 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
« Back to the July/August 2005 Explorer newsletter
BEST PRACTICES
A Cautionary Note on Using Graphology for Hiring and Promoting Employees
By Mark C. Healy, De Anza College
Hiring and recruitment experts can choose from a variety of tools to help bring in or promote the right person for a job. From personality inventories to structured interviews, simulations to mechanical reasoning tests, many methods are available to companies interested in systematically improving their hiring and leadership succession procedures.
One of the more intriguing options for hiring and promotional systems is graphology, also known as “handwriting analysis.” Specifically, a company may solicit and analyze a handwriting sample from a job candidate much in the same way a resume is reviewed or a test is administered. However, unlike the vast array of tried-and-true techniques available, graphology is likely to have no effect on the quality of new hires, and may even do more bad than good.
The past year has witnessed somewhat of a rebirth for this tool, with a relative flood of media attention1 placing a spotlight on this misunderstood field. The most popular story in 2004 featured Ron Shaw, CEO of Pilot Pen, who announced that he had retained New York Graphologist and author Sheila Kurtz as his “Chief Handwriting Officer” so that he might improve the quality of his new hires. Thus, the summer of 2005 seems a perfect time to assess the merits of using graphology as a method for hiring or promoting employees.
Trained graphologists utilize a sample of a job candidate’s handwriting to help organizations make hiring and placement decisions. Most analyze handwriting features such as the slant of individual letters, curvature and angularity, the width and pressure of the lines, and the size of the letters. In addition, some analysts make a judgment based on a general impression of one’s writing. Depending on the school of graphology they subscribe to, they discern somewhere between a dozen and several hundred personality traits, behavioral tendencies, and work success indices.
Based on their analysis, the graphologist provides a verbal and/or written summary of the applicant’s characteristics to the organization, and, in some cases, will give a “hire/don’t hire” recommendation to the hiring manager. In this way, a recommendation by the analyst, or a score on the handwriting analysis, is similar to impressions gathered via an interview or passing or failing to reach a cutoff score on a standardized test.
The practice of graphology is said to date back to China around 1000 A.D., and its history of use in Europe is often dated back to Camillo Baldi, who wrote a book about handwriting analysis in the early 1600’s. Today, its most conventional and acceptable use is in detecting forgeries or determining the identity of a writer.
The use of graphology in business is not new or particularly rare. Apparently, thousands of US firms2 have used it for a variety of human resource programs. Still, European companies are much more likely than American companies to require a handwriting analysis, with France a particularly common setting. UK graphologist Nigel Bradley’s web site3 provides a list of hundreds of well-known companies who have allegedly used graphology. Regardless of the estimates of usage, graphologists suggest that these numbers are an underestimate because firms do not want to admit they use handwriting analysis.
Should your organization use handwriting analysis as a hiring or promotional tool? Does it improve your ability to accurately select and promote the right employees? As intriguing as it is, the hard evidence tends to side against its use. Here’s why:
Handwriting does not indicate personality or behavior.
Handwriting analysts utilize systems or schools-of-thought that match features of one’s writing to personality traits or behavioral tendencies. However, specific features of handwriting have never been scientifically linked to specific personality traits or specific behaviors. Moreover, graphologists often disagree with one another on the actual systematic links between handwriting features and personality traits. Dozens of different systems are utilized.
Specific handwriting characteristics have no demonstrated link to job performance.
There is a distinct lack of evidence that substantiates the link between certain handwriting features and success on the job. This is the notion of “validity”, or hiring accuracy. Unfortunately, most analysts don’t observe actual job applicants on the job, and don’t quantitatively verify their findings either. To be sure, few legitimate studies have revealed a significant statistical link between handwriting features and job performance.
However, there is a substantial scientific literature that disputes the alleged link between handwriting and on-the-job performance. Frank Schmidt and Jack Hunter, in their oft-cited meta-analysis of the validity of all selection and assessment tools4, pegged the validity of graphology at zero. Moreover, compared to interviews, tests, simulations, and other hiring devices, graphology ranked at the bottom of the list. In other words, every other possible hiring tool was found to be more valid and accurate than graphology.
