For decades, HR has clung to psychometric tests like a horoscope for employees—a neat little PDF that promises to unlock the mysteries of how people think and act at work. But how much of it is actually science, and how much is just workplace astrology with better branding?
This was the question at the heart of our latest Freeformers Unplugged live stream, where we took a deep dive into the world of personality profiling, aptitude tests, and the sometimes questionable ways organizations use them. We also pulled in insights from our brilliant LinkedIn audience, who had plenty to say about the value (or lack thereof) in these tools.
The Appeal of Psychometric Tests: Why Do We Keep Using Them?
First, let’s acknowledge why these tests are so popular. They offer an appealingly simple answer to complex human behaviors. Who doesn’t love being told they’re a ‘Green Innovator’ or an ‘ENTP Visionary’? It’s structured, it’s categorized, and it feels official. More importantly, they give HR and leadership teams a common language to discuss team dynamics and personal development.
“For me, THAT is the beauty of psychometrics. It’s not about the label of ‘Red’, ‘ENTJ’ or ‘Leo’—it’s about the conversation afterwards.”
But is that conversation leading anywhere? Or are we just assigning people to Hogwarts houses and calling it professional development?
The Pitfalls: One-Time Labels That Go Nowhere
The biggest issue with psychometric tests is that they’re often treated as one-time events. You take a survey, get a detailed PDF, have a quick chat with a coach… and then nothing happens. There’s no long-term integration, no revisiting of results, and no tracking of how people evolve over time.
“Why have you done nothing about it after that great conversation, Toby?”
Marcia raises a fair point. If we’re not using this data to drive meaningful action, what’s the point? HR teams spend money on these tools, but too often, they’re treated as shiny objects rather than functional systems embedded into organizational culture.
At O2 Telefonica, for example, the TetraMap framework was embedded deeply into the culture—every new hire took the test, and it became a shared language within the business. That’s the exception, not the rule.
Science vs. Pseudoscience: Not All Tests Are Created Equal
There are two broad categories here:
- Aptitude Tests – These assess cognitive abilities, reasoning, and problem-solving skills. They tend to have higher validity.
- Personality Tests – These measure traits and behaviors, often with varying degrees of scientific rigor.
Some frameworks, like the Big Five Personality Traits, have solid academic backing. Others, like Myers-Briggs (MBTI), have been widely debunked as pseudoscience. Yet MBTI remains a corporate favorite.
🔎 “The Five Factor Model does not create types; there is no grouping of people together. Everyone is on each of the dimensions in different places.” – Marcia Weekes-Spears
In contrast, Ken Corey makes an excellent point about real-world usability:
“All the university professors writing those papers, creating methodologies—they might understand them. But how does a run-of-the-mill person in an organization actually use them?”
Bias, Gaming the System, and the Corporate Crystal Ball
One of the most concerning issues is how these tests are used in hiring. When personality tests are part of the recruitment process, candidates often shape their responses to fit what they think the employer wants to hear.
“Are you saying what you think the company wants to hear? Rather than what’s actually true?”
Danny Wareham also highlights the social desirability bias problem:
“Social Desirability Bias is a biggie. Is the issue the assessment, or the survey aspect? If these were not self-assessment, would you feel more comfortable?”
This points to a larger issue: psychometric tests can sometimes act as a scapegoat for deeper organizational issues. If a team isn’t performing, is it really because their ‘colors’ don’t match, or is it because leadership hasn’t fostered the right environment?
“Bringing assessments in for your people also removes some responsibility from the organization for their role in creating the behaviors they’re seeing. Last thing they need is for someone to point the finger at culture.”
So, What’s the Alternative?
If psychometric tests are flawed but still widely used, what should organizations do differently?
✅ Use them as a starting point, not a conclusion – They should be a tool for ongoing coaching and development, not a one-and-done exercise.
✅ Combine self-reported data with behavioral observation – Many psychometric tests rely on what people say they do, rather than what they actually do. Smart organizations will cross-reference test results with real workplace behavior.
✅ Embed them into team culture – If you’re going to use them, make them part of how your company communicates, like O2 did with TetraMap.
✅ Be critical of the tools you use – Not all psychometric tests are created equal. Look for ones with scientific backing rather than those designed as money-spinners.
Final Thoughts: The HR Industry’s Love Affair with Easy Answers
At their best, psychometric tests provide a common language to discuss work styles. At their worst, they’re an expensive way to tell people what they already know. HR’s obsession with quick fixes and neat categories needs to be challenged.
As one Danny wryly put it:
“There’s over 1,300 assessments out there. How many different ways do we need to say ‘everyone’s a bit different’?”
That, perhaps, is the real question. If the goal is genuine employee development, psychometric tests need to be part of a broader, evidence-based approach—not just another workplace horoscope.