The problem with 'personality'
Being ‘bubbly’ isn’t necessarily a great thing to ask for when preparing a job application form, writes Simon Allison
A brief visit to Tesco Express became an unexpectedly useful reminder of how difficult employers often find it to describe what they are looking for when recruiting staff. It also confirmed that, despite regular exposure to self-service tills, I remain poor at operating them.
During a slightly prolonged exchange with the machine, the same assistant came over three times, each time patient, calm and entirely untroubled by the fact that I appeared unable to complete a very ordinary transaction.
Having left the store, I returned because I had forgotten paracetamol and proceeded to fail to locate it in a shop small enough that this should not have been possible. Although busy, the same assistant did not point vaguely in the right direction but walked me to the correct counter. More notably, he managed all this without making me feel as though I was setting a new standard for unnecessary staff involvement.
That sort of interaction often prompts a familiar recruitment instinct: “We need someone with a good personality.” It sounds harmless enough, but legally it is not especially helpful.
The phrase “good personality” is vague, subjective and capable of meaning almost anything. One interviewer may mean cheerful and chatty. Another may mean confident, energetic or extroverted. Another may simply mean someone who feels immediately familiar.
That is where risk begins, because vague language often allows unconscious preference to pass as objective judgment.
A neurodivergent applicant might present differently at an interview, but still be highly effective with customers. A quieter candidate might not immediately project confidence yet may be better at listening, remaining calm and dealing with pressure. Cultural differences may also affect eye contact, tone, pace of speech or manner in ways that do not align neatly with one interviewer’s view of what a “good personality” looks like.
Under the Equality Act 2010, employers need to take care that recruitment criteria don’t disadvantage particular groups unless there is clear justification for doing so.
The better question is not: “Do they have a good personality?” It is: “Can they demonstrate the behaviours this role requires?”
In this case, the useful qualities were not abstract personality traits but observable behaviours: patience under pressure, calm communication, attentiveness, practical helpfulness and judgement when busy. Those are all things an employer can lawfully assess.
A job description can safely refer to communicating clearly with customers, responding helpfully to queries, remaining calm during busy periods and working courteously under pressure. That is very different from asking for someone bubbly, outgoing or naturally personable.
The assistant who helped me may well have had a naturally easy manner. But what mattered was what he actually did. He noticed what was needed, responded without fuss and did not treat a minor inconvenience as a reason to become abrupt.
That is usually where good customer service sits.
From a recruitment perspective, it is a useful reminder that employers should be cautious about personality labels. Some of the people least likely to score highly against a vague idea of “good personality” may turn out to be exactly the people customers value most.
In this case, the assistant’s approach was good enough that I later emailed Tesco customer support to say so – while also providing written evidence of how little aptitude I appear to have for the simplest supermarket self-service task. On reflection, I remain sufficiently embarrassed by the entire episode that changing my name and moving to Mexico still feels like a proportionate response.