To be fair, a few European studies5 over the past several decades have revealed a statistical connection between the recommendations of graphologists and supervisor ratings of job performance. It is within the realm of possibility that this small body of research indicates validity because they may use a system that does actually predict job performance.
Applicants may be put off by handwriting analysis.
John Hausknecht and his colleagues at Penn State6 recently summarized the scientific literature regarding job applicants’ feelings about various hiring procedures and tools. A job applicant’s opinion of a company’s hiring procedures has serious implications for its ability to attract the best and brightest workers, perceptions of professionalism and competence, and the company’s image in general.
Hausknecht’s team found– much like the Schmidt and Hunter study mentioned above – that graphology ranked at the very bottom. Specifically, job applicants consistently rated graphology as the least fair or job related tool they encountered in hiring situations, mostly because it bears so little relation to actual job duties.
Legal Defensibility
Due to the evidence cited above, companies may face an uphill battle if they need to defend the use of graphology in a regulatory review or litigious situation. Practitioners of graphology simply cannot provide acceptable evidence required by the courts. Conversely, a plaintiff’s attorney and any credible expert witness could easily provide scientific evidence against the use of graphology for making employment decisions.
Heavy consultant involvement
As graphologists themselves point out, it takes years of training to adequately perform a handwriting analysis. Therefore, transfer of skills to in-house HR and recruiting staff would probably not be feasible. Graphology appears impossible to automate, and it would seem unlikely that a company could improve the efficiency of the process, an important consideration in modern hiring and recruitment systems.
But is this a fair critique? Graphologists have a deep belief in their craft, and the relatively high rate of use in Europe might infer credibility and professionalism. One handwriting analyst told the author that he simply knows that it works, completely removes the guesswork from hiring, and is “100% brain direct.” But like most of his colleagues, he offered no actual evidence of these claims, nor was he inclined to locate any.
Of course, the results and recommendations of graphologists have been evaluated just as easily and routinely as common hiring tools such as tests and interviews. But graphologists seem to feel that the methodology used to assess the effectiveness of other hiring tools is not applicable to their trade, that it somehow does not capture graphology’s value to organizations. Therefore, most graphologists dismiss the practice of (or need for) mainstream scientific verification. Some graphologists even suggest that personnel selection experts criticize graphology because they comprise a protectionist field and don’t want companies to know about graphology because their livelihood is threatened by it.
There may come a time when a specific method of handwriting analysis evolves into a reliable and valid method for enhancing the selection of employees. However, the most objective evidence to date suggests that companies steer clear of using graphology for hiring or promotional purposes.
References
- Ellin, A. (2004, July 18). What your handwriting says about your career. New York Times.
- Uncredited (1997, Fall). The Legal Implications of Graphology. Washington University Law Review, 75(3).
- Bradley, N. Users of Graphology. Retrieved from: http://www.win.ac.uk/marketingresearch/graphusersnames.htm
- Schmidt, F.L., & Hunter, J.E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.
- See, for example, Sonnemann, U., & Kernan, J. (1962). Handwriting analysis – a valid selection tool? Personnel, 39, 8-14.
- Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D.V., & Thomas, S.C. (2004). Applicant reactions to selection procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 57, 639-684.
About the Author
Mark C. Healy is a consultant, teacher, and writer based in Oakland, California. He assists companies with the development of their human capital strategy and designs hiring, leadership development, and training programs. His recent clients include Genentech, Market-Up, and Wachovia Bank. He is affiliated with Integral Talent Solutions of Palo Alto, California, and Rocket-Hire in New Orleans, Louisiana. Mark has published articles in journals such as Personnel Psychology and Human Performance and has presented research at conferences of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology and the Decision Sciences Institute. He teaches General and Business Psychology at De Anza College in Cupertino, California. Mark received an MA in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from The University of Akron. He may be reached at MarkCHealy@aol.com.