What your Personality Test Report says about You

Business man's hand plotting people's personality test report scores on a grid

People are frequently amazed at the accuracy of their personality test report. These reports can be powerfully enlightening as they describe an individual’s tendencies and character traits from what appears to be an objective point of view. When given the opportunity to review their report, I haven’t had one person defer. Everyone wants to know what their report says about them – whether they agree with it or not.

But sometimes personality test results are misleading and of no use at all. And it happens more often than you’d think.

In an experiment with college sophomores, a traditional favorite for academic researchers, the accuracy of personality tests was put to its own test. Following completion and scoring of a personality test given to all of the students in the class, the researcher asked for a show of hands from those for whom the test report accurately described them. A sizeable majority of hands went up – the report was an accurate depiction. There’s one thing they didn’t know:

Everyone got exactly the same report.

Yep. {I wish I’d thought of this first.}

Despite everyone completing the test in their personally distinctive manner, only one report was copied and distributed to the entire class of subjects. No matter how similar you may think college sophomores are, they’re not so identical as to yield precisely identical personality profiles. But still, a “J. Doe” report was viewed as a perfect fit to most. How does this happen?

Take a read of one of your personality test results. If you’re like most, you’ve completed several of these assessments and probably still have a report or two laying around. When reading your report take note of the following indicators of BS reports:

  1. Conditional Statements: The number of times the words “may,” “might,” “sometimes” show up

Example: “You may be unsure of yourself in a group.”

How “may?” Like, maybe, “90% unsure”, or “maybe completely confident?” The reader typically fills in this blank unwittingly giving the report a “pass.”

  1. Compensatory Observations: The number of times opposing behaviors are presented next to each other

Example: “You have a hard time sharing your feelings in a group. However, with the right group you find it refreshing to get your emotions ‘off your chest.’”

So which are you? A paranoid prepper? Or a chest pounding demonstrator? Either one of these opposing types could fit by this example.

  1. General Statements: The specificity of the descriptions, or lack thereof

Example: “You maintain only a few close friends.”

This statement is pretty much true by definition. It’s certainly up for interpretation such that it is befitting for all.

  1. Differentiating Statements: {fewer is worse} The uniqueness of the descriptions.

Example: “Privately, you feel under qualified for the things others consider you to be expert at.”

The lack of differentiating statements is not exactly the same as making general statements. A specific statement may not be differentiating. The above example is specific, but not distinctive as a fairly large percentage of people do feel under qualified for even their profession.

The point is, anyone can be right when they:

  1. Speak in couched probabilities,
  2. about “both-or” samples of a given behavior,
  3. in very general terms,
  4. about things that many people experience.

These four “hacks” provide all the latitude needed for ANY report to make you think it has “nailed you.”

Beyond these tactics, many give too much credit to the personality test. Frequently reports are simply feeding you back EXACTLY what you put in via your responses. For example, the item, “I like to organize things” may show up in a report as, “You like to organize things.” There were probably more than a hundred items on the test – you probably don’t remember every response you made for every item.

Another way folks give too much credit to the personality test is by holding the belief that the instrument should be right. Beyond your general position on the validity of personality tests, publishers have various tactics to make the test report more "scientific."

  1. Lots of statistics
  2. Lots of figures
  3. Distinguished endorsers
  4. Techno-babble

None of these things may have anything to do with the actual validity of the test. But research shows these things enhance people’s opinion of its validity.

What’s a good report look like?

  1. Good reports take a point of view. They provide specific summaries of behavioral style that really are uniquely you. If you gave the report to a friend and told them this was their report, they’d honestly say that it doesn’t accurately depict them – even if the two of you are inseparable. Fit is determined by both accommodation and exclusion. A good report speaks to you and no one else.
  2. Better reports don’t provide any narrative at all. They simply provide normative scores on the various dimensions (i.e., characteristic behaviors) covered by the test. This type of report allows an expert to interpret the full spectrum of dimensions in the broader context. Good interpreters know what to look for in terms of how the dimensions interact with each other and can further specify the evaluation with just a bit of extra information on the respondent. This does not mean that they already know the subject. It may be as little as knowing why or when the person completed the assessment.
  3. Great reports present just the facts. The report is a fairly straightforward summary of your responses, organized by dimension (trait) and compared to a group of others’ responses/scores. Better still, great reports provide more than one score per dimension, or the average. They also give some indication of the variations in responses by dimension. This allows the interpreter to know just how confident a given score is. No variance = high confidence. Wide variance = low confidence.

