After two decades of implementing diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies across Fortune 500 companies and startups alike, I’ve witnessed a troubling pattern. Organizations invest thousands of dollars in personality assessments, hoping these tools will unlock team potential and enhance workplace culture. Yet many end up with filing cabinets full of personality reports that gather dust while team dynamics remain unchanged.
The truth is that personality tests can be transformative, but only when chosen strategically and implemented with clear DEI objectives. In my years leading organizational change initiatives, I’ve learned that the right assessment isn’t simply about categorizing employees. It’s about creating shared language, building psychological safety, and unlocking the unique contributions of every team member.
Before diving into specific tools, let’s ground ourselves in evidence. A 2023 study by the Society for Human Resource Management found that organizations using validated personality assessments during hiring reported 24% higher employee retention rates over three years. Meanwhile, research published in the Journal of Applied Psychology demonstrated that teams with shared understanding of personality differences showed 39% improvement in collaborative problem-solving.
These aren’t just numbers on a page. They represent real employees who feel understood, teams that communicate more effectively, and leaders who can create environments where diverse talents flourish. However, the same research warns that poorly selected or misused assessments can actually harm workplace culture by reinforcing stereotypes or creating rigid employee categories.
Through years of vetting assessment tools for developing comprehensive DEI strategies, I’ve established five non-negotiable criteria that separate valuable tools from expensive distractions.
First, the assessment must have robust psychometric validation. This means peer-reviewed research demonstrating reliability and validity across diverse populations. Too many popular workplace assessments lack this foundation, which becomes particularly problematic when working with diverse teams representing multiple cultural backgrounds.
Second, results should illuminate strengths rather than pathologize differences. The best assessments help employees understand their natural preferences and contributions rather than labeling them as problematic or deficient. This strengths-based approach aligns perfectly with equity-focused talent development.
Third, practical applicability matters more than theoretical sophistication. Can managers actually use these insights in daily interactions? Do team members find the framework memorable and actionable? An assessment that produces beautiful reports but no behavior change is simply expensive shelf decoration.
Fourth, the tool must resist oversimplification while remaining accessible. Human personality is complex, and any assessment reducing it to four categories or a single dimension will miss crucial nuances. Yet overly complex frameworks overwhelm users and fail to gain traction.
Finally, cultural adaptability is essential. Assessments developed and normed exclusively on Western populations often carry hidden biases that undermine inclusion efforts. Given that intersectionality shapes how people experience workplace dynamics, culturally responsive tools are non-negotiable.
Let’s address the elephant in every HR conference room. The MBTI remains wildly popular despite significant criticism from organizational psychologists. Based on Jungian concepts of psychological types, it categorizes individuals into 16 personality types using four dichotomies: Extraversion/Introversion, Sensing/Intuition, Thinking/Feeling, and Judging/Perceiving.
The appeal is obvious. MBTI provides an accessible framework that people find engaging and memorable. Colleagues bond over discovering they’re both INFJs or debating whether someone is truly a Perceiver or just disorganized. This shared language can facilitate conversations about work style preferences.
However, the scientific foundation is shakier than most users realize. Research consistently shows that 50% of people receive different type classifications when retaking the test just five weeks later. The forced-choice format also creates artificial dichotomies rather than recognizing that most traits exist on continuums.
From a DEI perspective, my bigger concern is how MBTI can inadvertently reinforce stereotypes. I’ve watched hiring managers dismiss candidates as “too introverted” for leadership roles or team members use their type as an excuse to avoid growth opportunities. When assessments become permission slips to stay in comfort zones rather than catalysts for development, they undermine inclusion.
If your organization is deeply invested in MBTI, focus on using it as a conversation starter about preferences rather than a definitive categorization system. And never, ever use it for hiring decisions or performance evaluations.
Also known as the Five-Factor Model or OCEAN (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism), the Big Five represents decades of psychological research into personality structure. Unlike proprietary assessments, the Big Five is based on factor analysis of thousands of personality descriptors across cultures.
