Personality Tests in Recruitment: When the Test Carries Too Much Weight

Personality Tests in Recruitment: When the Test Carries Too Much Weight

A personality test may tell us something about how a candidate describes themselves. But how much does it really tell us about how that person will perform at work? And why have we become so focused on measuring personality when what we need to assess is the ability to do the job?

Personality tests have become an established part of many recruitment processes. They are used to assess personal characteristics, evaluate organisational fit and provide decision-makers with a more structured basis for comparing candidates. Results are often presented in polished reports containing charts, numerical scores and descriptions of how a person is likely to behave in different situations. For a hiring manager facing a difficult decision, this can seem like a valuable addition to interviews, references and evidence of previous performance.

Yet this is also where a significant problem emerges. When a complex human being is reduced to a selection of personality traits, it becomes tempting to attach more importance to the results than they deserve. Numbers create an impression of precision, while professional-looking reports can suggest a degree of objectivity that may not reflect how effectively the test predicts future performance. We risk shifting our attention away from the essential question of whether the candidate can succeed in the role, towards whether the individual fits a particular psychological profile.

I believe personality tests are used too frequently in recruitment and often carry more weight than the evidence justifies. This does not mean that all tests are poor or that personality research is without value. The question is whether we are using the knowledge appropriately, for the right purpose and in the right circumstances.

Personality is not the same as job performance

Personality psychology has contributed valuable knowledge about relatively stable differences between individuals. Research also demonstrates statistical relationships between certain personality traits and different aspects of workplace performance. Conscientiousness, for example, which encompasses characteristics such as organisation, responsibility and self-discipline, has consistently been associated with positive work-related outcomes.

These are legitimate scientific findings. However, understanding what they mean is essential. A relationship identified across a large group does not necessarily tell us much about how one particular individual will perform in one particular position. People with similar personality scores can achieve very different outcomes, and performance is influenced by many more factors than personality.

A 2023 meta-analysis by Watrin, Weihrauch and Wilhelm found an average correlation of 0.17 between conscientiousness and job performance. This represents a positive but limited relationship. It does not mean personality is irrelevant. It does, however, illustrate why we should be cautious about using such measurements to make confident predictions about individual applicants.

A research review published in 2025 also found that relationships between personality and performance vary depending on the type of performance being examined. Completing core work tasks, making constructive contributions to colleagues and avoiding harmful workplace behaviour are different outcomes. Personality traits do not operate independently of circumstances either. The environment influences which characteristics emerge and how much they matter.

This distinction is fundamental. Someone with a particular personality profile may struggle under one manager and perform exceptionally well under another. An employee who appears uncertain in a chaotic workplace may develop into a highly capable professional when given clear expectations, appropriate training and supportive leadership. Another person may need greater independence, more challenging assignments or freedom to determine how the work should be performed.

When we recruit someone, we are not simply recruiting a personality. We are hiring a person who must carry out specific tasks within an environment that the organisation itself helps create.

When a personality profile becomes a self-fulfilling assessment

One of the greatest risks associated with personality testing may not be the test itself, but the way the results influence those evaluating the candidate. Once a report describes someone as reserved, cautious or less adaptable, these labels can shape subsequent interviews. New information is interpreted through the assumptions already established.

Imagine a candidate applying for a management position who receives a relatively low score for extraversion. The recruiter begins to question whether the individual will be sufficiently assertive when dealing with employees, customers and other stakeholders. During the interview, the candidate appears calm, thoughtful and somewhat reserved. The interviewer interprets this as confirmation of the test profile, despite a strong track record of leadership and specific examples of handling difficult personnel situations, making demanding decisions and achieving results through others.

The problem is that extraversion is not equivalent to leadership capability. Effective leaders may be energetic and highly sociable, but they can also be quiet, analytical and attentive listeners. The behaviours that matter depend on the responsibilities, the organisation, the people being led and the situations the leader must manage.

