Psychometrics or Pseudo-metrics?
Recent surveys indicate that 70% of employers now use psychometric testing as a recruitment aid. Whatever the actual figure, psychology has increasingly infiltrated industry over the last century. Personality, intelligence, individual and group behaviour, team structures, cognition and conflict resolution are all areas that have provided psychologists with a lucrative income. But is our money well spent or are psychometrics merely the height of speculation posing as deep learning?
Few commercial users of psychometric tests have any real grasp of the underlying theory. It is difficult to think of any other area in which buyers will part with cash so readily with so little knowledge of the product. The prevailing attitude throughout industry seems to be to trust psychologists to provide tools that can be used without having to engage with the theory. This naïve attitude practically invites exploitation. Unless buyers have basic knowledge of how the products work, how will they know if they are not working? How can they tell which products are based on fact and which on fantasy? Psychologists selling the tests are not necessarily the most reliable source of information. Buyers need independent guidance.
In reality, psychology is not as complex as many psychologists would have us believe. In fact, any psychologist claiming that psychology beyond the comprehension of the layman is trying to imply that they are cleverer than you – a dishonest and egocentric little manoeuvre psychologists themselves call ‘invalidation’. Provided we look at the basics systematically, psychology is no dark art.
Psychologists and indeed most scientists begin by taking their own specialist field as the area of study. Chemists specialise in chemistry, biologists in biology, psychologists in psychology and occupational psychologists in occupational psychology. Once these mental divisions are created, few consider the relevance of ideas from outside their own field. Professionals of every discipline become territorial, arrogant, blinkered and defensive.
To describe this lack of interchange between disciplines George Kelly uses the term “accumulated fragmentalism”. Accumulated fragmentalism is a fundamental error of the modern ‘scientific’ model. In order to represent external reality accurately, any mental model must take account of how all the fragments fit together. The system used here examines a chain of ideas without losing sight of how the links of the chain are connected. These are the links: -
• The External Environment – time, space and energy/matter.
• Sensation – the ways in which our five senses experience objects and events in the external environment.
• Memory – the ways in which we create, store and retrieve information about previous experiences.
• Perception – derived from comparison between sensation and memory or between one memory and another.
• Thinking – comparing, combining and dividing ideas.
• Intention – how we use information about past experiences to formulate and plan current or future activities and behaviour.
• Behaviour – our interactions with the external environment and with one another.
• Personality – regularly used behavioural patterns that determine our identity and how others perceive us.
• Feedback – We observe the effects of our actions and behaviour on the external environment and on other people. We respond to external stimuli and the behaviour of others. We have experiences and we experiment. The results of our observations and experiments are fed back via the senses and stored in memory so we can modify and improve our actions next time. We call it ‘learning’ or ‘education’.
We do not always make observations or conduct experiments in the real world. We can imagine events and anticipate outcomes adding this self-generated knowledge to memory. The difficulty we then face is differentiating between actual events and self-generated ones until, in the words of Immanuel Kant, “with the long practice of attention, we become skilled at separating them.”
The bulleted list above forms an endless loop like a cycle chain. The accumulated fragmentalist approach favoured by many scientists removes individual links from the chain and examines them in isolation. Examining links in isolation ‘dissects the frog’ sacrificing function to explore structure. Below, we examine each of the links in a little more detail whilst maintaining functional connections.
The External Environment
We begin with the external environment because without this, there would be nothing for our senses to detect. The external environment consists of the uneven distribution of energy/matter in space and time. Note that we consider energy and matter together. Many ‘real’ scientists, as some like to describe themselves, adopt a purely materialist view. Einstein’s greatest contribution was not to state that E=mc2 but to recognise that “energy and matter are simply different manifestations of same thing.”
Although uneven, the distribution of energy and matter is not entirely random since patterns are repeated. Science explores these patterns but those who study nature’s patterns in isolation can soon loose the overall picture. We must keep an eye on how the little pictures fit within the big one if we are to avoid accumulated fragentalism. This is what we call the ‘Andromedan’ approach.
Sensation
Our senses detect the presence of energy and matter in space at the present time only. Reference to any other time is impossible without memory. This is not to say that “time does not exist as such” or that “time is merely a figment of the human imagination” as many are seduced into believing. Time exists but we create our own temporal context using memory. The ability to create temporal context necessarily demands a pre-existing biological capacity to create, store and retrieve information about past events. This capacity is a function of our nervous system. Memory is not simply about the past. It necessarily includes plans for the future.
Memory
Without memory life would be meaningless. Every sensation must be compared with memory before we can attribute meaning. This page, for example, is meaningless to those with no knowledge stored in memory of the English language or the alphabet. We must necessarily compare current sensory information with memory in order to make ‘sense’ of our surroundings.
Sensations are experienced but because memories are created, memories are not always accurate. We create memories by combining information about space and time, space and matter or time and matter. (Note that we must always include energy in the term ‘matter’). This means we create three types of memory. Tulving calls them episodic, procedural and semantic.
• Episodic memory combines information about space and time and is sometimes called spatio-temporal memory.
• Procedural memory combines information about time and matter since it stores information on when (time) to do what (matter).
• Semantic memory combines information about matter and space storing information about why what (matter) goes where (space).
Time space and matter provide the when, where and what. Episodic, procedural and semantic memories provide the who, how and why. These three types of memory form the foundations of Freud’s three aspects of personality – id, superego and ego respectively.
Episodic memories and id are self-centred, personal and based on unity (one). They focus on feelings. Procedural memories and superego emphasise behaviour. They are group orientated and based on plurality (some). Semantic memories and ego focus on thinking, logic and reason. These emphasise universality, necessity and totality (all). Psychologists rejecting Freud’s view that there are three aspects to the personality as “merely Freud’s opinion” have failed to understand Freud. Memory and personality are inextricably linked. Some personality theories ignore this link and in so doing, they loose touch with reality and step into the realms of speculation.
Perception
Perception begins when we make comparisons between sensation and memory or between one memory and another. Perceptions are often inaccurate because information is stored in memory is often inaccurate. Unlike electronic memory, organic memory is prone to error. Information is sometimes recorded inaccurately or misinterpreted. It can be retrieved incorrectly, mixed up or wholly or partially lost. Furthermore, since it is our perceptions we add to memory rather than an accurate recording of events, any errors that already exist in memory are compounded and perpetuated.
Thinking
Comparing, combining and separating ideas are the three basic processes of thinking. All are impossible without memory. Understanding the memory/personality link is central to understanding all human activity. Some psychologists have not fully grasped this idea.
At the fundamental level, all thinking consists of comparing, combining and dividing of ideas. We can apply any of these three processes to any topic we choose. Analysis, be it chemical, political or psychological, is essentially about division. Creativity is about combining and/or dividing ideas in novel ways. Comparison always precedes combination or division. Human beings are capable of comparing, combining and separating ideas in more ways than any other creature on earth.
