Enhancing Self-Assessment and Management Potentials by Modifying Option Selections on Hartman’s Personality Test

Authors: Daniel L. Clinciu, Ikrom Abdulaev, Brian D. Oscar

Abstract:

Various personality profile tests are used to identify personality strengths and limits in individuals, helping both individuals and managers to optimize work and team effort in organizations. One such test, the Hartman’s personality profile, emphasizes four driving "core motives" influenced or affected by both strengths and limitations classified into four colors: Red - motivated by power; Blue - discipline and loyalty; White - peace; and Yellow – fun loving. Two shortcomings of Hartman’s personality test are noted; 1) only one selection for every item / situation allowed and 2) selection of an item / option even if not applicable. A test taker may be as much nurturing as he is opinionated but since “opinionated” seems less attractive the individual would likely select nurturing, causing a misidentification in personality strengths and limits. Since few individuals have a “strong” personality, it is difficult to assess their true personality strengths and limits allowing only one choice or requiring unwanted choices, undermining the potential of the test. We modified Hartman’s personality profile allowing test takers to make either multiple choices for any item / situation or leave them blank if applicable. Sixty-eight participants (38 males and 30 females), 17 - 49 years old, from countries in Asia, Europe, N. America, CIS, Africa, Latin America, and Oceania were included. 58 participants (85.3%) reported the modified test, allowing multiple / no choices better identified their personality strengths and limits, while 10 participants (14.7%) expressed the original (one choice version) was sufficient. The overall results show that our modified test enhanced the identification and balance of core personalities’ strengths and limits, aiding test takers, managers and organizations to better assess individual characteristics, particularly useful in making task-related, teamwork, and management decisions.

Keywords: Organizational behavior, personality tests, personality limitations, personality strengths, task management, team work.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1099650

References:

[1] Just, C. 2011. A review of literature on the general factor of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 765-771.
[2] Barrick, M. R. &Mount, M. K. 1991. The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: a Meta-Analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
[3] British Psychological, S. 2005. Psychological Testing Centre
[4] Bergh, Z. C. &Theron, A. L. 2006. Psychology in the work context. Halfway House: International Thompson Publishing.
[5] Black, K. R. 1994. Personality Screening in Employment. American Business Law Journal, 32, 69.
[6] Muller, J. &Schepers, J. 2003. The predictive validity of the selection battery used for junior leaders training within the South African National Defense Force. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29, 87- 98.
[7] Theron, C. 2009. The diversity-validity dilemma: In search of minimum adverse impact and maximum utility. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 35, 1-13.
[8] Paterson, H. & UYS, K. 2005. Critical issues in psychological test use in the South African workplace. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 31, 12-22.
[9] van Der Merwe, R. P. 2002. Psychometric testing and human resource management. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 28, 77-86.
[10] Sullivan, P. 2005. Psychometric Tests. UK Financial Times Newspaper.
[11] Moerdyk, A. 2009. The principles and practice of psychological assessment. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.
[12] Carretta, R. T. &Ree, M. J. 2003. Pilot selection methods. Principles and practice of aviation psychology, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. , 357-396.
[13] Stabile, S. J. 2002. The Use of Personality Tests as a Hiring Tool: Is the Benefit Worth the Cost? U. Pa. Journal of Labor and Employment Law, 4.
[14] Schermer, J. A., Carswell, J. &Jackson, S. 2012. Correlations between a general factor of personality and employment measures.
[15] Bates, T. C. &Rock, A. 2004. Personality and information processing speed: Independent influences on intelligent performance. Intelligence, 32, 33-46.
[16] Moutafi, J., Furnham, A. &Paltiel, L. 2005. Can personality factors predict intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1021- 1033.
[17] O'neill, T. A., Lee, N. M. &Law, S. J. 2013. The impact of ‘‘nontargeted traits’’ on personality test faking, hiring, and workplace deviance. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 162-168.
[18] Chamorro-Premuzic, T. &Furnham, A. 2003. Personality predicts academic performance: Evidence from two longitudinal university samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 319-338.
[19] Jacobs, K. E., Szer, d. &Roodenburg, J. 2012. The moderating effect of personality on the accuracy of self-estimates of intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 744-749.
[20] Brandstatter, H. 1997. Becoming an entrepreneur- a question of personality structure? Journal of Economic Psychology, 18, 157-177.
[21] Leutner, F., Ahmetoglu, G., Akhtar, R. &Chamorro-Premuzic, T. 2014. The relationship between the entrepreneurial personality and the Big Five personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 63.
[22] Markman, G. &Baron, R. A. 2003. Person–entrepreneurship fit: why some people are more successful as entrepreneurs than others. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 281-301.
[23] Dvir, D., Sadeh, A. &Malach-Pines, A. 2010. The fit between entrepreneurs' personalities and the profile of the ventures they manage and business success: An exploratory study. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 21, 43-51.
[24] http://www.mceachernhigh.org/member/teachers/class_documents/cjr17 190/Marketing%20Principles/Hartman%20Personality%20Test.pdf