Enhancing Self-Assessment and Management Potentials by Modifying Option Selections on Hartman’s Personality Test

Various personality profile tests are used to identify
personality strengths and limits in individuals, helping both
individuals and managers to optimize work and team effort in
organizations. One such test, the Hartman’s personality profile,
emphasizes four driving "core motives" influenced or affected by
both strengths and limitations classified into four colors: Red -
motivated by power; Blue - discipline and loyalty; White - peace; and
Yellow – fun loving. Two shortcomings of Hartman’s personality test
are noted; 1) only one selection for every item / situation allowed and
2) selection of an item / option even if not applicable. A test taker
may be as much nurturing as he is opinionated but since
“opinionated” seems less attractive the individual would likely select
nurturing, causing a misidentification in personality strengths and
limits. Since few individuals have a “strong” personality, it is
difficult to assess their true personality strengths and limits allowing
only one choice or requiring unwanted choices, undermining the
potential of the test. We modified Hartman’s personality profile
allowing test takers to make either multiple choices for any item /
situation or leave them blank if applicable. Sixty-eight participants
(38 males and 30 females), 17 - 49 years old, from countries in Asia,
Europe, N. America, CIS, Africa, Latin America, and Oceania were
included. 58 participants (85.3%) reported the modified test, allowing
multiple / no choices better identified their personality strengths and
limits, while 10 participants (14.7%) expressed the original (one
choice version) was sufficient. The overall results show that our
modified test enhanced the identification and balance of core
personalities’ strengths and limits, aiding test takers, managers and
organizations to better assess individual characteristics, particularly
useful in making task-related, teamwork, and management decisions.

• Daniel L. Clinciu
• Ikrom Abdulaev
• Brian D. Oscar

• Organizational behavior
• personality tests
• personality limitations
• personality strengths
• task management
• team work.

[1] Just, C. 2011. A review of literature on the general factor of personality.
Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 765-771.
[2] Barrick, M. R. &Mount, M. K. 1991. The Big Five Personality
Dimensions and Job Performance: a Meta-Analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 44, 1-26.
[3] British Psychological, S. 2005. Psychological Testing Centre
[4] Bergh, Z. C. &Theron, A. L. 2006. Psychology in the work context.
Halfway House: International Thompson Publishing.
[5] Black, K. R. 1994. Personality Screening in Employment. American
Business Law Journal, 32, 69.
[6] Muller, J. &Schepers, J. 2003. The predictive validity of the selection
battery used for junior leaders training within the South African National
Defense Force. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29, 87-
98.
[7] Theron, C. 2009. The diversity-validity dilemma: In search of minimum
adverse impact and maximum utility. South African Journal of Industrial
Psychology, 35, 1-13.
[8] Paterson, H. & UYS, K. 2005. Critical issues in psychological test use in
the South African workplace. South African Journal of Industrial
Psychology, 31, 12-22.
[9] van Der Merwe, R. P. 2002. Psychometric testing and human resource
management. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 28, 77-86.
[10] Sullivan, P. 2005. Psychometric Tests. UK Financial Times Newspaper.
[11] Moerdyk, A. 2009. The principles and practice of psychological
assessment. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.
[12] Carretta, R. T. &Ree, M. J. 2003. Pilot selection methods. Principles and
practice of aviation psychology, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc. , 357-396.
[13] Stabile, S. J. 2002. The Use of Personality Tests as a Hiring Tool: Is the
Benefit Worth the Cost? U. Pa. Journal of Labor and Employment Law,
4.
[14] Schermer, J. A., Carswell, J. &Jackson, S. 2012. Correlations between a
general factor of personality and employment measures.
[15] Bates, T. C. &Rock, A. 2004. Personality and information processing
speed: Independent influences on intelligent performance. Intelligence,
32, 33-46.
[16] Moutafi, J., Furnham, A. &Paltiel, L. 2005. Can personality factors
predict intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1021-
1033.
[17] O'neill, T. A., Lee, N. M. &Law, S. J. 2013. The impact of ‘‘nontargeted
traits’’ on personality test faking, hiring, and workplace
deviance. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 162-168.
[18] Chamorro-Premuzic, T. &Furnham, A. 2003. Personality predicts
academic performance: Evidence from two longitudinal university
samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 319-338.
[19] Jacobs, K. E., Szer, d. &Roodenburg, J. 2012. The moderating effect of
personality on the accuracy of self-estimates of intelligence. Personality
and Individual Differences, 52, 744-749.
[20] Brandstatter, H. 1997. Becoming an entrepreneur- a question of
personality structure? Journal of Economic Psychology, 18, 157-177.
[21] Leutner, F., Ahmetoglu, G., Akhtar, R. &Chamorro-Premuzic, T. 2014.
The relationship between the entrepreneurial personality and the Big
Five personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 63.
[22] Markman, G. &Baron, R. A. 2003. Person–entrepreneurship fit: why
some people are more successful as entrepreneurs than others. Human
Resource Management Review, 13, 281-301.
[23] Dvir, D., Sadeh, A. &Malach-Pines, A. 2010. The fit between
entrepreneurs' personalities and the profile of the ventures they manage
and business success: An exploratory study. Journal of High Technology
Management Research, 21, 43-51.
[24] http://www.mceachernhigh.org/member/teachers/class_documents/cjr17
190/Marketing%20Principles/Hartman%20Personality%20Test.pdf