Intention
We compare possible courses of action combining and separating ideas stored in memory to create intentions. Whether conscious or unconscious, intention precedes all actions and behaviour. This must be the case because without intent, all our behaviour would be entirely random. The reverse of this argument is that any behaviour that is not random must follow some form of pattern or template that can only be held in memory. We use memory of past experiences to formulate and plan all intentional activities and behaviour.
Behaviour
Behaviour is the interaction between each individual and the external environment. It includes interaction with other people either individually or in groups. All behaviour is guided by intention since without intent no neural impulse is generated so nothing happens. All behaviour is motivated by what the individual wants and individual priorities change from time to time and from one situation to another.
The only accurate way of finding out other what people want is to ask them. Any attempt to explore motivation in isolation is therefore misguided. In the present paranoid climate, partially created by psychologists, people will often look for a hidden intention when asked what they want. Some may initially give the answer they think the questioner wants to hear rather than an honest answer. Game on!
In inventing countless theories of motivation, psychologists extend and perpetuate these mind games. They then charge you to untangle the web of distrust and confusion they are partially responsible for creating. All theories of motivation can be replaced with a single word – ask. It seems the ‘Emperor of Motivation’ has no clothes. He is not wearing robes made of a rich, complex beautiful fabric visible only to psychologists. He is as naked as the day he was born.
People behave in the ways they choose for their own reasons (conscious or unconscious), in accordance with their own feelings, moderated by the social pressures they feel at the time. The only hope of understanding what motivates any individual at the present time is to ask them. We can now discard all theories of motivation.
All we really need to know about psychology is this. The way we feel affects the way we think. What we think directs our behaviour. How we behave and the way others behave towards us affects the way we feel. This feeling – thinking – behaviour cycle was described by Galen almost 2000 years ago. It seems the smartest animal on Earth can sometimes be awfully slow to learn.
Personality
Personality is another area of psychology often taken out of context. It is an area where speculation soars to incredible heights. Whilst it is accepted that reading the mind of another person or accessing their thoughts and memories is impossible, 70% of employers seem prepared to believe that psychologists can reveal hidden personality traits and measure them. The behavioural consistent patterns we call personality is entirely dependent upon memory, which we accept is unreadable. Why then, are we prepared to believe that psychologists can ‘read’ personality?
Personality is based on qualitative differences whilst measurement is based on quantitative differences. What is the quantitative difference between an egg and a tree? Of course, it is plain for all to see that this question is meaningless. Why then are we prepared to believe that psychologists can use quantitative methods to measure qualitative personality differences with psychometric tests? Maybe the time has come to send these pseudo-scientists packing.
From United Kingdom, Huddersfield
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
Recent surveys indicate that 70% of employers now use psychometric testing as a recruitment aid. Whatever the actual figure, psychology has increasingly infiltrated industry over the last century. Personality, intelligence, individual and group behaviour, team structures, cognition and conflict resolution are all areas that have provided psychologists with a lucrative income. But is our money well spent or are psychometrics merely the height of speculation posing as deep learning?
Few commercial users of psychometric tests have any real grasp of the underlying theory. It is difficult to think of any other area in which buyers will part with cash so readily with so little knowledge of the product. The prevailing attitude throughout industry seems to be to trust psychologists to provide tools that can be used without having to engage with the theory. This naïve attitude practically invites exploitation. Unless buyers have basic knowledge of how the products work, how will they know if they are not working? How can they tell which products are based on fact and which on fantasy? Psychologists selling the tests are not necessarily the most reliable source of information. Buyers need independent guidance.
In reality, psychology is not as complex as many psychologists would have us believe. In fact, any psychologist claiming that psychology beyond the comprehension of the layman is trying to imply that they are cleverer than you – a dishonest and egocentric little manoeuvre psychologists themselves call ‘invalidation’. Provided we look at the basics systematically, psychology is no dark art.
Psychologists and indeed most scientists begin by taking their own specialist field as the area of study. Chemists specialise in chemistry, biologists in biology, psychologists in psychology and occupational psychologists in occupational psychology. Once these mental divisions are created, few consider the relevance of ideas from outside their own field. Professionals of every discipline become territorial, arrogant, blinkered and defensive.
To describe this lack of interchange between disciplines George Kelly uses the term “accumulated fragmentalism”. Accumulated fragmentalism is a fundamental error of the modern ‘scientific’ model. In order to represent external reality accurately, any mental model must take account of how all the fragments fit together. The system used here examines a chain of ideas without losing sight of how the links of the chain are connected. These are the links: -
• The External Environment – time, space and energy/matter.
• Sensation – the ways in which our five senses experience objects and events in the external environment.
• Memory – the ways in which we create, store and retrieve information about previous experiences.
• Perception – derived from comparison between sensation and memory or between one memory and another.
• Thinking – comparing, combining and dividing ideas.
• Intention – how we use information about past experiences to formulate and plan current or future activities and behaviour.
• Behaviour – our interactions with the external environment and with one another.
• Personality – regularly used behavioural patterns that determine our identity and how others perceive us.
• Feedback – We observe the effects of our actions and behaviour on the external environment and on other people. We respond to external stimuli and the behaviour of others. We have experiences and we experiment. The results of our observations and experiments are fed back via the senses and stored in memory so we can modify and improve our actions next time. We call it ‘learning’ or ‘education’.
We do not always make observations or conduct experiments in the real world. We can imagine events and anticipate outcomes adding this self-generated knowledge to memory. The difficulty we then face is differentiating between actual events and self-generated ones until, in the words of Immanuel Kant, “with the long practice of attention, we become skilled at separating them.”
The bulleted list above forms an endless loop like a cycle chain. The accumulated fragmentalist approach favoured by many scientists removes individual links from the chain and examines them in isolation. Examining links in isolation ‘dissects the frog’ sacrificing function to explore structure. Below, we examine each of the links in a little more detail whilst maintaining functional connections.
The External Environment
We begin with the external environment because without this, there would be nothing for our senses to detect. The external environment consists of the uneven distribution of energy/matter in space and time. Note that we consider energy and matter together. Many ‘real’ scientists, as some like to describe themselves, adopt a purely materialist view. Einstein’s greatest contribution was not to state that E=mc2 but to recognise that “energy and matter are simply different manifestations of same thing.”
Although uneven, the distribution of energy and matter is not entirely random since patterns are repeated. Science explores these patterns but those who study nature’s patterns in isolation can soon loose the overall picture. We must keep an eye on how the little pictures fit within the big one if we are to avoid accumulated fragentalism. This is what we call the ‘Andromedan’ approach.
Sensation
Our senses detect the presence of energy and matter in space at the present time only. Reference to any other time is impossible without memory. This is not to say that “time does not exist as such” or that “time is merely a figment of the human imagination” as many are seduced into believing. Time exists but we create our own temporal context using memory. The ability to create temporal context necessarily demands a pre-existing biological capacity to create, store and retrieve information about past events. This capacity is a function of our nervous system. Memory is not simply about the past. It necessarily includes plans for the future.
Memory
Without memory life would be meaningless. Every sensation must be compared with memory before we can attribute meaning. This page, for example, is meaningless to those with no knowledge stored in memory of the English language or the alphabet. We must necessarily compare current sensory information with memory in order to make ‘sense’ of our surroundings.
