For the record, the correct answer is always to be low on neuroticism and high on everything else. The role doesn’t matter; that is always the “ideal” personality and any deviation is a defect that will only be tolerated if they are having trouble filling the role.
So, on a scale of 1 to 10, how much do you agree with these statements? Sometimes it is ok to hit people. I feel like hitting my boss sometimes. Some people deserve to be punched. Sometimes is is necessary to use violence to solve a problem. Taking pens from work isn't really stealing. Etc.
I suppose they must've managed to screen out at least some of the people who are not very smart and prone to violence and theft.
In reality, sometimes it is necessary to use violence to solve a problem. If someone is trying to kill me, that’s a problem. It is perfectly acceptable to meet that violence with violence to stop it and get away. Will that ever happen in a normal workplace, and will it be my go-to move? Almost certainly not, but the “sometimes” does leave the possibility open to that unlikely event.
For example, people answering questions honestly might answer them slightly differently to people who are lying and trying to get the correct answer.
E.g. To the question "how often do you get angry?", the answer "never" would be (potentially) highly desirable, but probably not honest. Whereas "sometimes" would be honest. So maybe some questions are there only to try and gauge honesty of the answers, so other questions can be interpreted with more confidence.
Maybe the designers of these questionnaires have innocuous-sounding questions that are really a test of whether the candidate is answering honestly, e.g. "Have you ever stayed in your pyjamas all day?" (just a silly example, but hopefully you see what I'm getting at).
Ultra-low neuroticism can mean "not detail-oriented."
Service Jobs Now Require Bizarre Personality Test From AI Company
https://www.404media.co/low-paying-jobs-require-bizarre-pers...
I applied for a software role at FedEx and was asked to take a personality test
I should touch base with him and see how he’s doing.
Any job that requires that you be an obedient little robot will require that you take such a personality test.
I sorta understand a company wanting to do that for some C-level or upper management position, or for a finance person responsible for the books...but for a burger flipper???
So…why are they doing the credit checks??
And for what... a questionably-measurable improvement in quality for employees that already have like a 150% per-annum turnover?
It also feels like industry is trying to turn HR and recruitment into a science-- if they can put enough algorithms and skill tests in the path, they can automate the recruitment process. I'm amazed HR doesn't detect this as an existential threat and sabotage it from inside.
