What the...?

[cncpc]

Ok, is this an example of one too many weekend HR cum SCRUM training sessions staggering into an ad for an entry level pilot, working alone, in the middle of nowhere?

How far must the gap be between knowing what you get with a 200 hour pilot and thinking that "personality profiling" has any more importance in hiring than clean underwear?

personality profiling.png (18.49 KiB) Viewed 3729 times

[I WAS Pez]

I heard they pay $500!

[BTD]

"Per day?"

[The Hammer]

The joys of a pilot shortage. Operators might be trying to reduce the chance of hiring a "dud" for the position which at some places is an "apprenticeship" position not to mention just trying to avoid hiring a problem employee.

Aviation definitely has its share of "oddballs" and I'm only referring to the ones who made a career of it. Who knows about the many who spent the money and never got that 1st job. There was a time...

[goingnowherefast]

The trick is to hire people that make a good fit with the company. Call it "personality profiling" or whatever you want, but it's basically an interview. After spending 14 hours with the guy, is the captain going to want to kill him? Is he going to say stupid things to the passengers and cause a customer relations nightmare?

I'm glad they stated that the candidate needs 200 hrs though. It will eliminate all the CPL holders with only 100 hours total time.

[digits_]

I don't see the big fuss really. A company that wants to check out the personality of a employee? Oh boy... The horror!

[Cat Driver]

How do they do the personality profile of an applicant?

[Gannet167]

I wish there was more personality profiling. If the rest of the guys working there think you're a f@cking idiot, then at the end of your probation we can mutually agree that it's "not a good fit" and everyone can happily part ways. In this era of credntialism, it seems having boxes ticked can often be more valued than actually being able to do your damn job well and being a good member of the team.

[Cat Driver]

So can someone explain to me how they do personality profiling?

[goingnowherefast]

In an interview.

[cncpc]

In an interview.

That is a small part of it. There are a series of tests, like exams.

I've done them several times. Last one was for a Canadian carrier. Over two days.

[cncpc]

So can someone explain to me how they do personality profiling?

They look at your avatar. And then they look for any evidence on the web that you ever supported Trump.

[Cat Driver]

I would sure like to fly for him.

[Girl17]

Personality Profiling? Looks like madams Briggs and Meyers strike again! Well, at least we can see, as I have tried to tell you nonbelievers, that Mr. Jay Dilley, lately of Hawk Air, has landed on his feet!

[lucien_kane]

Where is the extract from??

[cncpc]

Where is the extract from??

It's from the Free Job Ads current page Aerial Inspection Pilot.

[RVR12]

Maybe it should be more like "Don't have to be crazy, but sure as hell helps"?

[Longtimer]

Nice thing about living in Canada, coupled with a pilot shortage, those who don't want to be profiled, don't have to apply.

[MrTurbine]

So can someone explain to me how they do personality profiling?

Ask him if they've killed anyone
See if he wears women's clothes to the interview
Check if he has a half decent sense of humour, in -40 weather. when you are a grunt on the ramp, you need it
Having a normal conversation with him to see if he's a decent relatable, patient person who will be a good addition to the face of the company, preferably people with a contagious smile



There's many ways to do this. I've had many duds sitting on the other seat over the years, some people are shitty pilots but absolutely fantastic people, some are great pilots with shitty personalities.
What I've learnt, you can always teach a person how to fly. But you can't teach a person to not be a douche.

[cncpc]

So can someone explain to me how they do personality profiling?

Ask him if they've killed anyone
See if he wears women's clothes to the interview

Would that be viewed negatively?

[Meatservo]

I think you guys might be getting this slightly wrong. Sure an interview could maybe be called "personality profiling" strictly speaking, but I think when it is specifically called that, they mean to subject you to something like this:

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-pers ... ti-basics/

...which, for better or for worse, tells you a lot about the people-management methods being put into practice at that company. What it tells me is that you are not simply going to have an interview with the chief pilot or the operations manager to see if you're a "good guy" or not. You're going to be sucked into an HR machine that will reduce some aspect of your personality, which is defined through your responses to dozens of somewhat ambiguous multiple-choice questions, to one of sixteen or so personality types, based on antiquated Jungian psychological principles from the early 20th century. The one thing I can't tell you is how this "information" gets used, but I suppose at worst it is implied that failing to fall into whichever personality type is deemed to be most suitable for the particular job may cause you to be passed over.

My objection to this particular management practice is that it does not seem to weed out weirdos and misfits at all, and I find it objectionable that the underpinning science behind the whole thing is kind of spurious at best. It seems to me to be a mis-application of a science that is above the grasp of those who use it, which is the kind of "nu-management" stuff that they discuss in seminars and lectures that HR people seem to love these days because it gives them something to work on besides actually getting to know the people they are handling.

I have seen this pseudo-scientific personality profiling being done at a lot of companies, and despite its antiquated principles, it is unfortunately regarded as "cutting-edge" by operational managers who would prefer the hiring process to be "hands-off".

Other than the fact that I consider it to be a kind of new-age witchcraft based on principles that real scientists have disregarded for decades, I can't say that I have ever seen it damage the prospects of an actual applicant. I would just say that because it doesn't really work, and serves no actual purpose, a lot of people who wouldn't have made it past the good old fashioned "interview with the chief pilot" are strung along unnecessarily either before or after the interview, and in some cases well into employment, when they are not particularly suitable in the first place.

It could be happening, but I have certainly never heard of someone who is otherwise qualified for a particular job being turned away because he is not an "ENTJ" type, or because he is a "ISFP" type.

