“Are you an introvert or an extrovert?” The 16-type personality test MBTI, which was trending in South Korea, has become highly popular in Taiwan. Beyond serving as a tool for self-reflection or a conversation starter when meeting new people, some companies have begun experimenting with the use of
“Are you an introvert or an extrovert?” The 16-type personality test MBTI, which was trending in South Korea, has become highly popular in Taiwan. Beyond serving as a tool for self-reflection or a conversation starter when meeting new people, some companies have begun experimenting with the use of MBTI results as part of their recruitment screening process. Interviewers may ask candidates, “What is your MBTI type?” or even require applicants to list their MBTI type on their resumes, sparking debate over which MBTI profiles are most favored by employers.
However, employers’ inquiries about MBTI during interviews may be unlawful. Article 5, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 2 of the Employment Service Act prohibits employers, in the course of recruitment or employment, from requiring job applicants or employees to provide “personal information that is not necessary for employment” against the applicant’s or employee’s will. According to Article 1-1 of the Enforcement Rules of the Employment Service Act, the term “personal information” includes three types of information: (1) physiological information, such as genetic test, medication test, medical treatment tests, HIV tests, IQ tests and fingerprints; (2) psychological information, such as psychological tests, honesty tests, or polygraph examinations; and (3) personal life style information, such as credit records, criminal records, pregnancy plans, or background checks. Employers who violate this provision may be subject to administrative fines ranging from NT$60,000 to NT$300,000.
There have been prior cases in which employers asked about applicants’ birth charts or zodiac signs during interviews and were fined NT$60,000 by the Taipei City Department of Labor for questions deemed unrelated to job requirements. Although labor authorities have not yet issued a specific ruling regarding inquiries into MBTI, MBTI is, by its nature, a form of psychological testing. If an applicant does not consent to providing such information, and the employer cannot demonstrate a legitimate and reasonable connection between MBTI results and the job in question, insisting on disclosure may fall within the scope of prohibited conduct under the Employment Service Act.
Statements such as “J-types preferred; P-types not considered,” or decisions not to hire a candidate solely because they belong to a particular MBTI type, may further constitute unlawful employment discrimination. Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Employment Service Act provides that employers may not discriminate against job applicants or employees on the basis of race, class, language, ideology, religion, political affiliation, place of origin, birthplace, gender, sexual orientation, age, marital status, appearance, facial features, physical or mental disability, zodiac sign, blood type, or prior union membership. Employers who engage in unlawful discrimination may face fines ranging from NT$300,000 to NT$1.5 million.
Although MBTI is not expressly listed in the statute, its nature is similar to that of zodiac signs or blood types, which are commonly used to infer personality traits or perceived compatibility. Accordingly, if an employer were to explicitly refuse to hire individuals of certain MBTI types, it cannot be ruled out that labor authorities or courts would adopt a similar interpretation in the future.
Employers who wish to raise MBTI-related topics during interviews should therefore exercise great caution to avoid crossing legal red lines—even “casual conversation” after an interview warrants attention. In one case, an employer argued that questions about blood type or zodiac sign were merely intended to gain a deeper understanding of the applicant, had been framed as optional, and were not meant to serve as selection criteria. The applicants were happy to answer those questions because they were too eager to secure the job. The court nevertheless held that, if the employer believed that an applicant answered such questions out of a desire to secure employment, it is reasonable for the applicant to perceive them as part of the interview and as influencing hiring decisions. On that basis, the court found that the employer had still engaged in employment discrimination.
While MBTI assessments may be trending, their use in recruitment interviews carries real risks of infringing applicants’ privacy rights and triggering claims of employment discrimination. To avoid losing both talent and money, employers are advised to proceed with caution.
