Personality Testing. Am I unemployable?

[mswebb06]

I think we are, putting way too much stock into these test, that are simply used a "weeding" out process. Heck, I know several brokers,agencies that use very similiar test before they are willing to take on agents.

I agree that all compaines will have some bad apples in every office, one agent may score very highly and do some "unethical" practices that yield them very high sales. Some other agents may score very high as well but, may never pertake in the "unethical" practices.

When working for a large "mutual" company this is just a necessary evil in the hiring process, give them what they desire and simply move on and run YOUR business the way you so desire. We will all be judged in the end, so take it for what is is worth. Peace!

 

[Guest]

The testing is good in part to see if you're suited for what you're doing, especially since not very many people are either doing what they love or what they're good at.

How many people even know what they want when they go to college? Not very many. They end up doing "something" and over time the desire and passion for what they would actually have liked to do fades.

Again, the testing can be insightful and useful but I think more for what we should work on to improve.

 

[michellea]

I also think judging an 18 year old on how he/she performs on the ACT/SAT is extremely silly. Heck, I was not a "stellar" student by any means I had a 3.25 gpa, but I had just happened to "guess right" when I took the ACT and made a 32 the very first time. I know people that graduated with a 3.9,4.0, that never really performed that great on the test.

The point being a "standardized test" can never really judge what kind of person you are and what your talents, strengths , weakness', and how you react to situations in life.

I am headed to the golf course.

Ha this reminded me of myself back then. I was a straight A student, but there just happened to be a party the night before ACTs and somehow (oops) it lasted (and I stayed) until the next morning, I left the party and went straight to the test. Needless to say I did not do so well!

 

[ScotinOH]

I took the same test at MetLife and was turned down, too. I agree: do not lie... an honest appraisal is the best thing you can do for yourself.

Secondly, I interviewed MetLife while they interviewed me. With these type questions, I knew what they were looking for, and knew what the results would show on me. (I was a graduate student in psychology and administered a number of these type tests, so I could have easily skewed the results)

I was not surprised at being turned down, and take it as a godsend. I wouldn't want to work for a company that wanted agents with those personality traits. This was reinforced by the interviewer's comments about her customers (which she alluded to repeatedly as "clowns" ). I abhorred her attitude, and knew I wouldn't want her for my manager.

I got a polite letter from her, along with my test results, telling me I was "too nice" to be an agent for them, and encouraged me to continue looking, confident that I would find a company where I would fit. That advice is really quite insiteful...

Pick a company where you are comfortable with the management style. In my case, I considered the formality of NYL and decided I didn't want to be a "suit", etc. Point is, interview them as soberly as they interview you.

I was told similar comments that you were, but not in a letter. I have been in the mortgage business since '96 and decided to stay in the business, but with a new mortgage company... And I passed their personality test Theirs was a telephone interview with the Gallup organization that lasted about half an hour. I was told I did well.

So with that said, I'll be visiting the insurance forums a lot less now. This has been extremely helpful as I've explored this career decision over the past couple months. Thank you and good luck to you all!

 

[EdHead]

I went to trade school in 1985. There were students that would score A's in the classroom portion but would fall flat on their faces when it came time for practical application. On paper and knowledge testing they should have been master tech's. I think, for the most part, that personality tests are the same and need to be taken with a grain of salt. From what I can tell they are looking for more "Alpha" type people. I know insurance agents that have been in the business for a long time and doing very well that would not do good on these tests.

I took the Met Life test last week and found that many of the questions could be answered as a alpha or more passive personality type.

The worst test I have ever taken was for Country insurance. After taking that test I would never work for them and am considering dropping them as my personal insurance provider.

 

[xrac]

I was told similar comments that you were, but not in a letter. I have been in the mortgage business since '96 and decided to stay in the business, but with a new mortgage company... And I passed their personality test Theirs was a telephone interview with the Gallup organization that lasted about half an hour. I was told I did well.

So with that said, I'll be visiting the insurance forums a lot less now. This has been extremely helpful as I've explored this career decision over the past couple months. Thank you and good luck to you all!

Good luck Scot. The mortgage industry will be fine once this current flap is worked through. Hope this place helped you sort things out!

 

[DarrylVK]

Teachers told Thjomas Edisons mom that he was slow & unteachable & he did o.k.
Perhaps you are more suited to becoming an independent agent.

I have received 3 rejections based on these tests which I am told are the main deciding factor in hiring. I am really surprised, confused, angry....especially given my resume and the huge rates of failure reported in these professions:insurance, brokerage, financial planning, etc.
Any thoughts??? How do I beat the test? Should I lie?
I say no way.

 

[patch36]

Are you taking the test to pass or are you taking it to give them a look into your soul ? Answer the damn questions consistently, and give them the answers they are looking for. Its not your fault they let some phony psychologist decide what type of person they want to prey on their future clients. If you are money motivated and success motivated, not necessarily the same things, you will succeed at any of those places, but...

...if you are tired of following the same path as all the rest of the suits and soulless corporate hacks who spew the trendy buzzwords and pretend to care about the client, then go independent and don't ever look back.

 

[retread]

This thread needs a little massage. Don't get all worked up over these screening tools... they are designed to do one thing and that is to find out if you fit the company's desired profile. This will vary from company to company, obviously. I thought everyone would see this in my previous posts.

The main point is that the test questions reveal a lot about that company. The answers you give reveal a lot about you.

How these tests are developed is by testing the company's top producers and standardizing the score on them. If they are a bunch of screwballs, then you must be a screwball to score high on that test.

Keep in mind that there are a number of different types of tests... intelligence tests try to predict how successful you are at academia, aptitude tests try to predict how good your abilities are at specific tasks, while personality tests usually are designed to see how you compare socially with others in the standardized group. (The notorious MMPI was standardized on inpatients in a mental hospital, and therefore used to find out if you are crazy...)

There are other tools we use in vocational guidance, for example the Kuder Preference Survey... if you like to play golf on Wednesdays you will score similar to what doctors like to do on Wednesdays, etc. so if you want to be a doctor, you will score high on this question. (The idea being that to be happy in any given occupation, you must enjoy similar preferences in avocational pursuits, etc.) How accurate these tests are is measured by constantly administering these tests to various occupations and reviewing the results. Surprisingly accurate, but a bit wacky in my opinion!

Any tool can be mis-used. Ever see a ditch digger standing by a trench and leaning on his shovel (while on the clock)? Or a carpenter pounding on a nail with a pipe wrench because the wrench was closer by him than a hammer? I think you get my drift on this. The test can filter out poor performers as well as low-profile but highly successful performers. You just won't find many low-profile yet highly successful salesmen in that company. Perhaps these guys didn't want to work with turkeys, and preferred to work elsewhere. This is anybody's guess, and therein lies the efficiency of the test. It is an objective, cheap, and quick way of processing a large number of applicants. I don't see it effective for a small business, much less for an independent salesman who is an entrepreneur.

Consider these tests to be just what they are: screening tools to aid a hiring manager who hasn't the ability to assess an applicant's ability objectively any other way (or at least inexpensively). It's a bit lazy in one respect, but efficient in another. A really good manager can make a better assessment in a personal interview, but many corporations may be lacking in those good managers or assign them duties more appropriate for their talent and leave the interview process to underlings (who must use a paper and pencil test). This is usually the domain of (in)Human Resources.

 

[patch36]

I guess I too would get worked up over 3 rejections based on these tests we shouldn't get worked up over