Proponents claim that it's not meant to weed out applicants, but rather to give management some tools with which to better understand and relate to their employees individually. Personally I think the information goes into a file somewhere and is never looked at again, for all the good it would do you if it was, which is zero.

I have taken this thing a few times and I get a different "personality" each time.

[photofly]

Myers-Briggs testing has a pretty good rap among a lot of HR types. Everyone I know who has taken it is pretty consistent, although people do sometimes sit on the borderline between different results, and people's personalities and results shift over periods of time. Equally, everyone I know who has taken a test agrees it describes their strengths and weaknesses well.

If the information is used properly it can be helpful. If it goes into a file and is never looked at again then no harm is done.

What it won't tell you is who's a misfit, or who would make a good pilot. It doesn't tell you who smells, who snores, or who chews their food in a socially unacceptable manner. You'll need to invent other tests for that.

[cncpc]

I think you guys might be getting this slightly wrong. Sure an interview could maybe be called "personality profiling" strictly speaking, but I think when it is specifically called that, they mean to subject you to something like this:

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-pers ... ti-basics/

...which, for better or for worse, tells you a lot about the people-management methods being put into practice at that company. What it tells me is that you are not simply going to have an interview with the chief pilot or the operations manager to see if you're a "good guy" or not. You're going to be sucked into an HR machine that will reduce some aspect of your personality, which is defined through your responses to dozens of somewhat ambiguous multiple-choice questions, to one of sixteen or so personality types, based on antiquated Jungian psychological principles from the early 20th century. The one thing I can't tell you is how this "information" gets used, but I suppose at worst it is implied that failing to fall into whichever personality type is deemed to be most suitable for the particular job may cause you to be passed over.

My objection to this particular management practice is that it does not seem to weed out weirdos and misfits at all, and I find it objectionable that the underpinning science behind the whole thing is kind of spurious at best. It seems to me to be a mis-application of a science that is above the grasp of those who use it, which is the kind of "nu-management" stuff that they discuss in seminars and lectures that HR people seem to love these days because it gives them something to work on besides actually getting to know the people they are handling.

I have seen this pseudo-scientific personality profiling being done at a lot of companies, and despite its antiquated principles, it is unfortunately regarded as "cutting-edge" by operational managers who would prefer the hiring process to be "hands-off".

Other than the fact that I consider it to be a kind of new-age witchcraft based on principles that real scientists have disregarded for decades, I can't say that I have ever seen it damage the prospects of an actual applicant. I would just say that because it doesn't really work, and serves no actual purpose, a lot of people who wouldn't have made it past the good old fashioned "interview with the chief pilot" are strung along unnecessarily either before or after the interview, and in some cases well into employment, when they are not particularly suitable in the first place.

It could be happening, but I have certainly never heard of someone who is otherwise qualified for a particular job being turned away because he is not an "ENTJ" type, or because he is a "ISFP" type.

Proponents claim that it's not meant to weed out applicants, but rather to give management some tools with which to better understand and relate to their employees individually. Personally I think the information goes into a file somewhere and is never looked at again, for all the good it would do you if it was, which is zero.

I have taken this thing a few times and I get a different "personality" each time.

I did one for a well known northern carrier back a few years ago. They were just introducing that kind of thing because a professional manager had taken over and wasn't happy with the use of pilots in senior management. I was recommended for the position by the psychological evaluators, despite a finding of "only average" common sense. It dragged out and I eventually took another position, but I've heard there was considerable resistance to the idea that professional managers should be the managers. I've done similar tests before, personality, GMAT, LSAT, and they all seem to come out the same.

I agree with MS's comments above, although the last psychs I went to were serious professionals, they weren't witchdoctors.

I guess my point in the thread was "personality profiling" in a job with a 200 hour requirement?

[photofly]

Just for clarity, a Myers-Briggs test doesn't evaluate your "common sense" as being above, equal to, or below average.

[Meatservo]

I think there are pros and cons to professional managers versus industry professionals doing the managing. My objection to professional managers is that all too often they take the haughty viewpoint that their management education gives them an all-encompassing wisdom when it comes to any and all aspects of running the business. My objection to pilot-managers is the opposite- that they tend to write off legitimate business principles as unnecessary considerations in their decision-making, and their lack of management training makes them more susceptible to nepotism and vindictive behaviour. Both types of managers can succeed if they have some humility, and some real leadership potential, which does not come from a textbook, but comes from experience and an honest attempt to get to know the people they are managing. Neither of these things can be short-gated through paint-by-numbers systems like the Myers-Briggs.

Interestingly, it WAS originally conceived of as an "easy" way to tell if someone was suitable to be a pilot, during the war. I think the reason some people who have taken the test may consider it to have been a useful exercise is because in a group setting it can be kind of fun, like that little folded-paper thing that kids make to tell their fortunes, or like the mannequin in a box that will tell you something astonishing if you put a coin in. Or like a horoscope. If there's something you dearly want to see written there about yourself, you'll find a way to see it.

I suppose at best, it's harmless. Personally, I think its "good rap" among HR types is attributable to the "Emperor's new clothes" phenomenon.

Certainly I have caught myself believing that there are a finite number of personalities in the world. I have often remarked to myself that there are a lot of "Dougs" in the world, and not all of them are named "Doug" either. However, I favour a less lazy and more humanistic approach to relating to people. I think this blatant characterization is a mental trap that allows people to approach the business of handling human beings the same way they would approach the business of sorting fasteners, or processing E.I. claims.