Work Evaluations and Personality-Type testing are tools meant to help those in leadership positions coach their employees to achieve success in both their career and life.  They are not to be used as an objective tool to REPLACE the leadership responsibility of the employer.

It is an unfortunate yet growing trend however that these tests have been misused as a method for "weeding out" potential candidates prior to employment or as a basis for termination.  An example of the most common misuse (and I am sure Isabel Briggs Myers and Katherine Cook Briggs roll in their graves everytime this occurs) is that hiring staff require potential employees to take a personality test.  1) The results of the tests might indicate that candidate A has such-and-such a personality type. 2) This personality type is shown to do well in sales.  3) The vacant position however is not sales it is for technology.  4) Therefore this candidate should be excluded from the interview process.

While it might be tempting especially with many resumes to use such a strategy during the hiring process it underscores three troubling points.  First, by relying on the test to determine if a candidate is a good fit for the job, it automatically takes the "leader" out of the hiring process all together.  Second, reliance upon the test leaves only like minded candidates, the result is a less diverse workforce which struggles to "think outside the box." 

The third point upon which the other two rely is based upon the testing procedures themselves.  Organization Development is an unregulated field.  Some employers and even colleges are under the impression that OD is a subfield of Human Resources and that any HR Generalist automatically has the qualifications to determinne what good OD practices are.  There are some schools which offer OD type programs, but examination of content of those programs reveal that they themselves have not critically evaluated the sources used in coursework.

Some personality type tests which at first glance seem to have impressive credentials (such as, but definitely not limited to Profiles International, Inc. and StrengthsFinder) are, upon critical (or even journalistic) examination, based upon dubious methodolgies.  In the case of the former, the "control group" is based upon the profiles of the existing corporate culture (exposing the lack of diversity issue) and the latter test takers can easily manipulate the test to achieve whichever result they desire.  In reality an employer is just as well off using a much cheaper alternative like an Internet test such as"Which Gilmore Girl are You?"

Work evaluations: 

I will speak as it pertains to teaching evaluations.  Very often these evaluations are given to students only at the end of each semester.  They usually ask students to evaluate the teachers and the class.  Already it should be apparent why this is a bad idea for determining the efficiency of the teacher – Student Subjectivity 1) Each students has a uniquely different learning method 2) Some students might be accostomed to level of work expected, others might think its too much or irrelevant.  3) Students might not be aware of the purpose/relevence behind many of the assignments, readings, discussions etc.  4) Students are probably not asked how much effort they themselves put into the class.

If student evaluations of teachers are used a the sole benchmark for retaining faculty, then it would seem that those teachers who provided "entertainment" value might end up being the only ones retained.  If it is the schools intention to sell diplomas over having the students earn diplomas via demonstrated education, then so be it. (more on this to come)