This scientific foundation translates into real workplace value. Research published in Personnel Psychology found that conscientiousness predicts job performance across virtually all occupations, while openness to experience correlates with creativity and adaptation to change. A 2022 meta-analysis spanning 68 countries confirmed the cross-cultural validity of the five-factor structure, making it suitable for globally distributed teams.
Several validated instruments measure the Big Five, including the NEO Personality Inventory and the IPIP-NEO. These assessments provide dimensional scores rather than rigid categories, acknowledging that personality traits exist on spectrums. Someone isn’t simply extraverted or introverted; they fall somewhere along a continuum that may shift slightly depending on context.
For DEI leaders, the Big Five offers valuable insights without creating limiting labels. Understanding that a team member scores lower on extraversion can prompt thoughtful inclusion strategies that ensure introverts’ voices are heard in meetings dominated by more outgoing colleagues. Recognizing varying levels of conscientiousness helps managers provide appropriate structure and support.
The challenge with the Big Five is that it feels less exciting than personality types with catchy names. Employees rarely bond over comparing agreeableness scores the way they might over sharing MBTI types. Implementation requires intentional translation of dimensional scores into practical insights about communication styles, stress responses, and collaboration preferences.
Gallup’s CliftonStrengths (formerly StrengthsFinder) takes a fundamentally different approach by identifying an individual’s top talent themes from 34 possibilities. Rather than measuring personality traits, it focuses on innate patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving that can be productively applied.
This strengths-based philosophy aligns beautifully with equity-focused talent management. Instead of trying to fix weaknesses or force everyone into the same mold, StrengthsFinder helps individuals and teams leverage their natural gifts. A 2021 Gallup study found that teams who received strengths-based development showed 19% increased sales and 29% increased profit.
In practice, StrengthsFinder creates remarkably productive conversations. When team members understand that their colleague’s “Deliberative” theme isn’t about being negative but about carefully considering risks, friction decreases. When managers recognize that someone with strong “Ideation” needs time for brainstorming while someone with “Focus” needs clear priorities, task assignments become more effective.
The assessment has also shown strong validity across cultural contexts. Gallup has administered the tool to over 27 million people worldwide, with research supporting its utility across 70 countries and 45 languages. This makes it particularly valuable for organizations committed to fostering truly inclusive environments that honor diverse working styles.
My main caution with StrengthsFinder is that it can become too narrowly focused on individual talents at the expense of team development. Organizations need to intentionally bridge from personal strengths to collective capabilities. Additionally, while the tool acknowledges areas outside one’s top themes exist, there’s sometimes insufficient attention to developing critical competencies that may fall into these zones.
DISC measures four behavioral dimensions: Dominance, Influence, Steadiness, and Conscientiousness. Unlike deeper personality assessments, DISC focuses on observable behaviors and communication preferences, making it exceptionally practical for improving daily workplace interactions.
What I appreciate most about DISC is its immediate applicability. Team members can learn their primary style and immediately adjust how they communicate with colleagues who have different profiles. Someone with high Dominance who prefers direct, results-focused communication can recognize that their colleague with high Steadiness needs more context and relationship-building.
DISC has become popular in sales training and customer service contexts because it helps employees adapt their approach to different personality styles. This flexibility is valuable, but it requires careful framing within DEI initiatives. The goal isn’t for certain groups to constantly adapt to dominant workplace norms, but rather for everyone to develop flexibility and awareness.
Research on DISC validation is more mixed than for the Big Five or StrengthsFinder. While numerous organizations report positive outcomes, independent peer-reviewed studies are less abundant. The simplicity that makes DISC accessible also means it may miss important personality nuances captured by more comprehensive assessments.
For workplace implementation, DISC works best as a communication tool rather than a comprehensive personality assessment. It’s particularly effective for teams needing immediate improvement in collaboration and conflict resolution, though it should be supplemented with deeper developmental tools for long-term growth.
The Enneagram identifies nine interconnected personality types, each with distinct motivations, fears, and patterns of behavior. Originally developed in ancient wisdom traditions and refined through modern psychology, it has gained significant traction in workplace contexts over the past decade.
