3 ms·

There are a hundred different ways to look at this 1) you could look at it as a nuisance that isn't worth wasting any career capital fighting (that's a perfect

by pitt1980 14y ago

There are a hundred different ways to look at this 1) you could look at it as a nuisance that isn't worth wasting any career capital fighting (that's a perfectly valid way to look at it, you can only fight stupidity on so many fronts, this probably isn't worth the effort) (seems relevent http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4448755 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4448755) 2) you could say you don't want to take the test and see how much they care. You should have some wariness of how seriously a place takes their arbitrary hoops. If an organization can't deal with a nail sticking up over an arbitrary personality test, how are they going to deal with a nail sticking up over something that really matters?

dizzystar 14y ago
Thanks for that link. Pretty interesting. Point 2) I tend to be the nail sticking up, but that is more a function of my job descriptions in the past where it was my responsibility to say "no" or question things. It takes a a certain amount of deftness to pull it off consistently combined with a fearlessness of not getting your head chopped off. The results of the test I recently took said something on the order that I am a very blunt person that appreciates honesty. While this is true in many cases, the test dismissed the idea that I have situational awareness. There is a time for letting someone know that they could have done better and there is a time for congratulating people for doing their best, even if my expectations were disappointed. Empathy didn't seem to be an important measurement for this particular version of the test. People are complex and slippery, with their own motives, and sometimes you can't expect people to be what they aren't. To say the least, it was upsetting to read a small part of my personality painted with such a thin brush. Ultimately, if I was a hiring manager and read such a description, I would probably think twice about speaking to this person again. This seems to suggest that whoever created the test, or whoever wrote the descriptions, had axes to grind vs certain personality "traits."

dizzystar 14y ago

Thanks for that link. Pretty interesting. Point 2) I tend to be the nail sticking up, but that is more a function of my job descriptions in the past where it was my responsibility to say "no" or question things. It takes a a certain amount of deftness to pull it off consistently combined with a fearlessness of not getting your head chopped off. The results of the test I recently took said something on the order that I am a very blunt person that appreciates honesty. While this is true in many cases, the test dismissed the idea that I have situational awareness. There is a time for letting someone know that they could have done better and there is a time for congratulating people for doing their best, even if my expectations were disappointed. Empathy didn't seem to be an important measurement for this particular version of the test. People are complex and slippery, with their own motives, and sometimes you can't expect people to be what they aren't. To say the least, it was upsetting to read a small part of my personality painted with such a thin brush. Ultimately, if I was a hiring manager and read such a description, I would probably think twice about speaking to this person again. This seems to suggest that whoever created the test, or whoever wrote the descriptions, had axes to grind vs certain personality "traits."