[IPAC-List] A question of personality

RPClare at aol.com RPClare at aol.com
Sun Nov 22 09:33:34 EST 2009

Since I am in the job market myself, I have taken notice of selection
elements that are related to this discussion. Notably, interview training guide
(both written and taught) suggesting "the best way" to respond to
typical/common interview questions. Most of these q's deal with non-job specific
areas such as what is your greatest weakness, where do you see yourself in 5
years, why do you want to work here. In a sense, this practice is similar to
the "faking" being discussed here. It would be nice if we could figure out
a "faking" index for such interviews.

In a message dated 11/22/2009 9:18:57 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Mark.Hammer at psc-cfp.gc.ca writes:

When one uses any tool that looks at the social properties of the
individual, some of what you'll get is "managed" information from
the respondent, and some is the unguarded spontaneous information.
As Harry's informants suggested, it is not really possible to completely
escape the managed information component, even if one were simply
observing the person in a closed windowless room via videocam. So
the question becomes one of whether there is *enough* non-managed
spontaneous information to make a reasoned judgment about the social
properties of that person. In some respects, high scores on faking and
social desirability on a personality test are equivalent to a person
much of an exam unanswered - no basis for evaluation - although in
other respects they ARE information of a sort, aren't they? Here is where
RPClare's advice to declare and define such responding AS information
up front is well-taken. Far too many may interpret a personality
as intended to show "them" that you can be who you think they want you
to be, and not necessarily intended to show who they are when no one is
looking. That it is a promotional exam merely shifts the balance more in
the direction of the first interpretation than the second ("See? I can be
that kind of lieutenant too.")

When you say you have been asked to recommend substitute procedures,
do you mean for the two candidates in question? for the candidates
or simply for any future competitions? By the way, is there anything
from the original writing of the test that could be salvaged as
interpretable, or
does the response distortion information negate everything?

Finally, one of the messages that doesn't get out to candidates often
is the manner in which many of the things they perceive as obstacles to
own success in competitions are intended to provide a level playing field
THEIR BENEFIT. In other words, should a candidate bare their soul and
report in a throughly honest manner, they should not be penalized for it
because everyone else is faking, either the first time or in any subsequent
competition. It's the same reason we don't provide too much feedback about
some kinds of assessments; open the gates to feedback too much and one
risks giving some candidates an unfair advantage the next time by
more usable feedback for some than for others, or by simply giving the
advantage to re-takers over first-timers. The candidate, meanwhile,
you're just holding out on them, rather than holding out on everyone else
might beat them unfairly. They need to be educated to see things in the
picture. We need to work harder at that.

My sympathies, Harry.

Mark Hammer

>>> <RPClare at aol.com> 2009/11/21 8:34 am >>>

I agree with Lance that a retake creates the impression of a second chance

that is not provided to others who failed. I also would have concerns
regarding your "overly generous" interpretation. It suggests that they
were not
only given a second chance but the requirements were also eased.
I do believe this type of test can have a place in Civil service. We
routinely use "non-scored" hurdles that do not impact the rankings (e.g.
degrees, trainings, licenses, physical exams).
The magic is to clearly communicate what the rules are in advance. For my
own benefit, I would have a clearly written "pass point" for the test. If
that can't be done because there is a "clinical" judgment involved, I
make sure a credentialed clinician make the call (even if it's only on
close ones)

In a message dated 11/20/2009 5:51:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Harry.Brull at pdininthhouse.com writes:


I'm interested in any advice in a sticky situation:

Recently I conducted a police lieutenant promotional process for a
department of approximately 100 sworn personnel. One of the components
was an
omnibus personality inventory which I "scored". (It happened to be a PDI
proprietary instrument, but the situation would have been no different
with, for
example, the California Personality Inventory (CPI) or equivalent.)

Two of the candidates produced invalid profiles (as evidenced by a good
impression and response distortion scale). I asked them to re-take the
instrument and was able to interpret the results (although one resulting
was marginally valid and I probably was overly generous in interpreting

Afterwards, even though his total results placed him well out of the
running for promotion, one of the candidates complained that he was
treated. Others wondered publically why I didn't just "fail" him for this
portion of the process.

Two Civil Service hearings later, I am feeling somewhat frustrated trying

to explain personality testing, faking, etc. to people who either don't
understand or don't want to understand.

So here's my questions:
* Do self-report measures such as personality profiles have a place in
Civil service procedures which must produce a rank-ordered list of
* Are there instruments which overcome the hurdle of faking (my
internal experts tell me "no")
* What should one do with a candidate profile that is uninterpretable?

I've been asked to recommend substitute procedures. So far I've suggested
oral interview, role-plays, and the Promotability index (a procedure
multiple raters place candidates of numerical "rungs" of a ladder -
candidate score is the arithmetic average of assigned ratings).

Any ideas out there?

Harry Brull
Harry Brull | Senior Vice-President
PDI Ninth House
Global Leadership Solutions

1.612.337.8233 office
1.612.414.8998 mobile
1.612.337.3695 fax
Harry.Brull at pdininthhouse.com <mailto:First.Last at pdininthhouse.com>

33 South Sixth Street
Suite 4900
Minneapolis, MN 55402


Confidentiality Notice: All information in this communication, including
any files or attachments, is intended for the sole use of the individual
entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret information entitled to
and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender by return
and delete this communication from your system. Thank you for your
IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

More information about the IPAC-List mailing list