What distinguishes the Enneagram is its focus on underlying motivations rather than just behaviors or preferences. Understanding whether someone is driven by a need for perfection (Type One), connection (Type Two), or achievement (Type Three) provides insight into what truly energizes or stresses them. This depth supports more empathetic leadership and stronger team cohesion.
In my work with executive teams, the Enneagram has proven particularly valuable for leadership development and conflict resolution. When leaders understand their own blind spots and defensive patterns, they can work more intentionally on growth areas. The framework’s emphasis on integration and disintegration under stress also helps teams navigate challenging periods more skillfully.
However, the Enneagram requires more investment than simpler assessment tools. Understanding the nine types, their wings, and their integration and disintegration patterns takes time. Organizations need to commit to thorough training and ongoing reflection rather than expecting quick fixes from a one-time assessment.
The scientific validation of the Enneagram is also less robust than tools like the Big Five. While several studies show positive outcomes, the research base is smaller and the tool’s ancient origins mean it wasn’t developed using modern psychometric methods. Organizations prioritizing evidence-based approaches may find this concerning.
For DEI leaders, the Enneagram’s value lies in its capacity to build empathy and self-awareness. It can be particularly powerful when combined with more scientifically validated tools, using the Enneagram for deep personal development while relying on other assessments for hiring or performance management decisions.
No single personality test will transform your workplace culture. The key is selecting tools aligned with your specific objectives and implementing them within a broader DEI strategy that prioritizes equity and inclusion.
Start by clarifying your goals. Are you trying to improve team communication? Identify leadership potential? Reduce hiring bias? Different objectives call for different tools. The Big Five might be appropriate for hiring processes, while DISC could better serve immediate team development needs.
Consider your organizational culture and employee preferences. Some workplaces embrace psychological frameworks enthusiastically, while others are more skeptical. Tech companies might appreciate the data-driven rigor of the Big Five, while creative agencies might connect more with the Enneagram’s nuanced approach. Success depends on cultural fit as much as technical validity.
Invest in proper implementation and ongoing support. I’ve seen brilliant assessment tools fail because organizations administered them once, shared results, and moved on. Lasting impact requires training facilitators, creating opportunities for teams to discuss insights, and integrating personality awareness into regular management practices. This is particularly crucial when working on developing inclusive workplace cultures where ongoing dialogue matters more than one-time insights.
Never use personality assessments as screening tools for hiring or promotion decisions. This practice raises serious legal and ethical concerns, potentially violating employment law and certainly undermining inclusion efforts. Assessments should support development and understanding, not become gatekeeping mechanisms.
Finally, combine personality insights with systemic change efforts. Understanding team members’ communication preferences helps, but it cannot substitute for addressing pay inequity, removing advancement barriers, or challenging exclusionary practices. Personality assessments are one tool in a comprehensive DEI toolkit, not a silver bullet solution.
The most powerful outcome of workplace personality assessments isn’t the insights into individual team members, though those matter. It’s the shared language and framework these tools provide for discussing differences constructively.
When teams have vocabulary to discuss varying work styles, communication preferences, and stress responses, they can navigate conflicts more productively. Instead of judging a colleague as difficult or problematic, team members can recognize different personality styles at play and adjust their approach accordingly. This is inclusion in action: creating environments where diverse individuals can contribute fully without forcing conformity.
The right personality assessment, thoughtfully implemented within a comprehensive DEI strategy, helps build the psychologically safe, inclusive cultures where innovation thrives and every employee can bring their full self to work. That outcome is worth far more than the assessment investment.
Through careful selection, proper implementation, and integration with broader inclusion efforts, personality assessments can move from expensive checkbox exercises to genuine catalysts for organizational transformation. Your role as a DEI leader is to ensure these tools serve inclusion rather than inadvertently undermining it.
The Diverseek podcast aims to create a platform for meaningful conversations, education, and advocacy surrounding issues of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging in various aspects of society.