For over two decades, modern hiring has relied on automated tests to sift through applicants. But human beings cannot be slotted into colored boxes. There are no ”red” or ”blue” people. I believe it is time to retire unscientific personality testing in hiring. In this article, I want to show what the research actually reveals, and how we can use constructive alternatives to find and hire the right people.
You sit at your kitchen table late at night and open the assessment link sent by a recruiter. On your screen, you meet eighty behavioral statements and a five-point scale.
Now you start negotiating with yourself. What do they want you to say? Do I agree with this? Or not at all? In what context do they mean? At work? Or when I am with my partner?
You get a prompt: ”I take a methodical and analytical approach to solving problems.”
When I worked as an engineer, I was deeply methodical. When I moved into leading teams, I became much more decisive and outward-facing. But it depends entirely on what the situation demands. You click ”Strongly Agree.”
It turns out to be the wrong answer. The system’s target profile for this role wanted an action-oriented ”doer,” not an over-analyzer. Your match percentage drops. You are expected to magically guess what an algorithm decided a role requires.
When I look at what is happening across corporate hiring today, I see how pervasive this machinery has become.
In the United States, logistics giants and retailers require automated assessments via platforms like Criteria Corp, Wonderlic, or Harver before a human ever looks at a resume. In the United Kingdom, graduates applying to the Civil Service Fast Stream or FTSE 100 firms must navigate hours of SHL Verify or Cappfinity numerical and situational tests. In Australia, the big four banks and government agencies deploy Revelian cognitive tests (Cognify) to screen thousands of university applicants.
Companies claim this makes recruitment ”objective” and free of bias. In reality, it produces misunderstandings and filters out exceptional people.
The Reality of the Assessment Industry
What happens when an entire labor market outsources human judgment to automated algorithms? Here is what independent data and empirical research reveal about pre-employment screening across the US, UK, and Australia.
75–80% of Large Employers Use Tests
In the United States, between 75% and 82% of large enterprises and Fortune 500 companies use formal pre-employment tests to screen applicants before interviews.
A $3 Billion Global Industry
The global pre-employment testing market exceeds 3 billion USD annually. Millions are spent by corporations and public agencies on software licenses, test batteries, and recruiter certifications.
Millions of Unpaid Hours
Hundreds of millions of job applications pass through online assessment steps each year. With typical test batteries taking 30 to 60 minutes, job seekers invest countless unpaid hours completing matrices, numerical tests, and Likert scales without feedback.
Personality Tests Explain Only 2% of Performance
According to the landmark meta-analysis by Sackett et al. (2022), personality inventories (Big Five / Five-Factor Model) have an operational validity of only r ≈ 0.12–0.19. This means personality tests explain less than 2 to 4 percent of actual on-the-job performance.
How Accurately Do Selection Methods Predict Job Performance?
Explained variance in future job performance (R²) according to the meta-analysis by Sackett et al. (2022):
Why Logic Tests Fail as a Gatekeeper
There is an established statistical correlation between cognitive ability tests and job performance. But a correlation of up to 0.31 explains at most a tenth of average candidate performance. When used as a hard gatekeeper, capable candidates are eliminated simply because they had a poor night of sleep, test anxiety, or a non-linear way of thinking.
There is scientific support that general mental ability (GMA) correlates with job performance. In comprehensive meta-analyses like Sackett et al. (2022), the operational correlation is approximately 0.31. That means logic tests explain roughly 10 percent of job performance.
The remaining 90 percent depends on entirely different factors: motivation, domain experience, professional judgment, interpersonal skills, and how the workplace environment supports the person. Using an abstract 15-minute test as an automated gatekeeper locks out talented people on arbitrary grounds.
From Supervised Psychology to Midnight at the Kitchen Table
When psychologists first measured the validity of cognitive testing, it was done in controlled environments: rested candidates, quiet rooms, and trained proctors who could notice if an applicant had a migraine or misunderstood instructions.
When these tests were moved online as unproctored screening links, that standardization fell apart:
- A bad day disqualifies you: Taking a timed test at home late in the evening means poor sleep or a misunderstanding of a single question on a personality test destroys your score. You receive an automated rejection without recourse.
