Ethical Use of Personality Type Tools
Organizations should be aware of disturbing trends in the use of personality type tools, particularly around the ethical use of personality type tools. Dialogue within the practitioner community has led to a critical update to the ethical standards issued by the Association for Psychological Type International (APTi). The new guidelines (quoted below) explain that it is unethical to use a personality questionnaire without also providing an opportunity for participants to learn more about their preferences and verify their best-fit type
Recent Shifts
As recently as a few years ago, it would have been highly unlikely for world-class organizations to consider using an approach that consisted only of a multiple-choice questionnaire. For decades, the best practice has been to combine a questionnaire with an opportunity for participants to learn more and confirm they have identified their correct personality type. However, new tools on the market eliminate the confirmation step, and organizations using those are now outside the APTi ethical guidelines and doing a disservice to their employees.
Many organizations are unaware of these requirements for the ethical use of personality type tools, and do not appreciate the long-term impact improper use will have. Questionnaire-only approaches offer cost savings and (to some) provide the look and feel of a credible approach. This allows organizations to say “close enough” and move forward.
Negative Impact
However, we believe that this means:
- As many as 50% of participants don’t end up with the correct type;
- A resurgence of bias based on incomplete information about the topic;
- A black eye for the HR/L&D team that uses the unethical approach;
- Erosion of trust in the learning function within the organization; and
- Harm to the broader international community of personality type experts doing it right.
Here is a bit more on each of these outcomes.
People Ending Up With The Wrong Type
Even with the most robust questionnaire-based approach, there has always been a significant percentage of users, often 30-50%, who decide on a different 4 letter type when they have the principles and concepts of personality type properly explained. Organizations that skip the learning opportunity where participants have a chance to consider a different 4 letter type for themselves understandably leave the experience with a bad taste in their mouth. Decisions that people make which are based on the wrong information are unlikely to work out optimally – whether these be career choices or how best to approach their manager – and:
“Mistyped participants will find that program content is inconsistent with their own view of themselves and others. As a result, they may decide that the type framework is not helpful, and that using it is a waste of time. Negative views of the training will likely extend to the consultant who provided it, and perhaps to the decision maker who contracted for it.”
Worse still, when introduced without proper context or explanation, personality type can provide a language to express bias and can essentially arm people with language to negatively judge, label and limit others:
“Our leadership is made up mostly of [___] personality types and you’re not that. So, you are not a fit.”
Resurgence of Bias
When participants in a personality type program do not have the opportunity to correctly understand the principles, it is common for them to make assumptions that certain types are limited in their capacity to do certain activities that are different than their natural preference. To paraphrase a leader from an organization using a non-ethical approach:
“We currently use a system that combines the DiSC, Enneagram and Jungian models of type on one platform. Unfortunately, some members of the organization have used these results to find language that suggests a colleague they are managing is not a good fit for a specific role. They then use this information to make a case for that person being removed from the team or fired.”
Because these results are provided to the team without any explanation or background, the information can be used however someone wants, including this example above. To paraphrase another leader using a similar platform:
“Some leaders look at the results of our executive team and conclude that one needs to have questionnaire similar results to the existing team in order to rise up the ranks of the organization. It’s unfortunately being used to inform our promotion discussions internally and we are moving towards an even more homogenous leadership team.”
In addition, this element of bias also informs employee choices when answering the questionnaire as they seek to conform to the desired results and to match with the profiles seen at the leadership level. This further reduces the likelihood they have found the correct best-fit type.
A Black Eye for HR/L&D
HR/L&D teams try to ensure that they are providing valuable and practical resources to help their internal teams function and perform better. However, when such a high percentage of people encounter a questionnaire-only approach and do not find their correct best-fit type, the experience backfires. Participants feel that the program was not worth the time and energy which in turn produces resentment towards the HR/L&D team.
Erosion of Trust in the Learning Function
As the APTi guidelines state, use of unethical programs “can lead to significant numbers of employees discounting the type framework entirely and resisting its use.” In other words, employees end up disconnecting from the whole experience which decreases the trust between the employer and employee. This is the opposite of the intended outcome since most clients use personality type tools in order to shore up their employee retention and engagement efforts.
Reputational Harm to the Practitioner Community
At the heart of these new ethical standards is the hope that people will find the topic of personality type to be helpful and useful. When people have a negative experience, it erodes the appetite for this entire framework and casts a bad light on the thousands of practitioners who, despite delivering their programs ethically, will see demand for their services and offerings diminish. As more and more people have a negative experience with this framework of type, the notion of personality type being valuable and relevant is greatly diminished.
It is our recommendation and hope that organizations using any personality tools provide their users with the opportunity to confirm that they have found the correct best-fit for themselves, moving past just the results of a questionnaire. The alternative is that participants come to resent and reject the framework since it was not correctly and ethically administered.
If the trend continues in the current direction, it is reasonable to expect that the field of personality type as we know it will be severely and negatively impacted in the coming years.
The TypeCoach Approach to the Ethical Use of Personality Type
We are committed to ensuring that people who are introduced to personality type are provided with an in-depth explanation of the preferences, a chance to review multiple descriptions to consider their best-fit type, and that our tools are used in conjunction with training or coaching that will provide each participant the opportunity apply the principles covered. We use videos and animations to explain the different aspects of personality type and, from there, TypeCoach users are provided with ongoing support in the application of personality type in the context of improving interpersonal communication. Our signature tool, Type-to-Type provides advice on how best to approach others based on the combination of any two personalities working together. Learn more about our tools and training at TypeCoach.com, or contact our support team with specific questions.
