Knowing you from your writing

Remember when neat, legible writing was a prized skill? In a time before the digital age, when employees were valued for flowing script? Now employees can go weeks without scribbling anything more than a number on a Post-it note. But that doesn’t mean your scrawl doesn’t matter anymore — writing analysis is an increasingly popular way to screen job applicants.

A swell in the popularity of handwriting analysis, or graphology, in overseas European recruitment could see the trend catch on with UK companies. French employers in particular favour the method, with some 75 per cent using graphology as part of their recruitment process.

“When used correctly, graphology can give a good indication of a person’s personality structure, their abilities, ability to grow and develop, and perhaps most importantly, their integrity,” says graphologist Margaret White, who uses her skills to assess job applicants for recruiters.

But while recruitment-graphology is growing in Britain — used by more than 3,000 companies to date — employers are reluctant to admit they use the technique. Why? Handwriting analysis is often viewed with scepticism in Britain and companies appear to be afraid that this sentiment will discredit the professionalism of their company.

But not all employers are so coy: London banking group Butterfields publicly states that it uses graphology for recruitment. As managing director Paul Turtle explains: “It is not used as the defining factor in the decision-making process. However, it has been shown to add an extra dimension to the jigsaw, which has frequently been validated once an employee is in situ.”

The British Graphology Institute would certainly agree that the optimum use of graphology in recruitment is in conjunction with other methods. “Psychometric tests are fine, but they can be manipulated, as people can change their answers depending on what they think the company wants to hear,” says a spokesperson. “But used in conjunction with graphology you can double check that one validates the other.”

Cynics may suggest that the reason companies are reticent about revealing their use of graphology is because they use it without an applicant’s knowledge — although this would be strictly against the ethics of any professional graphologist. “Graphology is always undertaken with the permission of the candidate” says the Graphology Institute. “So job applicants need never fear that a sample of their handwriting has been requested for analysis without their knowledge.”

Where problems may arise, of course, is in employers conducting their own impromptu analysis of an applicant’s handwriting, based on little besides their own prejudices. For those of us with less than perfect script, this may certainly raise concerns when applying for jobs that call for a letter “in own handwriting.” In fact, professional graphologists agree that bad handwriting is by no means a sign of sloppy work or a lazy attitude to employment — it can frequently mean a high degree of intelligence and enthusiasm.

In any case, it seems that writing is getting better rather than worse. “There was a significant drop in standards around 20 years ago,” says Margaret White, “but then schools reintroduced copy books into schools, so in my opinion the writing submitted by people who are aged 20 or 30 have better handwriting than previous generations.

From a graphologist’s point of view, the legibility isn’t necessarily an issue — but handwriting is impossible to fake, as opposed to CVs, which tend to be increasingly ‘embroidered’, shall we say. A person might be able to fool me for a few lines, but their true style will show pretty quickly — particularly if they’re writing about something they’re interested in.”

Fitting the bill
All this probably sounds quite tempting to time-pressed recruiters, particularly if they’ve been burned in the past with an exaggerated CV, or simply a candidate who doesn’t fit in with the team. “Graphology works very well as an assessment of whether a person will fit in with a company, or stick out like a sore thumb,” says Margaret. “For small companies in particular, this is cutting out a lot of risk.” But there is also a financial reason why graphology may be used.

Compared with psychometric tests, and interviews, handwriting analysis is a great deal cheaper, and can be a cost-effective screening process to these more expensive methods. As companies become ever more aware of the costs of recruiting, it looks likely they will be open to a number of new screening processes. And graphology certainly looks set to remain one of the ways in which job applicants are taken on, or written off.

Revealing process
Getting my own handwriting assessed was a revealing process, and not only because it was the first time I had written anything of length for about three years. Computers and a journalism career have devolved my writing into a sorry and illegible scrawl, peppered with strange interpretations of shorthand.

Graphologists, however, do not judge you on the quality of your penmanship, and Margaret White, who analysed my writing, assured me that hers is not the nicest either, and illegibility isn’t necessarily a negative factor.

So how accurate was the report? As one revelation suggested a tendency to hide my emotions, I gracefully accepted my lack of suitability to judge, so I turned to ex-colleague Nikki Haynes for her opinion. She was fairly impressed by the report. “I think the analysis sums you up quite nicely,” she said. “You were always deep into your work, but always ready and willing to help others if they needed help.”

 Interestingly, the report probably described me as an employee much more accurately that it did as a friend. Generally, the analysis painted me as ‘quietly determined, thoughtful, and ambitious’. To check the theory I asked a close friend whether I was a ‘quiet’ person. “What?” was the first response. “Are you a choir person?”

“Am I quiet?” I asked. This was followed by a look of unique and pained confusion. “No.” Similarly, the personality section of the report identified a person who ‘certainly doesn’t enter into open conflict with others, especially authority’, and who is ‘particularly fearful of personal and public rejection’. With regards to the latter, anyone who works in the journo business will tell you a fear of rejection gets you about as far as the jobcentre.

And as for a reticence in confronting authority figures? I tested Nikki for a reaction. I got laughter. Although she mitigated this with the opinion I was confrontational only when necessary. Generally speaking though, any employer who took me on expecting me not to express a contradictory opinion would be in for a nasty shock.

The ‘working qualities’ aspect of the report, however, was really very accurate — particularly from someone I’d never met. I do react quickly to situations, am good at problem solving, and don’t really like being told what to do. And being as there was no mention of my appalling handwriting, I thought it a highly charitable account to boot.

The Guardian