at least in software, is like when children guess at picking players for sports teams while wearing a blindfold. Everything always seems to come down to biases applied non uniformly. Changing jobs is a big life investment. I would prefer it not be a blind date with one-way conversations fr…
What if they were using astrology? Would that be better than nothing? I think it would be worse than nothing because it demonstrates the aren't competent enough to know when they fell for a scam.
> What if they were using astrology?
Then it would be guessing just the same as using no metric at all. This is only worse if the candidate is so naive as to believe they are of superior consideration than the value of a simple measure.
Re: Why companies are interested in Myers-Briggs types
#70My company gave managers Clifton Strengths tests, and it was fairly interesting (and tracked with my own self-introspection). Wasn't used for hiring or performance, but more as a tool to people recognize their traits and how others may differ. https://www.gallup.com/cliftonstrengths/en/253790/science-of...
It's saddled with a lot of the same issues as MBTI. Low repeatability, dubious extrapolations of what it might mean if you have one of those strengths, etc.
If they treated it like an exercise to make people talk to each other about styles of communication, I wouldn't hate it as bad. They usually treat it like something conclusive, science based, etc. Meaning it might drive what assignments you get, training, etc. That's...dumb.