- Non-linear and creative thinkers are punished: Matrix tests reward one specific convergent way of thinking. Lateral problem-solvers and divergent thinkers are discarded as ”unsuitable.”
- Practice beats ability: Applicants who practice matrix puzzles in advance dramatically outperform those who have never seen the format. The test measures test familiarity rather than real-world competence.
- Wrong tool for the job: While abstract logic matters in deep system architecture, the same tests are used indiscriminately for customer success, healthcare management, and sales.
The AI Trap That Punishes Honesty
Modern multimodal AI models have broken unproctored online logic tests. Anyone can screenshot a 3×3 Raven’s matrix and get the correct answer within five seconds.
The consequence in real-world hiring is counterproductive:
- The honest candidate who sits alone under a 20-second timer gets seven out of twelve correct and is eliminated by the ATS.
- The applicant who uses AI assistance gets twelve out of twelve and is flagged as a ”top performer.”
The test no longer measures problem-solving. It filters against straightforward honesty.
Selection Systems Force Candidates to Act
When a recruitment system sets rigid benchmarks, it does not encourage authenticity. It encourages acting.
When people feel they must pretend to be someone they are not, employers hire a persona instead of a real person. Capable candidates who answer honestly are filtered out in favor of those who mirror superficial keywords and personality profiles.
When a company writes a job description, they often think they need one specific profile. But when they meet a real candidate and understand their character, they frequently realize that entirely different strengths matter far more.
Applicants adapt quickly. They paste job descriptions into AI tools to optimize their resumes and guess the ”correct” answers on behavioral inventories to maximize their ”role fit” score.
Frequently Asked Questions About Tests in Hiring
How can employers handle hundreds of applicants without automated test filters?
Volume is a genuine challenge. Receiving hundreds of applications makes automated filters tempting. But if an organization must narrow down a pool of qualified applicants who meet the baseline criteria, random lottery selection among all qualified candidates is far more honest and equitable than pretending a test with 2% predictive validity reveals true merit.
Do recruiters and hiring teams have the expertise to interpret psychometric scores?
Rarely. Few recruiters have background in psychometrics. Results are usually read mechanically from software dashboards: percentiles and red flags. Little thought is given to measurement error, context, or how life circumstances affected the score that day.
Why not keep tests simply as a supplement to the interview?
When placed at the top of the funnel, tests do not act as supplements. They act as automated gatekeepers that turn away talented people before anyone reads their work. Those who pass are then evaluated using automated interview guides that focus on their ”flaws,” narrowing the conversation into an interrogation.
Try the Recruitment Simulator
What does it feel like to be evaluated by an algorithm? Select a role below and answer three typical test steps under time pressure to see how your answers are scored, what the system flags, and what the employer sees in their dashboard.
Step 1 of 4: Choose a Target Role
Benchmarking ProfileSelect which position you are applying for. The ATS algorithm will compare your results against a predefined behavioral target profile:
Step 2 of 4: Pattern Reasoning Test
Find the missing piece in the 3×3 pattern sequence below before time expires:
Step 2b of 4: Rotation Reasoning
Identify the next rotation in the sequence:
Step 3 of 4: Behavioral Self-Assessment
UntimedRate the following statement on how well it describes you in a work context:
”I analyze decisions methodically and carefully before moving forward.”
Step 4 of 4: Forced-Choice Assessment
Mandatory SelectionSelect which statement fits you MOST and which fits you LEAST:
| A: I challenge decisions when I see flaws in the plan. | |
| B: I prioritize team harmony even when disagreements arise. | |
| C: I focus strictly on immediate targets rather than long-term theory. |
Your Personal Development Feedback
Thank you for completing your pre-employment assessment for Software Engineer.
Cognitive Problem Solving: Completed
Primary Behavioral Dimensions:
- Openness & Inquiry: Balanced (55th Percentile)
- Conscientiousness & Pace: High Drive (82nd Percentile)
- Extraversion & Collaboration: Reflective (42nd Percentile)
- Emotional Composure: Resilient (76th Percentile)
The report concludes with a polite template message: ”We appreciate your time and will be in touch once all applications have been reviewed.”
Automated ATS Screening Decision: NOT RECOMMENDED
Target Match: 38% Role Fit
ATS Automated Action: Placed in ”Low Fit” queue. Trigger standard automated rejection email after 48-hour delay.