Consider another candidate who receives excellent scores for conscientiousness and cooperation. The assessment describes a structured, dependable individual with strong interpersonal qualities. A polished interview reinforces the positive impression. It is only when the candidate is asked to complete a realistic work assignment that difficulties become apparent in prioritising tasks, maintaining quality and dealing with conflicting demands.

These are illustrative scenarios, not actual client cases. Their purpose is to highlight a common assessment risk: test results can influence how we interpret everything else. Once we believe we understand someone's characteristics, we may become less receptive to evidence that challenges our initial assessment.

Applicants do not necessarily respond as they normally would

Most personality assessments rely heavily on self-reporting. Individuals respond to statements about how they typically think, feel or behave. The resulting profile therefore depends not only on personal dispositions, but also on how questions are understood, how the person perceives themselves and how they choose to present that image.

In a development conversation, where the objective is reflection and learning, this can be useful. The participant has an opportunity to explore the findings, challenge descriptions and discuss both strengths and areas for improvement. The situation is quite different when a job is at stake.

An applicant wants to be selected and understands that the answers may influence the outcome. It is therefore natural to consider which characteristics the employer is looking for. Someone applying for a customer-facing position may emphasise their sociable side. A management applicant may wish to appear decisive, resilient and confident.

This does not necessarily involve deliberate dishonesty. People have many characteristics, and the way we describe ourselves changes with the circumstances.

Research indicates that this is a genuine challenge. A 2025 meta-analysis found that the relationship between personality test scores and job performance was generally weaker in high-stakes situations, such as recruitment, than in settings where participants had less at stake. The findings support concerns that strategic self-presentation can reduce the predictive validity of personality tests in selection.

This does not mean that every applicant manipulates the answers, or that personality assessments lose all value in recruitment. It means we should be careful about treating self-reported responses as objective measurements of who someone really is.

Valuable for development, but not necessarily for selection

I believe we should draw a clearer distinction between using personality tests for development and using them to select employees. These are different purposes, and that difference should influence how the findings are interpreted.

In leadership development, team development and individual coaching, a personality profile may provide a useful starting point for reflection. A leader who struggles with delegation might explore a need for control, personal working habits and how these affect colleagues. A team might discuss why its members respond differently under pressure and how those differences could be managed more effectively.

The value often lies in the subsequent conversation rather than in whether every statement in the report is precisely accurate. Even a result that does not match the participant's self-image can stimulate useful discussion. They can challenge assumptions, examine specific experiences and gain a better understanding of their own behaviour.

Recruitment is different. Here, information is used to compare people and make a decision with significant consequences for the applicant and the employer. In this context, it is not enough for an assessment to produce interesting descriptions or encourage discussion. We need evidence that it adds relevant information and improves the quality of the decision.

This is one reason why TEAM NORSO uses personality tests selectively, when there is a clear and justifiable need. A tool should not be included in a recruitment process merely because it is available or has become standard practice.

When the test provider also has something to sell

The personality testing industry operates commercially. Providers develop products, invest in technology, certify users and compete for customers. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. Many reputable providers invest substantial resources in research and quality assurance.

Nevertheless, commercial interests should be acknowledged. When a product is marketed as a way to identify talent, improve hiring or reduce recruitment risk, employers should ask what supports those claims. Does the research demonstrate that the test measures the intended personality construct, or does it also demonstrate that the scores lead to better hiring decisions for the type of job in question?

These are not interchangeable claims.

A test may demonstrate good measurement reliability while offering limited value in predicting future job performance. It may be helpful in structuring a development conversation without having established an ability to distinguish between applicants who will subsequently perform well and those who will struggle.

In 2025, the European Federation of Psychologists' Associations updated its model for reviewing psychological tests. The model addresses important issues including reliability, validity, reference groups and fairness. These are considerations that should matter to employers and recruiters as much as to the organisations developing and selling the assessments.

Before adopting a test, organisations should ask for independent evidence, establish whether it is appropriate for the intended purpose and assess the additional information it provides. An impressive report is not, by itself, proof of predictive accuracy.