Sensations are experienced but because memories are created, memories are not always accurate. We create memories by combining information about space and time, space and matter or time and matter. (Note that we must always include energy in the term ‘matter’). This means we create three types of memory. Tulving calls them episodic, procedural and semantic.
• Episodic memory combines information about space and time and is sometimes called spatio-temporal memory.
• Procedural memory combines information about time and matter since it stores information on when (time) to do what (matter).
• Semantic memory combines information about matter and space storing information about why what (matter) goes where (space).
Time space and matter provide the when, where and what. Episodic, procedural and semantic memories provide the who, how and why. These three types of memory form the foundations of Freud’s three aspects of personality – id, superego and ego respectively.
Episodic memories and id are self-centred, personal and based on unity (one). They focus on feelings. Procedural memories and superego emphasise behaviour. They are group orientated and based on plurality (some). Semantic memories and ego focus on thinking, logic and reason. These emphasise universality, necessity and totality (all). Psychologists rejecting Freud’s view that there are three aspects to the personality as “merely Freud’s opinion” have failed to understand Freud. Memory and personality are inextricably linked. Some personality theories ignore this link and in so doing, they loose touch with reality and step into the realms of speculation.
Perception
Perception begins when we make comparisons between sensation and memory or between one memory and another. Perceptions are often inaccurate because information is stored in memory is often inaccurate. Unlike electronic memory, organic memory is prone to error. Information is sometimes recorded inaccurately or misinterpreted. It can be retrieved incorrectly, mixed up or wholly or partially lost. Furthermore, since it is our perceptions we add to memory rather than an accurate recording of events, any errors that already exist in memory are compounded and perpetuated.
Thinking
Comparing, combining and separating ideas are the three basic processes of thinking. All are impossible without memory. Understanding the memory/personality link is central to understanding all human activity. Some psychologists have not fully grasped this idea.
At the fundamental level, all thinking consists of comparing, combining and dividing of ideas. We can apply any of these three processes to any topic we choose. Analysis, be it chemical, political or psychological, is essentially about division. Creativity is about combining and/or dividing ideas in novel ways. Comparison always precedes combination or division. Human beings are capable of comparing, combining and separating ideas in more ways than any other creature on earth.
Intention
We compare possible courses of action combining and separating ideas stored in memory to create intentions. Whether conscious or unconscious, intention precedes all actions and behaviour. This must be the case because without intent, all our behaviour would be entirely random. The reverse of this argument is that any behaviour that is not random must follow some form of pattern or template that can only be held in memory. We use memory of past experiences to formulate and plan all intentional activities and behaviour.
Behaviour
Behaviour is the interaction between each individual and the external environment. It includes interaction with other people either individually or in groups. All behaviour is guided by intention since without intent no neural impulse is generated so nothing happens. All behaviour is motivated by what the individual wants and individual priorities change from time to time and from one situation to another.
The only accurate way of finding out other what people want is to ask them. Any attempt to explore motivation in isolation is therefore misguided. In the present paranoid climate, partially created by psychologists, people will often look for a hidden intention when asked what they want. Some may initially give the answer they think the questioner wants to hear rather than an honest answer. Game on!
In inventing countless theories of motivation, psychologists extend and perpetuate these mind games. They then charge you to untangle the web of distrust and confusion they are partially responsible for creating. All theories of motivation can be replaced with a single word – ask. It seems the ‘Emperor of Motivation’ has no clothes. He is not wearing robes made of a rich, complex beautiful fabric visible only to psychologists. He is as naked as the day he was born.
People behave in the ways they choose for their own reasons (conscious or unconscious), in accordance with their own feelings, moderated by the social pressures they feel at the time. The only hope of understanding what motivates any individual at the present time is to ask them. We can now discard all theories of motivation.
All we really need to know about psychology is this. The way we feel affects the way we think. What we think directs our behaviour. How we behave and the way others behave towards us affects the way we feel. This feeling – thinking – behaviour cycle was described by Galen almost 2000 years ago. It seems the smartest animal on Earth can sometimes be awfully slow to learn.
Personality
Personality is another area of psychology often taken out of context. It is an area where speculation soars to incredible heights. Whilst it is accepted that reading the mind of another person or accessing their thoughts and memories is impossible, 70% of employers seem prepared to believe that psychologists can reveal hidden personality traits and measure them. The behavioural consistent patterns we call personality is entirely dependent upon memory, which we accept is unreadable. Why then, are we prepared to believe that psychologists can ‘read’ personality?
Personality is based on qualitative differences whilst measurement is based on quantitative differences. What is the quantitative difference between an egg and a tree? Of course, it is plain for all to see that this question is meaningless. Why then are we prepared to believe that psychologists can use quantitative methods to measure qualitative personality differences with psychometric tests? Maybe the time has come to send these pseudo-scientists packing.
From United Kingdom, Huddersfield
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Mark 51:
Recent surveys indicate that 70% of employers now use psychometric testing as a recruitment aid. But is our money well spent?
All assessments are not created equal. Our 50,000+ clients report that using assessments yields them at least a 300% ROI, and many report ROIs well above 1,000%. So the answer is yes, their money is well spent.
Bob Gately
gately@csi.com
From United States, Chelsea
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
45Recent surveys indicate that 70% of employers now use psychometric testing as a recruitment aid. But is our money well spent?
All assessments are not created equal. Our 50,000+ clients report that using assessments yields them at least a 300% ROI, and many report ROIs well above 1,000%. So the answer is yes, their money is well spent.
Bob Gately
gately@csi.com
From United States, Chelsea
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
I agree with Bob that assessments are imperative and effective. The important facts companies should take care to be aware of are:
1. What kind of assessment tools are they in need of?
2. What is the reliability of the assessment tool?
3. Can a division of the company be trained to handle the debriefing of the assessment tool? This would ensure that the company has a clear understanding of the psychometric representation involved.
4. What is the history of the company providing the assessment?
5. Is the tool unbiased about gender/geographical location, etc.? Behavior-based tools are generally this.
6. A very important factor is to find out what exactly the tool measures. It is not enough if it identifies what is the category the person in concern falls into. Such kind is only for speculation and does not seem to have much relevance in corporates. So the ideal tool would be one that can classify one for his/her individual traits/values/behavior/interests. This kind of tool will help an individual to understand their behavior pattern, how he/she views it, and how others view the same. This can give a very good insight and actually help individuals and corporates to work together to bring out the productive best in an individual and/or place him/her in their ideal job fit. This way, I see many benefits. Most significant could be:
a. Individual fits his/her job, implying even under stressful situations ownership will be experienced by the individual, and so mostly we have found individuals being self-starters in their ideal job.
b. Attrition will really be addressed.
c. This above point will mean fewer badmouthing about the company by the ones who have just left.
d. The company will be spending less on recruitment and can actually spend that money on welfare schemes.
Mainly, stress levels on individuals, their respective families, and their managers will actually reduce...
Happy Friendship Day to each of you.
