I applied for a software role at FedEx and was asked to take a personality test
Job seekers recount being asked to complete lengthy personality tests, IQ-style quizzes and marathon coding sessions for software roles, including at FedEx, MongoDB, Canonical and other large firms. Many see these tools as pseudoscientific, biased, or simply screening for compliance rather than competence, and report walking away from offers over them. The thread contrasts such processes with simpler, conversation-based interviews that some claim yield better hires and raises concerns about wasted time, class and disability bias, data privacy, and a hiring culture that over-optimizes for the “perfect” candidate.
Use of personality tests in hiring
- Many commenters describe being given personality or “behavioral” tests (often Big Five–style or MBTI-like) for software and other roles, and generally view them as pseudoscientific, intrusive, or classist.
- Concerns include: collecting sensitive psychological data, unclear data handling, weak correlation with job performance, and the risk of indirectly filtering out neurodivergent or lower‑class candidates.
- Several note that these tests are easy to game; they mainly measure the ability and willingness to select the “expected” answers, not actual personality.
- Some companies reportedly use them defensively (documentation for HR / legal disputes) or as a way to signal and enforce cultural conformity.
Interview complexity and “hiring gauntlets”
- Many recount multi-hour or multi-round processes: long coding gauntlets, multiple live LeetCode sessions, 7–12 interviews, or unpaid take‑home projects.
- Several candidates walked away from roles at big tech or well-known companies because of excessive process length, unpaid work, or opaque compensation.
- Others report their best jobs came after short, focused conversations about experience and fit, with minimal or no formal testing.
Assessing technical competence
- There is sharp disagreement on how much interviewing is needed.
- One camp claims you can reliably weed out poor candidates in 10–60 minutes of technical conversation plus light coding.
- Another argues you need more structured coding or design exercises because resumes are embellished and many candidates can talk but not code.
- FizzBuzz-level failures are reported as common, especially for junior roles. Some see minimal coding screens as necessary; others think extended LeetCode sessions are wasteful and misaligned with real work.
Bias, legality, and ethics
- Several commenters worry that personality / IQ-like tests can have disparate impact along class or racial lines, even if they’re formally “neutral.”
- U.S. legal frameworks (e.g., ADA, “disparate impact”) and some state rules (e.g., California) are mentioned as potential constraints, but enforcement is seen as uneven.
- Personality and aptitude testing is compared to past abusive or eugenic uses of psychological tests.
Market effects and candidate behavior
- Some argue these hoops intentionally or effectively select for desperate, compliant candidates willing to endure hassle.
- Others choose to opt out on principle, using onerous processes as a negative signal about company culture, priorities, and management competence.