Recruitment is an experience for the candidate, too

Much of the discussion about personality testing focuses on the information the employer can obtain. Far less attention is paid to what the assessment process feels like for the person being evaluated.

Applying for a job already involves uncertainty. Candidates must explain their experience, demonstrate motivation and compete with others for an opportunity that may have a significant impact on their future. Adding extensive assessments can increase that pressure. The amount of time required matters, but so does the psychological experience.

An applicant who receives a report containing low scores on certain characteristics may interpret the results as a negative statement about their identity. Even when a test is designed to describe differences rather than classify people as good or bad, candidates do not necessarily experience it that way. If the results are used in a process where rejection is a possible outcome, the assessment may carry considerable personal weight.

Frustration can also arise when applicants fail to understand the connection between the test and the job. An experienced professional who has spent years building specialist expertise may reasonably question why broad statements about personality are being used to evaluate their suitability before the employer has properly examined what they can actually deliver.

Research into applicant reactions indicates that perceived fairness, job relevance and opportunities to demonstrate ability influence how recruitment procedures are experienced. Interviews and work samples are often viewed more favourably than procedures with a less obvious connection to the role. The relationships between candidate reactions and later outcomes are not always consistent, so we should avoid assuming every applicant will respond in the same way.

For recruitment professionals, candidate experience must be part of the decision about which assessment methods to use. Someone who is not offered the position should still be able to feel they were treated seriously and fairly. This applies whether recruitment is handled internally or by an external consultancy. It also influences how both the employer and the recruitment partner are perceived.

Before asking an applicant to complete another assessment, we should therefore ask a simple question: What will we learn that could not be established more effectively and with less burden on the candidate?

Assess what candidates need to do, not only who we think they are

If the objective is to determine whether a person can succeed in a role, the recruitment process should begin with the actual responsibilities and requirements of that position. This requires a thorough analysis of the job.

What must the successful candidate achieve? Which tasks are critical? What situations will they encounter, and what does good performance look like?

Structured interviews can provide valuable information when questions are developed around relevant job requirements and candidates are assessed against consistent criteria. They allow us to examine specific experiences, decisions and outcomes rather than rely on general impressions. A major meta-analysis published in 2022 found structured interviews among the strongest selection procedures for predicting subsequent job performance. The researchers also demonstrated that earlier research had overestimated the predictive validity of several commonly used methods.

Work samples and realistic assignments can complement interviews by allowing applicants to demonstrate skills relevant to the position. A management candidate might be asked to explain how they would prioritise competing demands or approach a specific organisational challenge. A technical specialist might complete a task resembling the work they would actually perform. Such assignments must be carefully designed to remain relevant, proportionate and respectful of the applicant's time.

Structured reference conversations can contribute further evidence, particularly when they focus on specific workplace behaviours and outcomes. But references also have limitations. They may be selectively chosen, influenced by personal relationships and shaped by the environment in which the applicant previously worked.

None of these methods provides perfect certainty. The objective is to develop a stronger basis for decisions through several relevant sources of evidence, while considering the quality of each source and avoiding counting the same information repeatedly.

At TEAM NORSO, we have developed ASASO™ as a structured approach to recruitment and selection, supported by ANCHORView™ for structured interviewing. These methods are intended to maintain a clear relationship between job requirements, the information collected and the assessments made. Ultimately, however, it is not the name of the methodology or the digital tools used that matter most. It is the professional quality and consistency of the complete recruitment process.

What about the workplace, the manager and the training?

A major limitation of many discussions about personality and recruitment is the assumption that job performance is primarily an individual characteristic. In reality, performance emerges through the interaction between people, their responsibilities and their working conditions.

An applicant with limited experience may develop into an excellent employee if the organisation provides clear expectations, appropriate training and genuine opportunities to grow. Someone with impressive assessment results may perform poorly in an environment characterised by conflicting priorities, ineffective leadership or inadequate support.