Sujatha Suresh
98408 54301
Head - Assessments & Training Div
Pravarra
From India, Bhilai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I agree with Bob that assessments are imperative and effective. The important facts companies should take care to be aware of are:
1. What kind of assessment tools are they in need of?
2. What is the reliability of the assessment tool?
3. Can a division of the company be trained to handle the debriefing of the assessment tool? This would ensure that the company has a clear understanding of the psychometric representation involved.
4. What is the history of the company providing the assessment?
5. Is the tool unbiased about gender/geographical location, etc.? Behavior-based tools are generally this.
6. A very important factor is to find out what exactly the tool measures. It is not enough if it identifies what is the category the person in concern falls into. Such kind is only for speculation and does not seem to have much relevance in corporates. So the ideal tool would be one that can classify one for his/her individual traits/values/behavior/interests. This kind of tool will help an individual to understand their behavior pattern, how he/she views it, and how others view the same. This can give a very good insight and actually help individuals and corporates to work together to bring out the productive best in an individual and/or place him/her in their ideal job fit. This way, I see many benefits. Most significant could be:
a. Individual fits his/her job, implying even under stressful situations ownership will be experienced by the individual, and so mostly we have found individuals being self-starters in their ideal job.
b. Attrition will really be addressed.
c. This above point will mean fewer badmouthing about the company by the ones who have just left.
d. The company will be spending less on recruitment and can actually spend that money on welfare schemes.
Mainly, stress levels on individuals, their respective families, and their managers will actually reduce...
Happy Friendship Day to each of you.
Sujatha Suresh
98408 54301
Head - Assessments & Training Div
Pravarra
From India, Bhilai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you both for your responses. It was not a short post but hopefully one that aroused your interest.
I agree entirely that assessment is imperative since selection is the name of the game. What I cannot accept is that nomothetic psychometric tests can ever be an effective tool for selecting an individual best suited to a particular post.
There are some ideographic tools like George Kelly’s ‘Repertory Grid’ or Carl Rogers’ ‘Q-Sort’ that allow us to explore an individual’s value systems and thought processes. These tools are occasionally used for selection for senior posts. They provide incredibly accurate individual profiles. However, they are very time consuming, expensive and cannot be used to compare candidates directly with one another.
My objection is to the nomothetic tools that typically use only 4 to 16 bipolar dimensions to categorise all individuals. My objection is based on the following reasoning.
There are three types of factors influence personality.
• The first are factors common to ALL people. We all have appetites or ‘drives’ for food, drink, warmth, shelter, social contact, love, sex etc. However, since these universal factors are common to all human beings, there is no point in measuring them.
• The second apply to SOME people. Cultural influences are common to a particular social group or social class. As Eric Berne observed, these vary from time to time and from culture to culture. These factors are the fodder of psychometric tests.
• The third are unique to the individual or to ONE person. These individual factors are of most interest to any prospective employer. Unfortunately, nomothetic psychometric testing reveals nothing about these unique individual factors.
Summarising the above, some personality factors are common to ALL people, some are shared by SOME people and some are unique to ONE person. There are no other options. This is why Freud was undoubtedly right to claim that there are three basic personality dimensions. He used the terms ‘ego’, ‘superego’ and ‘id’ respectively. Despite this, Freud is often dimissed as 'unscientific' by many psychologists.
Psychometric personality tests can only ever be used to explore ‘group sameness’ (the ideas and values shared by some people) rather than the ‘individual differences’, the dimensions of personality that make each of us unique.
I am aware that I am expressing a minority view. However, the majority view is often mistaken. Until the mid 1600s, the majority of ‘educated’ people in the Western world believed that the Sun orbits the Earth. They were wrong. Indian and Incan texts show that these civilisations knew of the heliocentric solar system many centuries before ‘western civilisation’ – something Ghandi thought would be a very good idea.
On the issue of reliability, Professor of Psychometrics at the University of Exeter, the late Paul Kline says “while intelligence is a relatively good predictor of occupational performance with correlations of around 0.6 (36%), personality tests were far more limited with correlations rarely exceeding 0.25 (6.25%). This lack of predictive power suggests that all is not well with psychometric measurement.”
The key point here is tah there is an enormous disparity between what psychologists claim psychometric tests are capable of telling us and what many HR professionals believe psychometric tests are capable of telling us. Kline’s figures imply that only one personality test in 16 is a reliable indicator of occupational performance. The question now is given 16 personality test results, which one is accurate?
To answer Sujatha’s points
1. Only ideographic tools explore individual differences. Psychometrics measure group sameness.
2. In nomothetic personality tests “correlation rarely exceeds 0.25”. They are unreliable fifteen times out of sixteen.
3. Since tests are so unreliable, why are we using them? Is ‘training’ simply ‘brainwashing’ into the cult of group sameness? Is this ethical? Innovators think differently from others. If we ever succeed in establishing ‘group sameness’, where will innovation come from?
4. If the product itself is unreliable, the hx of the company is irrelevant. In deciding WHAT to believe, it is important not to be seduced into deciding WHO to believe. Reputation is a poor guide in deciding WHAT to believe.
5. Most psychometric tests are based on largely Western, largely middle American, largely white, largely male, largely Christian, largely university student group norms (16PF or MMPI for example). Although modifications have been made, the bias still exists since it is built into the very foundations of test design. If we cannot ‘read’ the memory of a candidate we can never predict behaviour since all intentions underlying behaviour are created using information stored in memory. Test designers inevitably impose bias so no nomothetic test can ever be unbiased.
6. What the tool is measuring is the key point here. If we cannot ‘measure’ the difference between an egg and a tree, how can anyone ‘measure’ personality differences? Personality differences, like the differences between eggs and trees, are qualitative – not quantitative. I agree entirely with the rest of your comments– but this type of information can only be elicited using ideographic instruments – not psychometric tests.
Call me a sad old traditionalist but I would like to see psychometric tests consigned to the scrap heap so we can return to the old method of talking to one another. I have more faith in human beings than in tests.
Kind Regards
Mark 51
From United Kingdom, Huddersfield
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I agree entirely that assessment is imperative since selection is the name of the game. What I cannot accept is that nomothetic psychometric tests can ever be an effective tool for selecting an individual best suited to a particular post.
There are some ideographic tools like George Kelly’s ‘Repertory Grid’ or Carl Rogers’ ‘Q-Sort’ that allow us to explore an individual’s value systems and thought processes. These tools are occasionally used for selection for senior posts. They provide incredibly accurate individual profiles. However, they are very time consuming, expensive and cannot be used to compare candidates directly with one another.
My objection is to the nomothetic tools that typically use only 4 to 16 bipolar dimensions to categorise all individuals. My objection is based on the following reasoning.
There are three types of factors influence personality.
• The first are factors common to ALL people. We all have appetites or ‘drives’ for food, drink, warmth, shelter, social contact, love, sex etc. However, since these universal factors are common to all human beings, there is no point in measuring them.
