I am an excellent employee. I have the resume, the references, and the documented accomplishments to prove it. Why then, I wonder, am I not "good enough" to pass the Unicru test?

According to an article in The Seattle Times, the Unicru test is designed to identify applicants with five "superior" personality traits: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to new experiences. For the most part, this seems completely reasonable. Who wouldn't want these qualities in an employee?

I will tell you why I do not pass the Unicru test. According to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, I am considered an introvert. Introverts only comprise about 25% of the population. Since introverts are the minority, could it stand to reason that the rest of the extroverted world might perhaps view us as defective in some way? If not, then why are introverts filtered OUT by the Unicru test- despite their qualifications, demeanor, etc- simply because of their social preferences? Introverted is not the same as anti-social! Myers-Briggs states: "Someone with a clear E (extraversion) preference is not necessarily a party animal or a show-off, any more than someone clearly preferring I (introversion) is necessarily shy, retiring and unsociable." Further, it is STRONGLY CAUTIONED that "because the MTBI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) is a measure of preference, not aptitude, and because there are no right or wrong types, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is NOT considered a proper instrument for purposes of employment selection. Many professions contain highly competent individuals of different types, with complementary preferences," and "the relevance of the MBTI for career planning has been questioned, with reservations about the relevance of type to job performance or satisfaction, and concerns about the potential misuse of the instrument in labelling individuals."

Personality testing as a means of candidate selection is a form of PREJUDICE. There are plenty of resources that can be used to evaluate job applicants. Whatever happened to good old fashioned credit and employment reference checks? Or here's a novel idea: Face to face interviewing! I think companies are making a big mistake and overlooking what could have been some of their best employees by being too lazy (or too cheap?) to "weed out" poor candidates on their own and instead relying on a computerized test to determine who is worth interviewing.

Speaking of prejudice, according to The Seattle Times, an applicant who "tends to vote for conservative political candidates" (yes, this is an actual question often on the test) would score low on the "open to new experiences" scale. Since when did we start blatantly discriminating against candidates based on political affiliation? I know my last employer claimed to not discriminate based on age, race, ethnic origin, political or religious affiliation, disability, etc.. When did it become acceptable for anyone to do so?

Oh, and apparently being honest is important to many employers as well. That's what I am, and that's why I'm not going to pretend that I'm an extrovert just to pass the ridiculous and biased Unicru test.

Sources (in addition to my own personal knowledge on the subject):
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2002343492_healthpersonality22.html
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator#Attitudes_.28E-I.29