In today’s competitive job market, candidates are deeply motivated to succeed. Take Jimmy, for example. He’s a skilled programmer, a father of four, and has been tirelessly job hunting for six months. When he finally lands a promising opportunity, the application process requires him to complete a personality assessment for job fit. For Jimmy, this isn’t just about finding the right fit—it’s about providing for his family. It’s no surprise that he’s determined to make himself look like the ideal candidate.
This scenario is far from unique. Job seekers everywhere strive to present themselves in the most favorable light. And can we really blame them? When getting a job, and the income that comes with it, depends on an assessment, it’s natural for candidates to highlight their strengths—even if it means bending the truth a little.
The challenge here isn’t with the applicants; it’s with the tools we use to evaluate them. If these tools fail to distinguish genuine traits from exaggerated responses, organizations risk making costly hiring mistakes—overlooking top talent or onboarding candidates who aren’t a true fit for the role. The stakes are too high to leave such decisions to outdated or flawed methods.
Organizational Responsibility
It’s not the candidates’ job to ensure assessments reflect their true personalities–that responsibility lies with organizations and their assessment tools. After all, applicants are motivated to maximize their chances of success, and organizations are equally motivated to identify the best fit for the role. To make fair and effective hiring decisions, tools must:
- Measure job-relevant traits accurately (validity)
- Provide consistent results across candidates (reliability)
- Account for candidates’ natural tendency to present themselves in the best possible light, sometimes exaggerating or faking (response bias).
Without effective tools, organizations risk not only hiring the wrong candidate but also facing consequences like higher turnover rates, reduced performance, and missed opportunities to leverage top talent. For candidates like Jimmy, this could mean being unfairly evaluated–or worse, hired into a role that sets them up for failure.
Forced-Choice Personality Assessments as a Solution
A person’s behavioral style plays a critical role in their ability to succeed in a role. Therefore, personality assessments serve as powerful tools for evaluating job fit. However, traditional personality assessments often fall short in high-stakes hiring situations. Consider a typical question: “I adapt to change.” Clearly, the “correct” answer is obvious. As a result, most candidates agree with the statement, whether it’s true or not. This tendency for candidates to consistently choose the same (i.e. “correct”) response undermines the assessment’s ability to differentiate candidates, making it ineffective for identifying genuine traits and potential.
Instead, effective personality assessments require a deeper investment in their design. Items must be both directly relevant to the job and less transparent—where the “correct” answer isn’t obvious. A promising innovation in this area is the use of a forced-choice personality assessment for job fit. Research supports their effectiveness, showing that forced-choice assessments reduce faking (Cao & Drasgow, 2019) and are predictive of job performance (Salgado et al., 2014).
Forced choice assessments present candidates with two equally desirable traits and ask them to choose the statement that is most like them. For example, in Figure 1 below, there are two response options which reflect the personality traits Influence and Independence. By presenting equally desirable traits, forced-choice assessments push candidates to make meaningful distinctions. This design ensures responses reflect their true personality and work style.
Figure 1
What makes forced-choice assessments so effective? By presenting candidates with two equally desirable statements, they compel thoughtful decision-making, reducing biases like social desirability bias (choosing answers to appear more favorable) and acquiescence (agreeing with statements by default). This approach offers a more precise and uanced understanding of an applicant’s true personality and work style.
For candidates like Jimmy, an effective personality assessment for job fit could mean the difference between being unfairly overlooked or hired into a role that genuinely fits his strengths. For organizations, investing in tools like forced-choice assessments ensures better hiring decisions and builds stronger, more cohesive teams.
Conclusion
- Organizations Hold the Responsibility: The effective use of assessments is a critical responsibility of organizations using them to hire employees. In order to use them as valid indicators of who to hire, they must address issues related to faking and response bias.
- Forced-Choice Assessments Improve Accuracy: By limiting social desirability and acquiescence biases, forced-choice assessments offer a more accurate and nuanced view of a candidate’s personality, enhancing decision-making in hiring.
- The Long-Term Payoff of Evidence-Based Assessments: Investing in an evidence-based personality assessment for job fit reduces turnover, boosts employee performance, and aligns new hires with organizational culture—saving time, money, and effort in the long run.
REFERENCES:
- Cao, M., & Drasgow, F. (2019). Does forcing reduce faking? A meta-analytic review of forced-choice personality measures in high-stakes situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(11), 1347–1368. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000414
- Salgado, J. F., Anderson, N., & Tauriz, G. (2015). The validity of ipsative and quasi‐ipsative forced‐choice personality inventories for different occupational groups: A comprehensive meta‐analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(4), 797–834. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12098