• The second apply to SOME people. Cultural influences are common to a particular social group or social class. As Eric Berne observed, these vary from time to time and from culture to culture. These factors are the fodder of psychometric tests.
• The third are unique to the individual or to ONE person. These individual factors are of most interest to any prospective employer. Unfortunately, nomothetic psychometric testing reveals nothing about these unique individual factors.
Summarising the above, some personality factors are common to ALL people, some are shared by SOME people and some are unique to ONE person. There are no other options. This is why Freud was undoubtedly right to claim that there are three basic personality dimensions. He used the terms ‘ego’, ‘superego’ and ‘id’ respectively. Despite this, Freud is often dimissed as 'unscientific' by many psychologists.
Psychometric personality tests can only ever be used to explore ‘group sameness’ (the ideas and values shared by some people) rather than the ‘individual differences’, the dimensions of personality that make each of us unique.
I am aware that I am expressing a minority view. However, the majority view is often mistaken. Until the mid 1600s, the majority of ‘educated’ people in the Western world believed that the Sun orbits the Earth. They were wrong. Indian and Incan texts show that these civilisations knew of the heliocentric solar system many centuries before ‘western civilisation’ – something Ghandi thought would be a very good idea.
On the issue of reliability, Professor of Psychometrics at the University of Exeter, the late Paul Kline says “while intelligence is a relatively good predictor of occupational performance with correlations of around 0.6 (36%), personality tests were far more limited with correlations rarely exceeding 0.25 (6.25%). This lack of predictive power suggests that all is not well with psychometric measurement.”
The key point here is tah there is an enormous disparity between what psychologists claim psychometric tests are capable of telling us and what many HR professionals believe psychometric tests are capable of telling us. Kline’s figures imply that only one personality test in 16 is a reliable indicator of occupational performance. The question now is given 16 personality test results, which one is accurate?
To answer Sujatha’s points
1. Only ideographic tools explore individual differences. Psychometrics measure group sameness.
2. In nomothetic personality tests “correlation rarely exceeds 0.25”. They are unreliable fifteen times out of sixteen.
3. Since tests are so unreliable, why are we using them? Is ‘training’ simply ‘brainwashing’ into the cult of group sameness? Is this ethical? Innovators think differently from others. If we ever succeed in establishing ‘group sameness’, where will innovation come from?
4. If the product itself is unreliable, the hx of the company is irrelevant. In deciding WHAT to believe, it is important not to be seduced into deciding WHO to believe. Reputation is a poor guide in deciding WHAT to believe.
5. Most psychometric tests are based on largely Western, largely middle American, largely white, largely male, largely Christian, largely university student group norms (16PF or MMPI for example). Although modifications have been made, the bias still exists since it is built into the very foundations of test design. If we cannot ‘read’ the memory of a candidate we can never predict behaviour since all intentions underlying behaviour are created using information stored in memory. Test designers inevitably impose bias so no nomothetic test can ever be unbiased.
6. What the tool is measuring is the key point here. If we cannot ‘measure’ the difference between an egg and a tree, how can anyone ‘measure’ personality differences? Personality differences, like the differences between eggs and trees, are qualitative – not quantitative. I agree entirely with the rest of your comments– but this type of information can only be elicited using ideographic instruments – not psychometric tests.
Call me a sad old traditionalist but I would like to see psychometric tests consigned to the scrap heap so we can return to the old method of talking to one another. I have more faith in human beings than in tests.
Kind Regards
Mark 51
From United Kingdom, Huddersfield
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
CiteHR is one place where we are able to express ourselves without feeling threatened. First of all, I must thank Mark51 for initiating a very "in use" topic discussion. Given the way discussions are progressing, the topic may become more challenging for everyone to follow.
Many people have varying opinions about this topic, I'm sure. I have gained experience in the field (and believe me, I too had all the same doubts about metrics, etc.). It would indeed be welcome if we could discuss the same.
If we rely solely on human emotions, the pain is, as many would agree, that we are finding it increasingly difficult to understand and interact positively. One finds that more and more individuals are deceiving others. As a soft skills trainer, I have had experiences where:
- Individuals have literally cried about being under extreme stress.
- They do not know what is expected at times.
- Some find it difficult to understand why others cannot understand them.
- Some say their families are affected by what they are going through.
We have had cases of youngsters and mid-level employees getting hurt because of what is going on. Individuals are experiencing lowered levels of self-confidence, increased levels of shame, and ridicule, leading to broken families. Proper metrics help in identifying strengths and weaknesses. Once bias is scientifically removed, individuals become more willing to accept change. Our whole generation is experiencing change at all levels, both positive and negative.
I agree that only humans can help each other, but achieving this ideal scenario all the time is proving increasingly challenging. In fact, CiteHR is the only site where, if someone expresses stress, we immediately rush to recognize that humans matter, and many of us provide advice and support, both material and emotional, like in the Abu Ben Adam poem. May this tribe increase!
Looking at the flip side of day-to-day occurrences, HR employs a new person "A" because they find "A" good. Everything is fine until suddenly "A" chooses to leave without giving adequate reasons. The ones who employed "A" are then questioned, suspected, or deemed ineffective in identifying the right individuals.
Recently (as I mentioned in my "newcomer" thread), I had the opportunity to attend an assessment program. It was intriguing and also painful to hear about the challenges HR faces when following the bell curve or bleed theory, where 5% of employees are let go regardless of their capabilities. The individual in question may be good, but the rule says if they fall in the lowest 5%, they should be let go.
When the right metrics are used, immense benefits are gained by the one who hires, the one who manages the hired, and the one who is hired. It's good to hear, Bob, that there is a good percentage of ROI.
From India, Bhilai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
CiteHR is one place where we are able to express ourselves without feeling threatened. First of all, I must thank Mark51 for initiating a very "in use" topic discussion. Given the way discussions are progressing, the topic may become more challenging for everyone to follow.
Many people have varying opinions about this topic, I'm sure. I have gained experience in the field (and believe me, I too had all the same doubts about metrics, etc.). It would indeed be welcome if we could discuss the same.
If we rely solely on human emotions, the pain is, as many would agree, that we are finding it increasingly difficult to understand and interact positively. One finds that more and more individuals are deceiving others. As a soft skills trainer, I have had experiences where:
- Individuals have literally cried about being under extreme stress.
- They do not know what is expected at times.
- Some find it difficult to understand why others cannot understand them.
- Some say their families are affected by what they are going through.
We have had cases of youngsters and mid-level employees getting hurt because of what is going on. Individuals are experiencing lowered levels of self-confidence, increased levels of shame, and ridicule, leading to broken families. Proper metrics help in identifying strengths and weaknesses. Once bias is scientifically removed, individuals become more willing to accept change. Our whole generation is experiencing change at all levels, both positive and negative.
I agree that only humans can help each other, but achieving this ideal scenario all the time is proving increasingly challenging. In fact, CiteHR is the only site where, if someone expresses stress, we immediately rush to recognize that humans matter, and many of us provide advice and support, both material and emotional, like in the Abu Ben Adam poem. May this tribe increase!
