Notes on a Survey Taken Recently...

Today I responded to one of the University-wide appeals to participate in a research survey. I was thinking at the time that it's kind of like the particularly American phenomenon of being a former waitress who tips well every time they eat out regardless of service because I know how hard it is for waiters and waitresses to make ends meet without the tips (cause their base rate in the States is under the minimum wage, as they are expected to make most of their money from tips). In other words, as I am about to embark on a research study of my own, possibly utilizing an electronic survey, I know that it is sometimes difficult to obtain good results due to a lack of responses. So I thought I'd be a good girl and answer the survey. Of course, the incentive to be given a chance to win an I-Touch didn't hurt anything, either. Note to self: bribery works!!

At any rate, the survey was basically on work personality-orientation. I've studied the topic before in psychology. There are four basic types of personality according to most sources: driver/leader, creative/dreamer, analytical/detail-oriented, and social/compassionate. Supposedly, by taking a personality test, you can figure out which is your main affinity, and business managers can utilize it to discover which candidates would best fit into their work culture or to form effective project teams.

But I don't really trust the research. First, the questions are very abstract and assume a non-situational dependence. For instance, say you were asked to rate your priorities in producing an independent report. These might very well be things such as planning the report and meeting a deadline, communicating effectively, producing an error free document, and trusting your own capabilities. They might not be working on a team effectively, considering long-range business goals, worrying about the company's bottom line, or following company rules on sexual harassment (the latter because you do this all the time anyway, I hope, and this is irrelevant in a solo-produced project).

However, the questions on the work-personality survey don't account for how your priorities change once you are given a task-specific topic versus a nebulous, vague topic of general priorities. For instance, if you were to rate a series of answers as most like you to least like you, and were given choices that are both task-specific--such as producing error-free work and making convincing presentations--and general goals--such as following company procedure and getting along well with others...what do you choose? Shouldn't they all be important? Don't you, at various times, concentrate on each one? And isn't it true that if you say the least important to you is producing error-free work as you know you will always do this regardless, but maybe the most important is dealing well with others as this is often a life-long learning process for us all, you might look to a company like a person who is interested in gossiping with workmates and produces sloppy work, but can also recite policy 45 paragraph 2 on command and is just so darn likeable with the clients that it's hard to get rid of you? Is that a good impression you'd want to make? And is it even accurate??

Take the follow-company-procedures example. If this is offered with three other options, it might not be selected, as it's a matter of course. Or it might be selected because when you take the survey you are in the process of reviewing the efficiency of existing procedures and discussing with your manager how best to revise them. But selecting this option when applying for a position with a company could mean one of two things: you are a rebel or a person who won't follow blindly inefficient or shady business practice. One is negative, one is actually quite positive (barring, of course, that the company in question isn't knee-deep in unethical business practices). But how do you actually convey your exact personal philosophy, or in other words, whether you are a rebel or an ethical spokesperson, in a 4-choice closed questionnaire?

Let's look at it this way, as it's all in the wording. Take the above example and let's think of four hypothetical options for what is most and least like you.

On following company procedures, I am:
a. a blind follower even when I know that the company is doing things illegally because keeping my job and not making waves is important.
b. generally interested in following the rules, but if I identify an inefficient practice and think I could improve company performance, I would address this with my manager.
c. always questioning authority because I always think I know best.
d. afraid to point out possible alternatives to inefficient company policies because I don't want to be told 'this is the way it's always been done'.

Well, now, that presents quite a different view of things doesn't it? Where are your priorities now? But what if the question instead said this...

In my job, I would describe myself as most like and least like the following:
a. a follower of company rules.
b. a producer of quality work.
c. a caring and enthusiastic team member.
d. an innovative thinker.

In the last scenario, wouldn't a perspective employer want to know that you can think up new ideas, play well with others, and give them good results on assigned tasks? Might it not be such a bad thing, in this particular case, if you said that you were least interested in following the rules? But then again, they don't want to hire a thief or unethical employee, either. And that might be the reason that a candidate really selected option a.

So, basically, I think that trying to figure out worker personality with most existing surveys is somewhat questionable, as they all tend to try to nail down which category you fall into without taking into account that a closed questionnaire may not be the best assessment of the complexity of personality, and that the answers a person chooses may more accurately reflect their concern in what the company would think of each selection than whether they are actually true of a person's personality...and then would the latter even cover the question of accuracy all of the time in every possible situation?

I once completed an assignment in an undergraduate rhetoric class on persuading an audience on some educational hot button topic at the time...I can't remember exactly what the question was now...but the relevant point is that we had to use the same set of statistics to support our arguments for both sides of the issue. It was surprising at the time how easily that can be done. But now, I think it was a valuable lesson. Social science statistics do not always accurately reflect the complexity of a situation, and rarely are they capable of quantifying the human element.