The candidate raises valid points. Different words have dissimilar meanings or connotations dependent on culture and beliefs. A monosemic word has a variety of implications and is dependent on the mental representation of the word by the candidate (Bobda, 2009). It is unfair to subject respondents to a test that is skewed towards a particular culture. Respondents of different upbringing are destined to fail the assessment from the start. It is irrational to expect them to erase years of beliefs and mores that have been their indoctrination. These forms used to assess the interviewees find their basis in the creator or the person who wrote the questions.

Hence, he/ she expects the answers to be in tandem with his culture and upbringing. The objectivity of the interview is erased when thought from this point of view. The only persons that ace the assessment are likely to be of a similar background. Other people obtain personality results that are not reflective of their real state. This bias is traceable to the foundation of numerous psychological studies in a disproportionately smaller number of communities or cultures (Allik et al., 2012). The manifestations of a personality depend on the environment and the reception by other involved parties. With the above factors in mind, the unfairness of the assessment is apparent and needs a remedy.

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is a body set up to ensure fairness in the workplace. It enforces a variety of laws. The law that is specific to this argument is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This legislation proscribes the discrimination of people based on religion, nationality, race, color and sex (EEOC, 2018). Another law that may be applicable to this scenario is the Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act of 2009. EEOC renders it illegal for employers to discriminate their staff based on genetic information. Some of the assessment questions involve the revealing of health details. These details can function as the basis of exclusion of applicants. The assessment process in question is in contravention especially of the first law mentioned. As stated earlier, these differences in upbringing result in variations of the same personality. Hence, when a firm uses criteria based on a factor, it is only to the advantage of the social group used in the formulation of the questions. Without consideration of these factors, diversity in the workplace is eliminated. Thus, the firm will be in violation of EEOC policies.

Currently, the assessment is highly subjective. It requires rapid response to a set of words. Instead, the assessment should major in interviews. The current procedure functions like a closed questionnaire. It gives minimal room for explanation and further exploration of essential issues. Interviews are open-ended and enable the involved parties to seek clarifications. For instance, in the workplace, there is usually an outline of objectives that guides daily activities. The assessment given in the example attributes the failure of these objectives to faults in the employees’ personalities. Environmental factors may falsely fall under the explanation of varying personalities. Interviews, on the other hand, allow full expression of the underlying reasons hence better judgement and appraisal of the interviewee. In addition, interviews enable better characterization of personalities.

With knowledge in the different backgrounds, the assessment of the replies has a significant influence on context. Structured interviews improve the integrity of the assessment. However, the pre-determined questions need to apply across all social differences. Bragger et al. (2002) found evidence that structured interviews reduced bias in the employment procedure. In conclusion, the workplace is a mirror of the society. Any interventions made in the transformation of the society via the elimination of biases should apply to the workplace. This creates an inclusive atmosphere which enables the functioning as a unified front.