Looking at the flip side of day-to-day occurrences, HR employs a new person "A" because they find "A" good. Everything is fine until suddenly "A" chooses to leave without giving adequate reasons. The ones who employed "A" are then questioned, suspected, or deemed ineffective in identifying the right individuals.
Recently (as I mentioned in my "newcomer" thread), I had the opportunity to attend an assessment program. It was intriguing and also painful to hear about the challenges HR faces when following the bell curve or bleed theory, where 5% of employees are let go regardless of their capabilities. The individual in question may be good, but the rule says if they fall in the lowest 5%, they should be let go.
When the right metrics are used, immense benefits are gained by the one who hires, the one who manages the hired, and the one who is hired. It's good to hear, Bob, that there is a good percentage of ROI.
From India, Bhilai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Sujatha,
The greatest strength of Cite HR is that this is possibly the only HR forum in the world where it is possible to express views openly without feeling threatened. Open debate is impossible in any other public forum so this policy of free and open debate must never be lost. No HR Journal, for example, will ever publish material opposing psychometrics simply because this opposition is seen as threatening the livelihood of many in the HR industry. I see rejecting psychometrics as an opportunity for the HR industry to progress to something better.
I am pleased to hear that others have had similar doubts about psychometrics but suspect that few have had the same doubts. Those with the same doubts never use these tests again.
I don’t necessarily agree that the arguments for and against psychometrics are too difficult for the majority on this site to follow. Cite HR obviously has an extremely knowledgeable base of subscribers who are perfectly capable of making up their own minds once given the arguments.
Psychometric theory is demonstrably false. In a nutshell, all psychometric tests are based on the notion that the personality traits, intelligence factors or capabilities of candidates are distributed throughout the population in accordance with the laws of normal distribution. In accepting this notion, we must also accept that the suitability of any pool of applicants for a particular post will also follow the same rules of normal distribution. The most suitable applicants fall on the extreme right of the curve – the least suitable fall on the extreme left.
All psychometric tests identify candidates who fall closest to the norm indicated by the peak in the centre of the curve. All psychometrics therefore deliberately select ‘average’ candidates by design. They always reject both the most suitable and the least suitable candidates in equal proportion. They may ensure standardisation but standardisation is achieved by selecting mediocre candidates at the expense of exceptional ones. Psychometric selection therefore perpetuates what J S Mill calls “the tyranny of the majority”.
There are many more arguments against psychometric testing but none is too difficult for most people on this forum to understand. For those interested, these arguments can be found in ‘Opposing Psychometrics’ on our website at patterson-powell.com
On ‘soft skills’, I am afraid I am unable to comment. I have a weakness. I never use a shovel if I can find a bulldozer and never use a bulldozer if I can find dynamite. My partner in crime, Colin Patterson, balances my hard edge.
The idea that HR professionals are blamed when people leave ‘without reason’ is disturbing. No individual can ever be held responsible for the actions of another and nobody leaves ‘without reason’ - although the individual concerned may think it prudent to keep their reasons for leaving private.
The hostility and intimidation HR professionals are subjected to in the aftermath of someone leaving may be the very reason the individual left the company refusing to give ‘adequate reasons’. Hostile working environments are extremely stressful. Stressed workers never perform to their full capability and will jump ship at the first opportunity. They jump not because of HR mistakes but because of bad management practices that deliberately create conflict and hostility, which brings me to your final point.
I am unfamiliar with ‘bell theory’ or ‘bleed theory’ but I think you are suggesting that 5% of employees are ‘culled’ (for want of a better word) at regular intervals regardless of their performance. This is Voltaire’s ‘English’ way as described in ‘Candide’. The English like to shoot an Admiral from time to time to encourage the others. It still happens – though the ‘shooting’ is usually metaphorically nowadays. It seems the English have infected India with this terrible ‘disease’.
If I understand bell theory and bleed theory correctly, this alarms me greatly. Are rules the master or the servant of man? I find this practice especially disturbing if psychometrics is used in selecting those to be ‘culled’ since this would ensure that the ‘best’ employees are culled along with the ‘worst’ (see above). Such draconian management practices produce a hostile climate of fear and stress. Even if psychometric tests are not used, this is both unethical and counter-productive. Deming’s red bead experiment will help to demonstrate why. I suggest all HR professionals and managers familiarise themselves with this extremely persuasive experiment.
Deliberate intimidation and unnecessarily producing a climate of fear and stress is never a good way to run a business since your best employees will inevitably jump ship to somewhere better at the first opportunity.
Kind regards and thanks for your interest in the topic. I too would welcome further discussion.
Mark 51
[/b]
From United Kingdom, Huddersfield
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The greatest strength of Cite HR is that this is possibly the only HR forum in the world where it is possible to express views openly without feeling threatened. Open debate is impossible in any other public forum so this policy of free and open debate must never be lost. No HR Journal, for example, will ever publish material opposing psychometrics simply because this opposition is seen as threatening the livelihood of many in the HR industry. I see rejecting psychometrics as an opportunity for the HR industry to progress to something better.
I am pleased to hear that others have had similar doubts about psychometrics but suspect that few have had the same doubts. Those with the same doubts never use these tests again.
I don’t necessarily agree that the arguments for and against psychometrics are too difficult for the majority on this site to follow. Cite HR obviously has an extremely knowledgeable base of subscribers who are perfectly capable of making up their own minds once given the arguments.
Psychometric theory is demonstrably false. In a nutshell, all psychometric tests are based on the notion that the personality traits, intelligence factors or capabilities of candidates are distributed throughout the population in accordance with the laws of normal distribution. In accepting this notion, we must also accept that the suitability of any pool of applicants for a particular post will also follow the same rules of normal distribution. The most suitable applicants fall on the extreme right of the curve – the least suitable fall on the extreme left.
All psychometric tests identify candidates who fall closest to the norm indicated by the peak in the centre of the curve. All psychometrics therefore deliberately select ‘average’ candidates by design. They always reject both the most suitable and the least suitable candidates in equal proportion. They may ensure standardisation but standardisation is achieved by selecting mediocre candidates at the expense of exceptional ones. Psychometric selection therefore perpetuates what J S Mill calls “the tyranny of the majority”.
There are many more arguments against psychometric testing but none is too difficult for most people on this forum to understand. For those interested, these arguments can be found in ‘Opposing Psychometrics’ on our website at patterson-powell.com
On ‘soft skills’, I am afraid I am unable to comment. I have a weakness. I never use a shovel if I can find a bulldozer and never use a bulldozer if I can find dynamite. My partner in crime, Colin Patterson, balances my hard edge.
The idea that HR professionals are blamed when people leave ‘without reason’ is disturbing. No individual can ever be held responsible for the actions of another and nobody leaves ‘without reason’ - although the individual concerned may think it prudent to keep their reasons for leaving private.
The hostility and intimidation HR professionals are subjected to in the aftermath of someone leaving may be the very reason the individual left the company refusing to give ‘adequate reasons’. Hostile working environments are extremely stressful. Stressed workers never perform to their full capability and will jump ship at the first opportunity. They jump not because of HR mistakes but because of bad management practices that deliberately create conflict and hostility, which brings me to your final point.
