The world of recruitment is changing rapidly, yet many organizations still rely on personality tests that have questionable scientific backing. Tools like Myers-Briggs (MBTI), DISC, and Enneagram have been around for decades, but are they truly effective in helping us understand who’s best suited for a role? Or are we just perpetuating outdated practices that don’t reflect the modern workplace?

In Denmark, these tests are still widely used—often to assess leadership potential or team dynamics—but the evidence supporting their predictive power is surprisingly weak. The Big Five Personality Traits, which has far more scientific grounding, is often overlooked because it’s too complex for the “quick fix” recruitment process many businesses want.

So, why do we still rely on tools that can’t accurately predict success, especially when we have so much more data at our disposal today? Is it because they’re easy to use? Because they fit into corporate training packages? Or is it simply inertia—doing what we’ve always done?

The Problem with Popular Personality Tests:

MBTI: Once a go-to for understanding team dynamics, MBTI has been criticized for its low reliability and lack of scientific validity. How can we trust a tool that categorizes us into 16 types, when these types can change over time?

DISC: Another popular test, DISC, is often used in recruitment, especially for sales roles. While it helps individuals understand behavior, it doesn’t give any real insight into a person’s ability to perform. It lacks predictive power, making it more about fitting a mold than actual success.

Enneagram: The Enneagram offers a deep dive into personal development but is more philosophical than scientific. Its use in hiring is not only questionable, but its lack of empirical support should be a red flag for anyone trying to make long-term hiring decisions based on it.

Big Five (OCEAN): Here’s where things get interesting. The Big Five personality traits are well-researched and scientifically supported. So why is it underused? Perhaps it’s because it’s more complex and harder to implement, or maybe it challenges the status quo.

But What’s the Real Question Here?

At the heart of it all, I’m not here to say that I have all the answers. What I want to do is question the current hiring process and invite you to question it with me. We know that personality tests are flawed—so what’s next? If we’re serious about creating better workplaces and hiring the right people, we need to rethink the way we evaluate candidates. And maybe, just maybe, the future lies in data-driven, performance-based assessments that go beyond just personality.

The Changing Nature of Work: Should We Even Be Talking About “Permanent Jobs”?

Another question to throw out there: Are permanent jobs even the right model anymore? With the rise of gig work, remote teams, and automation, we’re entering an era where job security as we know it may no longer exist. But how will this affect people’s lives, especially when banks base loans on stable incomes and long-term employment history?

As people move toward more flexible work, how will the economy shift? How will we redefine success and financial stability when traditional systems aren’t built for this new way of working?

This shift calls for a complete rethinking of how we assess people’s financial reliability, job performance, and future potential. And I don’t think any of us have the full answers yet—but we need to start thinking about it now.