Most recruiters use personality in one way: they picture the ideal candidate and look for people who match. This article argues for a better approach. Select deliberately for what you want, by exploring a candidate's strengths, and just as deliberately for what you don't want, by exploring their risks. Everyone has both. Searching for both gives a more accurate and more useful picture of how someone will really perform.

The problem with looking only for the ideal candidate

The traditional approach starts with a wish list: confident, organised, a team player, resilient. Interviewers then look for evidence that a candidate fits. It feels sensible, but it has three weaknesses.

• It only looks in one direction. Interviewers find the strengths they expect to find, and candidates naturally present those strengths. Possible risks are rarely explored, so they surface months later, once the person is in the job.

• It misses hidden strengths. A candidate who doesn't fit the picture may bring qualities the role would benefit from but that nobody thought to look for, such as a careful sceptic in a team of enthusiasts.

• It treats people as either right or wrong for the job. In reality, everyone has a mix of strengths and risks. The useful question is not "Is this person perfect?" but "Which strengths will they bring, which risks come with them, and can we live with and manage those risks?"

Strengths and risks are two sides of the same person

Personality research distinguishes between how people behave day to day and how they behave when stretched, stressed or under scrutiny. Everyday characteristics, measured by questionnaires built on the Big Five, are linked to performance across many jobs [1]. But Hogan and Hogan showed that some tendencies which are strengths in moderation can derail people when overused, especially under pressure [2]. A decisive leader may stop listening. A meticulous specialist may struggle to let go of work. A persuasive salesperson may overpromise.

These risks matter. Kaiser, LeBreton and Hogan found that such tendencies were linked to extreme leader behaviour, doing too much or too little of something, which colleagues rated as less effective [3]. A review by Spain, Harms and LeBreton concluded that these "dark side" characteristics predict important work outcomes and can add to what everyday personality measures predict on their own [4]. Looking at both sides gives a fuller and more accurate picture than looking at either alone.

A deliberate two-sided approach

Viewpoint's personality questionnaires are designed to be used together for exactly this purpose:

• Talent Dimensions (TDS) explores a candidate's strengths: how they typically work, relate to others, think, achieve and cope day to day. It measures 10 traits that matter at work, is registered with the British Psychological Society, and takes about 7 minutes.

• Development Dimensions (DDS) explores a candidate's risks: 8 traits that can become strengths or risks at work, especially under pressure, grouped into 4 CARE themes with 24 sub-scales. It takes about 10 minutes.

Used together, they let an interviewer ask two deliberate questions. What will this person do well, including strengths we hadn't thought of? And what might go wrong under pressure, and could we manage it?

A worked illustration

The following is a generic illustration written for this article, not a real profile.

Two finalists apply for a team leader role. The hiring manager's wish list says "confident, decisive, energetic".

Candidate A matches the wish list closely. Their TDS profile shows high energy and assertiveness. Their DDS profile, however, shows a strong tendency towards overconfidence under pressure. At interview, a question about a time they were wrong about a decision produces a vague answer, and the risk becomes clearer.

Candidate B looks less like the wish list: calmer, more considered. Their TDS profile shows strong planning and an unusually high score for supporting others, a hidden strength in a team that has lost several people recently. Their DDS profile suggests a risk of avoiding conflict under pressure. At interview, they describe a specific time they raised a difficult issue with a colleague, and how they prepared for it.

The traditional approach would probably favour Candidate A. A deliberate two-sided search shows that Candidate B brings a valuable hidden strength and has a risk they already recognise and manage. Neither candidate is perfect; one is a better bet for this team.

Putting it into practice

• Before you assess, agree which strengths the role really needs, and which risks would be hardest to live with in this team and context.

• Use TDS to identify strengths, including unexpected ones, and DDS to identify risks. Treat both as hypotheses to test, not conclusions.

• Use structured interview questions to explore both. Ask for real examples: when a strength made a difference, and when a risk showed up and how the candidate dealt with it. Structured interviews are among the most reliable selection methods [5].

• Decide whether each risk is one you can live with and manage, for example through the team around the person, their manager's style or development support.

• Never use a single score to rule someone in or out. Personality results describe tendencies, not destiny, and there are no pass marks.

• After appointment, use the same profiles for onboarding and development, so the person and their manager can build on strengths and manage risks from day one.

Conclusion

We all have strengths and risks. Recruitment that looks only for what it thinks it wants sees half the picture. Selecting deliberately for strengths and deliberately for risks is more accurate, because it tests what each candidate will really bring, and fairer, because it judges people as they are rather than against an imagined ideal.

See Talent Dimensions, Development Dimensions, our article on personality under pressure, or our guide to personality questionnaires in recruitment.

Frequently asked questions

Isn't it negative to look for risks?

No. Everyone has risks, and they are often the flip side of strengths. Exploring them openly gives candidates a fair chance to show how they manage them.

Should a high risk score rule a candidate out?

No. A risk is something to explore at interview and, if the person is appointed, to manage. The question is whether the risk can be lived with in that role and team.

What is a hidden strength?

A quality that wasn't on the original wish list but would help in the role or team. A strengths-based questionnaire such as TDS helps bring these to light.

Do I need both questionnaires?

Each is useful on its own, but using TDS and DDS together gives the most complete picture of strengths and risks.

References

1. Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26.
2. Hogan, R. & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: a view from the dark side. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1–2), 40–51.
3. Kaiser, R. B., LeBreton, J. M. & Hogan, J. (2015). The dark side of personality and extreme leader behavior. Applied Psychology, 64(1), 55–92.
4. Spain, S. M., Harms, P. & LeBreton, J. M. (2014). The dark side of personality at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S41–S60.
5. Levashina, J., Hartwell, C. J., Morgeson, F. P. & Campion, M. A. (2014). The structured employment interview: narrative and quantitative review of the research literature. Personnel Psychology, 67(1), 241–293.