I am unfamiliar with ‘bell theory’ or ‘bleed theory’ but I think you are suggesting that 5% of employees are ‘culled’ (for want of a better word) at regular intervals regardless of their performance. This is Voltaire’s ‘English’ way as described in ‘Candide’. The English like to shoot an Admiral from time to time to encourage the others. It still happens – though the ‘shooting’ is usually metaphorically nowadays. It seems the English have infected India with this terrible ‘disease’.
If I understand bell theory and bleed theory correctly, this alarms me greatly. Are rules the master or the servant of man? I find this practice especially disturbing if psychometrics is used in selecting those to be ‘culled’ since this would ensure that the ‘best’ employees are culled along with the ‘worst’ (see above). Such draconian management practices produce a hostile climate of fear and stress. Even if psychometric tests are not used, this is both unethical and counter-productive. Deming’s red bead experiment will help to demonstrate why. I suggest all HR professionals and managers familiarise themselves with this extremely persuasive experiment.
Deliberate intimidation and unnecessarily producing a climate of fear and stress is never a good way to run a business since your best employees will inevitably jump ship to somewhere better at the first opportunity.
Kind regards and thanks for your interest in the topic. I too would welcome further discussion.
Mark 51
[/b]
From United Kingdom, Huddersfield
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Mark 51:
My comments about assessments are limited to my experience and reading. Too many people presume that the MBTI, 16PF, MMPI and DISC types are the only psychometrics in use. Our clients do not use any of these assessments for selection. By the way, the MBTI is not to be used for selection according its publisher.
>The greatest strength of Cite HR is that this is possibly the only HR forum in the world where it is possible to express views openly without feeling threatened.<
A very good point.
>Open debate is impossible in any other public forum so this policy of free and open debate must never be lost.<
Our clients say the debate about assessments is over for them. Their employee turnover rate declines, new hire productivity increases, costs go down and the bottom line goes up.
An executive vice president of a large insurance company said that "Every time we pay to use your assessments our EBIT (Earnings Before Interest and Taxes) goes up by ten times the dollar amount. The money we pay is chump change."
>No HR Journal, for example, will ever publish material opposing psychometrics simply because this opposition is seen as threatening the livelihood of many in the HR industry.<
Perhaps the debate you want to have has been over for a long time?
If you are correct, there must be dozens of studies that support your views. Suggesting that everyone who disagrees with you is only concerned with their livelihood is silly and even if it were true, it wouldn't mean that you are correct.
>I see rejecting psychometrics as an opportunity for the HR industry to progress to something better.<
Yes, you have expressed a desire to go back to the good old days when hiring managers were free to hire and fire whomever they want regardless of their suitability to the job.
>I am pleased to hear that others have had similar doubts about psychometrics but suspect that few have had the same doubts. Those with the same doubts never use these tests again. <
Your presumption that psychometrics do not work is not supported by the data. Our clients achieve ROIs well above 300% and often well above 1000% so their data contradicts your assertion that psychometrics cannot work. And yes, their new hires are more successful when they hire for talent than when they did not hire for talent.
>I don’t necessarily agree that the arguments for and against psychometrics are too difficult for the majority on this site to follow.<
I agree, when managers hire for talent they quickly learn that psychometrics work and they work very well, see the two examples below.
---------------------
Design/Build firm:
---------------------
A design-build firm had a turnover problem with their project managers.
The hiring manager Dave agonized over firing project managers.
He wasn't happy about firing employees, the employees were not
happy when they were fired especially those that were hired away
from their former employers where they had been successfully
employed for years. Dave asked me for help.
Dave continued to screen his applicants as he always did but he
added a step before he made the job offer, he assessed all
qualified to be hired job applicants for their degree of
job suitability.
Within two years his turnover went from 33% per year to 0%.
Dave said that "everyone we hire exceeds our expectations."
Hiring for talent works.
--------------------------
Software Development:
---------------------------
Sonja, the HR Manager for a software development company,
hired for talent for over two years and then stopped for two years
because the two owners thought they could do a better job of
selecting good Technical Support Analysts (TSA) than she could.
TSAs go to the customers' workplace and identify the programming
errors and then reprogram the software.
The two owners felt too restricted by the talent selection process.
After two years of doing it themselves they went to Sonja's office
and told her "We s... at this, start using the your talent method
again, you are much more successful at hiring good TSAs than
we are." The owners could not duplicate her success rate, not
bad for just an HR Manager. Sonja took a risk when she first
tried the talent selection process.
---------------------------------------
Employers over rely on interviews and qualifications. The goal should be to hire competent people, not necessarily the most competent, who will become successful employees. The best I can tell a resume never actually does any work.
> Cite HR obviously has an extremely knowledgeable base of subscribers who are perfectly capable of making up their own minds once given the arguments.<
Subscribers should be convinced by data not just by arguments since data is available and arguments are endless.
>Psychometric theory is demonstrably false.<
Then please share with us all the court cases won by job applicants and employees who sued over the use of psychometric assessments. Do not include the MBTI since it is not a preemployment assessment. In the US some employers have misused the 16PF and MMPI.
>In a nutshell, all psychometric tests are based on the notion that the personality traits, intelligence factors or capabilities of candidates are distributed throughout the population in accordance with the laws of normal distribution.<
Doesn't a normal distribution describe rather proscribe?
>In accepting this notion, we must also accept that the suitability of any pool of applicants for a particular post will also follow the same rules of normal distribution. The most suitable applicants fall on the extreme right of the curve – the least suitable fall on the extreme left. <
Oh my, your comments are at odds with our process since "The most suitable applicants fall on the extreme right of the curve – the least suitable fall on the extreme left." does not apply to our process.
Sometimes the most suitable fall on the extreme right, sometimes on the extreme left and sometimes right in the middle and at other times slightly to the left of center and sometimes slightly to the right of center.
>All psychometric tests identify candidates who fall closest to the norm indicated by the peak in the centre of the curve. All psychometrics therefore deliberately select ‘average’ candidates by design.<
Not true for our process. Sometimes our clients hire from the left side, sometimes they hire from the right side, and sometimes they hire from the middle. It all depends on the demands of the job. Perhaps you don't know enough about all psychometric assessments?
>They always reject both the most suitable and the least suitable candidates in equal proportion.<
That is not true for our process which demonstrates that using the word always without knowing everything is a dangerous practice.
>They may ensure standardisation but standardisation is achieved by selecting mediocre candidates at the expense of exceptional ones.<
That is not true for our process since the whole point is to hire very successful employees at the expense of not hiring mediocre and poor employees. Our clients hire exceptional employees not the exceptional candidates. Sometimes they are the same but only about 20% of the time.
>Psychometric selection therefore perpetuates what J S Mill calls “the tyranny of the majority”. <
Hiring managers that use our method hire people who become successful employees which means they screen out about 80% of the qualified to be hired job applicants.
