Artificial Intelligence, Personality, and HR

| By TMA World

 

When looking at a set of trends for HR in 2016, I saw mention of an artificial intelligence tool called Personality Insights (PI).  Powered by IBM’s Watson, the tool analyses text written by an individual whose personality you are interested in.  According to the Watson Developer Cloud site, the tool can “Uncover a deeper understanding of people’s personality characteristics, needs and values to drive personalisation.”  ‘Personalisation’ is a current buzzword in our data-driven world, and the developers point to a number of potential applications:

• Fine-grained customer segmentation
• Better quality lead generation
• Better marketing design and product recommendations
• More personal and relevant customer care
• Better recruiting and placement

I’m sure PI and similar tools will prove very useful, but we should not get carried away.  Without sensible precautions, any tool like this can cause untold damage to organisations and individuals.
There is a demo site for PI so I decided to take the tool for a spin.  If the results are to be statistically significant, you need at least 3500 words, ideally 6000 (although you can still play with the demo if you have at least 100 words).

First, I entered an article I had written on Crossing Cultures, which is about 340 words in length.  I was a bit shaken when the first lines of the analysis said, “You are boisterous, explosive, and sentimental.”  OK, I’m sure I can be sentimental sometimes, but ‘boisterous’ and ‘explosive’?  I’m an off-the-scale introvert, and running a training class can drain me for hours.  As for ‘explosive’ – everyone who knows me says I am very calm with the patience of Job.  The feedback went on the say, “you have a hard time sticking with difficult tasks.”  Ask my colleagues if that is true of me!

Looking at the article I entered, I could see how Watson might have reached its conclusions.  In order make key points about the challenges of working across cultures, I had made some ‘in-you-face’ statements, like:

• I have an open mind.  No you don’t!
• I have no prejudices.  Oh yes you do!
• I don’t judge others.  What? Are you a saint?

Given the small number of words I had put in, and the style I had consciously adopted, I can see a certain rationale for the outcome.  This does, however, raise a red flag.  If you don’t have enough text from say a potential recruit, what kind of judgments would be valid. The tool did tell me my results were a “Weak Analysis.’  What if I had entered a small amount of text written by a colleague, and decided on their suitability for a position, or had put the analysis on social media for everyone to see (not that I would)? 
Next, I entered an article on Brexit (about 1300 words in length).    I could more easily identify with this analysis: Shrewd (canny, observant, sharp-witted, perceptive of motives) and Skeptical (not easily convinced, doubting, questioning).  I don’t think my colleagues and family would argue too much.  The feedback also said that I was unlikely to adapt to new situations which is a bit overstated in my ‘objective’ view; it could put off an employer who was thinking of me hiring me for any number of roles.

My final input was closer to the recommended 6000 words and came from my e-book ‘Matrix Working’

After looking at the feedback, my wife said, “That’s the man I know.”  While this feedback might be a truer reflection of my personality, I still want to be cautious; anything like this needs to be interpreted, and all interpretation is open to interpretation.  Below, I have reproduced the feedback, along with some of my notes (in italics). 

Summary
You are inner-directed (Some might interpret that as “He’s self-centered” or “He doesn’t work well on teams”) and skeptical (Skeptical might be interpreted as ‘cynical’ – always finding fault or he’s stubborn).
You are philosophical: you are open to and intrigued by new ideas and love to explore them (Could be interpreted as “He’s going to spend huge amounts of time ‘exploring’ and very little delivering on promises?” or “He’s not going to be Mr. Speedy!”) You are empathetic: you feel what others feel and are compassionate towards them (Could be interpreted as “He’s too soft to be a leader” or “Don’t look to him to make the hard decisions.”) And you are imaginative: you have a wild imagination (hmm . . . what does ‘wild’ mean?  Creative? Hopelessly impractical?).
You are motivated to seek out experiences that provide a strong feeling of organisation (I’m not exactly sure what that statement means. (I want to be given structure?  Most of the time I have to create my own structure!).  You are relatively unconcerned with tradition: you care more about making your own path than following what others have done (Could be interpreted as, “He’s a maverick.  You won’t be able to control him”). You consider achieving success to guide a large part of what you do: you seek out opportunities to improve yourself and demonstrate that you are a capable person (Could be interpreted as, “He’s insecure and always trying to prove himself” or “His ego and drive are going to make him very unpopular.”).

You are likely to______
Click on an ad (Rarely)
Follow on social media (Not that often)
Change careers (Not very often)

You are unlikely to______
Buy eco-friendly (Occasionally, if the product is good and ‘eco’ is not just marketing)
Reply on social media (I have been known to be neglectful)
Adapt to situations (I can adapt pretty well)

I wonder how my wife actually interpreted the feedback?

While welcoming another tool in the HR toolbox, let’s be wise.  No one tool should make our decisions for us.  We make very important decisions in HR, both for the organisation and the individuals we are putting under the microscope.

 Discover more about how our solutions can position you for success here

Keep in touch for the all the latest news and insights on getting results in today’s workplace