So, what does your report really say about you? Depending on the factors I’ve outlined – it may say nothing at all (or worse).

It really helps to know some of this stuff.

The best way to cure hiccups: A little psychology delivers the strongest medicine

Woman hanging upside down and driking from a cup to cure hiccups

A lot of “techniques” are used to cure hiccups, few really work. The procedure I'm about to describe is backed by psychological, scientific research and is absolutely the best way to hiccups. Guaranteed. There’s only one “but:”

It’s for adults only.

Well, it’s not entirely exclusive to adults, but it does require very strong concentration. {Also, you wouldn’t believe what adding “adults only” does to my SEO score.}

If you really want to cure hiccups you need to invoke the psychology of,

Automaticity Interruptus. {More SEO points!}

I’ll get to exactly what this is all about and how to do it but want to debunk some of the most popular “cures” for hiccups first. Beyond the fact that none of them actually cause the cure for hiccups, most come with unpleasant side effects.

Downing a spoonful of sugar shoots up glucose levels like fireworks (i.e., a rapid rise and explosion followed by complete burnout). Drinking from the other side of a cup upside down can result in nasal reflux (you can picture this, I’m sure). And scaring the crap out of someone speaks for itself.

To the extent these really do work at all it’s because they contain a smaller amount of the active ingredient, Automaticity Interruptus.

I made up this term, so I can’t link it to more information – but you will find some interesting results if you google it. It’s basically a means of “breaking the habit,” but it sounds more erudite. {minus SEO points}

Here’s what I mean:

Behavior falls into one of two categories, controlled or automatic. Sorting behaviors by these categories would appear to be pretty obvious based on the transparency of the two terms, but it’s not. Most behaviors can be both. BUT, (and this is key):

Not at the same time.

A (single) behavior can’t be both automatic and controlled at the same time. This doesn’t mean automatic and controlled behaviors (plural) can’t exist together. “Close calls” occur when there are differences between two or more behaviors (e.g., meditation to reduce anxiety) or the behaviors switch back and forth from automatic to controlled so quickly you don’t notice.

Hiccups definitely aren’t controlled behavior – not “for real” hiccups. They belong to a special form of automatic behavior. Hiccups are spasms of the diaphragm, but they act a lot like automatic behavior because they occur without effort and are "generally" uncontrolled. (Just give me some rope here - I'm not being greedy).

Reflexes you ask? Reflexes are really not in the zone of behavior as described here even though they seem like automatic behavior since there is no cognitive processing at all. Many reflexes don’t even loop through the brain. So, reflexes can’t be controlled at all except by eliminating the stimulus.

To point: If hiccups are automatic (in some way) AND automatic and controlled behaviors are incompatible, a logical cure would be to make the automatic behavior controlled.

And that’s it. If you work hard (really hard) to deliberately hiccup when you are in the grip of automatic hiccuping, the hiccups will go away.

But you have to work really hard to make a hiccup deliberate. Here’s how I would use Automaticity Interruptus on my friend, Mo:

Me: “Got the hiccups, huh?”

Mo: “Yeah – {hic}”

Me: “I’ll bet you $10 that you can’t hiccup after I start a rigorous technique on you. Don’t worry, you won’t get hurt and don’t even have to move. All you have to do is follow my orders.”

Mo: “OK”

Me: “When I say “go” I want you to hiccup as quickly as you can”

Mo: “OK {hic}”

Me: “GO! Hiccup NOW! C’mon. Do it NOW! Quick. I want you to REALLY TRY to hiccup. I dare you. I double dare you. I TRIPLE DOG DARE you! What’s the matter? Just DO IT. Hiccup damnit!”

Mo: "Gosh, Chris, you're amazing! How is it that someone can be so sharp and good looking?"

The “patient,” Mo, will NOT be able to hiccup under conditions of strained, deliberate effort. No matter how hard they (or you) try, you can’t hiccup on command. Try it now. You can’t do it. AND if you try it even when you already have the hiccups, you can’t do it.

But you have to REALLY TRY to hiccup. Give it your full attention.

This will flip an automatic behavior to a controlled one. And no one can hiccup by simply trying (eating a dozen donuts doesn’t count).

This technique is the driving force behind the downfall many experts with highly skilled behavior when put in a stressful situation. “Icing the kicker.” "Game winning free-throw." Even simple acts like, “breathe normally” get twisted when a lot of deliberate effort steps in.

Automaticity Interruptus.

Psychology at work.