Algorithmic Behavioral Interview Guide
The system flags deviations from the ideal profile and generates standardized verification questions for the interviewer:
Notice how the algorithm transforms normal human nuance into a series of interrogative verification traps.
System Algorithmic Risk Flags:
- ’
+ ’
- ’ + likertReason + ’ ’ + ’
- ’ + forcedReasonMest + ’ ’ + ’
- ’ + forcedReasonMinst + ’ ’; if (simLogicScore <= 2) { fullReasonHtml += ’
- Under-threshold score on timed matrix test (GMA 2/10) triggered automated ATS filter. ’; } else if (simLogicScore >= 10) { fullReasonHtml += ’
- Maximum score on cognitive test (GMA 10/10), but disqualified due to profile mismatch against ideal benchmark. ’; } fullReasonHtml += ’
A Constructive Alternative for Hiring
When I talk with hiring managers and executives in the US, UK, and Australia, I encounter the same question: ”If we stop using automated testing, how do we know who to hire?”
The answer is that we need a selection system that measures real capability instead of the ability to perform for an algorithm. Scientific evidence clearly shows what works.
My Three-Step Model for Human and Accurate Selection
Lottery Selection
Draw lots among all applicants who meet basic qualifications. No one is eliminated due to a misunderstanding of a single question on a personality test, lack of sleep, or a temporary off day at the kitchen table.
Structured Interview
Ask all candidates the same standardized questions about real past challenges and situations. Captures genuine reasoning, judgment, and character.
On-Site Work Sample
Invite final candidates to complete a scoped, realistic task collaboratively alongside their future peers to evaluate mutual communication and teamwork.
My Proposal (Structured Interview + Work Sample)
More than twelve times more predictive than personality screening, without the culture of performative deceit. When you combine a structured qualitative conversation with a realistic work sample, you evaluate real on-the-job capability instead of candidate ability to game an automated algorithm.
Personality tests should open conversations rather than close doors
I have spent over ten years studying and developing personality frameworks, cognitive functions, and self-assessment assessments. But there is a fundamental ethical and philosophical divide between using psychology as a gatekeeper and using it as a mirror for honest self-reflection.
When a recruitment platform puts a psychometric assessment in front of a job seeker, it is used to assign a rigid label, filter out, and close the door. It forces candidates into a performative theater where they feel compelled to pretend to be someone they are not.
On Personalitopia, I build tools strictly for self-discovery, self-compassion, and inner maturity. I never use tests to trap people in stereotypes or declare that one personality type is superior to another. The entire purpose is to help you recognize default behavioral patterns, challenge limiting beliefs, and discover who you can become beyond your habits:
The 16 Personalities Test
Helps you understand how you see yourself and the automatic persona you adopt around others. The goal is to see your personality patterns clearly so you stop feeling defined or confined by them.
Take the 16 Personalities Test →Cognitive Functions Test
Your thoughts and mindset shape your actions. It is easy to confuse thoughts with your identity, when thoughts are simply information. This assessment maps how your mind processes information and reaches conclusions.
Take the Cognitive Functions Test →The Enneagram Test
Just like with thoughts, we can become trapped in emotional states and instinctual defensive reactions. This test highlights what your emotional habits protect and provides pathways to emotional regulation.
Take the Enneagram Test →The 8 Practices of Love
Your values represent your highest conceptions of who you could become and what a meaningful life looks like beyond cynical exhaustion. This assessment clarifies what gives your daily efforts purpose.
Take the Values Test →When you take an assessment for yourself, there are no wrong answers. You never risk losing your income or being judged by an algorithm. You take it to meet yourself with greater honesty and clarity.
Support and Advisory for Employers
Are you an organization, HR leader, or talent acquisition director looking to move from automated test filters to a human-centered, scientifically grounded selection process?
I advise companies and executive teams on how to:
- Phase out unscientific screening tests and replace them with equitable, evidence-backed evaluation methods.
- Design structured behavioral interview frameworks that save time and surface genuine capability.
- Develop realistic work sample exercises that give hiring teams clear, objective decision data without excessive administrative overhead.
Send an inquiry using the form below to begin a conversation on how you can modernize and humanize your recruitment process.
Share
Loading discussion…