[everdrive]

It's quite scary. I think a lot of these HR types are true believers. They think that

1) these tests are valid and objective

2) they are qualified to understand how personalities would interact in a complex system

It's astrology for professionals, and companies have let themselves be captured by what are effectively religious zealots.

[quickthrowman]

IIRC the personality tests are mostly designed to assess how a candidate deals with authority and to try and suss out if they’re consistent/honest. Testing for ‘personality disorders’ more or less.

I doubt the tests actually help, due to the reasons you provided (and more).

[lo_zamoyski]

> It's astrology for professionals

A lot of corporate "metrics" are pseudoscientific. They have a superficial veneer of being "scientific", because there's, like, math and numbers and stuff, man. The world continues to function despite this foolishness, not because of it.

Part of why this is so popular in the US is because the US is a hyper-individualistic culture. In other countries, relations are more important. This irks Americans who think this necessarily entails nepotism (it can), but I would say that 1) this overestimates the relative effectiveness and objectivity of low-info hiring practices, and 2) ignores the fact that all knowledge of another person occurs only through relationships. We're inherently social animals and organizations are inherently social phenomena. (2) is partly why many companies pay referral bonuses. They're relying on the knowledge of someone you have of someone you know. This makes sense. If I've worked with someone, I am in a much better position to evaluate their qualifications in a meaningful way than some HR person or some random whoever. A sane company doesn't care about satisfying some weird, arbitrary ideological benchmark. They care about assembling a team that can work effectively.

There's a mindset that freaks out over the mere potential for something to be abused or suboptimal or whatever, and categorically decides that it's better not to have that thing at all. (Gov't is a great example. Yes, gov'ts can become abusive, but they're also the only force that can stand between you and, say, abusive corporate power.)

Abusus non tollit usum.