Stop thanking your team

Notebook with handwriting to suggest that the leader stop thanking the team so much

Most leaders don’t know it, but the way they’re thanking their team is actually self- and team-defeating. Before making an error that is at best as useful as watering the ocean, or at worst as appreciated as making a “tiny correction” to the Mona Lisa, stop thanking your team.

Here’s why.

People want to make a difference. It’s what defines and realizes us. To everyone besides your mom, you are what you do. Even in a team people want to know that they, personally, are making a meaningful contribution. It’s not just the most motivation a person can have – it’s the only true motivation there is (Hertzberg, 1959). One of the biggest problems leaders have is thanking their team too much.

You have this problem, too.

When you thank someone for their work, you think you’re expressing genuine appreciation. But “genuine” is in the eye of the beholder. And for 90% of the “thanks” out there, you’re not doing it right (authentically). In fact, you’re actually making things worse.

To be a great leader you’ve got to stop thanking your team – at least the way most do. Most feel an irrepressible need to add on to “thanks” with some thoughts of their own.

Bad move.

stop at "thanks."

If anything more than gratitude is expressed, all they’ll hear is “BUT.” Just stop at “thanks.”

With one exception.

Your thanks will be most impactful if you are able to fully subordinate yourself to the other’s act or idea.

Your thanks will be most impactful if you are able to fully subordinate yourself to the other’s act or idea. The best way to do this is with a simple nod that says “tell me more.” (Or you can actually say the words).

Next to making a difference, and actually a form of it, people need to feel a sense of power. Not necessarily via pure dominance, but yes, by some means of rising above others. High potential workers are especially motivated by power. The power to make a difference through others.

So, why does thanking your team actually demotivate them?

First – You’re recognizing the obvious

You demote and demean the high potential by thanking them for something that they feel is their normal order of business. It’s like telling someone, “Thanks, Mary. You’re very articulate.” To most this is a “left-handed” compliment at best, judgement in disguise. To some it’s an outright slap in the face.

NEVER thank someone for something that the target of thanks believes is an innate capability of theirs. I use the word, “thank” but the general act is one of praise. Be very careful that when you allocate praise that it is for something truly extraordinary. Something you REALLY appreciate, as in, “you really saved my @ss”.

Second – You’re improving "good enough"

You hijack – or “seize and one up” the individual’s contribution. Yep, by thanking someone you are basically saying, “I know that was a valuable contribution because I already know {have done, etc), ….”

Have you ever edited someone else’s email? (you know what I'm talking about then)

This may be a bit of a stretch presented as is. Let me offer another example to illustrate the harm in “blessing” another’s work.

TEAM MEMBER:  “We should put gears on the engine.”

LEADER:  “That's a great idea {because I gave it to you}. Thanks. That will also help us to make more ground rutabaga.”

TM to Self: {“I know it’s a great idea, Jughead, that’s what I deliver. Why can’t you leave it alone?”}

This power move takes (seizes) Team Member’s idea by acknowledging (“You’re right”) and taking it where it wasn’t going (hijacks it).

Don’t think you do this? Have you ever edited someone else’s email?

Moving on.

Third – You don’t really mean it

Some people are inveterate "Thankers." They thank someone for stepping on their toe. Over thanking is dilutive. The more you thank someone, the less they hear it or appreciate it (and you).

Did you know that you can stop your squawk box, I mean, “Alexa”, from repeating everything you tell it? Google it. I bet you will because you get sick of hearing your echo every time you give an order?

YOU:      “Alexa, turn on the lights.”

ALEXA: “Sure, I’ve turned on the lights.”

YOU:      “No duh. I can see that.”

ALEXA: “Sorry, I don’t know what you mean.”

Alexa’s no good-natured woman, she’s a heartless hockey puck.

You get sick of hearing the same words. You get sick of hearing the same intonation. You realize Alexa’s no good-natured woman, she’s a heartless hockey puck. (AI still has a long way to go).

Yep. This is what over thanking sounds like to your team – a hockey puck. Enough already!

The science of motivation (simple version of Victor Vroom's Expectancy Theory)

In Physics, Work = Force x Displacement.

In Psychology, Valued Work = Quality x Instrumentality. (this is a 3rd person derivative of V. Vroom, 1964)

People want to deliver value at work. Let them do it.

Properly motivated, most deliver a quality product that makes a difference. People want to deliver value at work. Let them do it. Don’t stick your finger in a humming machine. Save your gratitude for the truly unexpected result and avoid over engineering another's pride.

Oh. And thanks for being a good reader.


Google can’t solve all problems. For hands on expertise, get in touch with me at Talentlift. (You can click the word. It won’t send an email or make a call).