This does not mean that anyone can succeed in every job if the circumstances are right. Some positions require specific capabilities, technical knowledge and behaviours that must be carefully assessed before hiring. But employers must recognise their own responsibility for creating conditions in which good performance is possible.

When assessing a candidate, we should also examine the organisation's capacity to support that person. What training will be available? How will the manager provide guidance? Which expectations must be clarified during the first few months? How can the role be designed so that the new employee's strengths and capabilities are put to effective use?

This is where onboarding becomes relevant. A systematic approach to supporting new employees can be decisive for how they develop and perform. Recruitment should therefore not end when the employment agreement is signed. Selection, introduction, training, expectation-setting and follow-up should form a connected process.

An organisation that spends considerable time and money assessing personality, but far fewer resources helping new employees succeed, may be investing in the wrong part of recruitment.

Artificial intelligence does not make weak assessments stronger

Artificial intelligence makes it possible to analyse, combine and present candidate information in increasingly sophisticated ways. Digital technology can improve efficiency, but it can also make it easier to produce extensive assessments that appear more reliable than the underlying evidence warrants.

When an algorithm interprets questionnaire responses, produces personality profiles or ranks applicants, the same fundamental questions still apply. What is being measured? How well has the system been validated? What are the potential sources of error? And is there credible evidence that it helps make the specific decision for which it is being used?

Employers must also comply with applicable data protection rules and ensure transparency and appropriate treatment of candidate information. The GDPR places particular restrictions on decisions based solely on automated processing that have significant effects on individuals. Developments in European AI regulation and its implementation in Norway are also increasing scrutiny of high-risk applications in recruitment and employment.

Technology can support professional judgement, but it does not remove responsibility for the decision. A weak assessment does not become more reliable simply because it is delivered through an advanced digital platform.

Perhaps we need fewer tests and better assessments

Personality tests can have a legitimate role in recruitment when there is a clearly defined purpose, documented relevance and sufficient professional competence to administer and interpret the results. They can also support useful conversations when the findings are treated as hypotheses to explore rather than definitive descriptions of a person.

But I believe we need to be much more critical about how frequently these tests are used, how much weight they receive and what assumptions we make when assessing other people. Calling a test research-based, convenient or widely used is not enough. We must be able to explain what information it adds, why that information matters and how it contributes to a better decision.

For HR leaders and recruitment professionals, this should be an opportunity to examine established practices. Are we using assessments because we have identified a genuine need, or because testing has become a routine part of the process? Can we challenge a test result when other evidence points in a different direction? And are we giving applicants a fair opportunity to demonstrate what they are capable of doing?

It is relatively easy to let a report tell us who a person is. Understanding what that individual could become, which conditions would enable them to succeed and how they might contribute to the organisation is a much more demanding task.

Perhaps that is where we should invest more of our time. Not in conducting more personality tests, but in becoming better at assessing people.

References and further reading

• Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M. & Lievens, F. (2022). Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000994
• Watrin, L., Weihrauch, L. & Wilhelm, O. (2023). The criterion-related validity of conscientiousness in personnel selection: A meta-analytic reality check. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12413
• Pletzer, J. L. & Abrahams, L. (2025). Personality and job performance: A review of trait models and recent trends. Current Opinion in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102054
• Loy, R. W. et al. (2025). Personality Test Validity Differs Between Low-Stakes and High-Stakes Employment Settings. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.70018
• Van Iddekinge, C. H. et al. (2023). Personnel selection: A review of ways to maximize validity, diversity, and the applicant experience. Personnel Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12578
• European Federation of Psychologists' Associations (2025). EFPA Test Review Model, Version 2025. https://www.efpa.eu/resource/efpa-test-review-model-version-2025/
• Norwegian Personal Data Act / GDPR, Article 22, concerning automated individual decision-making. https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2018-06-15-38/gdpr/ARTIKKEL_22
• Norwegian Government (2026). Tung vil sende KI-loven med endringer på høring. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/tung-vil-sende-ki-loven-med-endringer-pa-horing/id3169693/

English editorial adaptation of the Norwegian original.