>There are many more arguments against psychometric testing but none so too difficult for most people on this forum to understand. For those interested, these arguments can be found in ‘Opposing Psychometrics’ on our website at patterson-powell.com<
Are you open to changing your mind or is your business wedded to the proposition that psychometric testing cannot work?
>It seems the English have infected India with this terrible ‘disease’.<
Didn't General Electric do the same thing?
>Kind regards and thanks for your interest in the topic. I too would welcome further discussion.<
Why, it seems to me you are not trying to help people understand assessments but rather convince them not to use assessments.
If you are incorrect, you are doing a disservice. If you are correct, please offer a list of US court cases that support your views. Courts in the US do not agree with you.
I'm always willing to learn but I am unwilling to trust an opinion unless I can also verify it. As far as I can tell you are offering your opinions unsubstantiated by data. I'll stay with the experience of the 50,000+ employers that use our assessments rather than accept your opinion at face value.
Employers do not need perfect information about applicants but they do need better information so they can reduce their chances of making bad hiring decisions. Our clients are adamant that they reduce their bad hires substantially. I hope you won't argue this point without first knowing what our clients actually do.
Bob
From United States, Chelsea
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
My comments about assessments are limited to my experience and reading. Too many people presume that the MBTI, 16PF, MMPI and DISC types are the only psychometrics in use. Our clients do not use any of these assessments for selection. By the way, the MBTI is not to be used for selection according its publisher.
>The greatest strength of Cite HR is that this is possibly the only HR forum in the world where it is possible to express views openly without feeling threatened.<
A very good point.
>Open debate is impossible in any other public forum so this policy of free and open debate must never be lost.<
Our clients say the debate about assessments is over for them. Their employee turnover rate declines, new hire productivity increases, costs go down and the bottom line goes up.
An executive vice president of a large insurance company said that "Every time we pay to use your assessments our EBIT (Earnings Before Interest and Taxes) goes up by ten times the dollar amount. The money we pay is chump change."
>No HR Journal, for example, will ever publish material opposing psychometrics simply because this opposition is seen as threatening the livelihood of many in the HR industry.<
Perhaps the debate you want to have has been over for a long time?
If you are correct, there must be dozens of studies that support your views. Suggesting that everyone who disagrees with you is only concerned with their livelihood is silly and even if it were true, it wouldn't mean that you are correct.
>I see rejecting psychometrics as an opportunity for the HR industry to progress to something better.<
Yes, you have expressed a desire to go back to the good old days when hiring managers were free to hire and fire whomever they want regardless of their suitability to the job.
>I am pleased to hear that others have had similar doubts about psychometrics but suspect that few have had the same doubts. Those with the same doubts never use these tests again. <
Your presumption that psychometrics do not work is not supported by the data. Our clients achieve ROIs well above 300% and often well above 1000% so their data contradicts your assertion that psychometrics cannot work. And yes, their new hires are more successful when they hire for talent than when they did not hire for talent.
>I don’t necessarily agree that the arguments for and against psychometrics are too difficult for the majority on this site to follow.<
I agree, when managers hire for talent they quickly learn that psychometrics work and they work very well, see the two examples below.
---------------------
Design/Build firm:
---------------------
A design-build firm had a turnover problem with their project managers.
The hiring manager Dave agonized over firing project managers.
He wasn't happy about firing employees, the employees were not
happy when they were fired especially those that were hired away
from their former employers where they had been successfully
employed for years. Dave asked me for help.
Dave continued to screen his applicants as he always did but he
added a step before he made the job offer, he assessed all
qualified to be hired job applicants for their degree of
job suitability.
Within two years his turnover went from 33% per year to 0%.
Dave said that "everyone we hire exceeds our expectations."
Hiring for talent works.
--------------------------
Software Development:
---------------------------
Sonja, the HR Manager for a software development company,
hired for talent for over two years and then stopped for two years
because the two owners thought they could do a better job of
selecting good Technical Support Analysts (TSA) than she could.
TSAs go to the customers' workplace and identify the programming
errors and then reprogram the software.
The two owners felt too restricted by the talent selection process.
After two years of doing it themselves they went to Sonja's office
and told her "We s... at this, start using the your talent method
again, you are much more successful at hiring good TSAs than
we are." The owners could not duplicate her success rate, not
bad for just an HR Manager. Sonja took a risk when she first
tried the talent selection process.
---------------------------------------
Employers over rely on interviews and qualifications. The goal should be to hire competent people, not necessarily the most competent, who will become successful employees. The best I can tell a resume never actually does any work.
> Cite HR obviously has an extremely knowledgeable base of subscribers who are perfectly capable of making up their own minds once given the arguments.<
Subscribers should be convinced by data not just by arguments since data is available and arguments are endless.
>Psychometric theory is demonstrably false.<
Then please share with us all the court cases won by job applicants and employees who sued over the use of psychometric assessments. Do not include the MBTI since it is not a preemployment assessment. In the US some employers have misused the 16PF and MMPI.
>In a nutshell, all psychometric tests are based on the notion that the personality traits, intelligence factors or capabilities of candidates are distributed throughout the population in accordance with the laws of normal distribution.<
Doesn't a normal distribution describe rather proscribe?
>In accepting this notion, we must also accept that the suitability of any pool of applicants for a particular post will also follow the same rules of normal distribution. The most suitable applicants fall on the extreme right of the curve – the least suitable fall on the extreme left. <
Oh my, your comments are at odds with our process since "The most suitable applicants fall on the extreme right of the curve – the least suitable fall on the extreme left." does not apply to our process.
Sometimes the most suitable fall on the extreme right, sometimes on the extreme left and sometimes right in the middle and at other times slightly to the left of center and sometimes slightly to the right of center.
>All psychometric tests identify candidates who fall closest to the norm indicated by the peak in the centre of the curve. All psychometrics therefore deliberately select ‘average’ candidates by design.<
Not true for our process. Sometimes our clients hire from the left side, sometimes they hire from the right side, and sometimes they hire from the middle. It all depends on the demands of the job. Perhaps you don't know enough about all psychometric assessments?
>They always reject both the most suitable and the least suitable candidates in equal proportion.<
That is not true for our process which demonstrates that using the word always without knowing everything is a dangerous practice.
>They may ensure standardisation but standardisation is achieved by selecting mediocre candidates at the expense of exceptional ones.<
That is not true for our process since the whole point is to hire very successful employees at the expense of not hiring mediocre and poor employees. Our clients hire exceptional employees not the exceptional candidates. Sometimes they are the same but only about 20% of the time.
>Psychometric selection therefore perpetuates what J S Mill calls “the tyranny of the majority”. <
Hiring managers that use our method hire people who become successful employees which means they screen out about 80% of the qualified to be hired job applicants.
>There are many more arguments against psychometric testing but none so too difficult for most people on this forum to understand. For those interested, these arguments can be found in ‘Opposing Psychometrics’ on our website at patterson-powell.com<
Are you open to changing your mind or is your business wedded to the proposition that psychometric testing cannot work?
>It seems the English have infected India with this terrible ‘disease’.<
Didn't General Electric do the same thing?
>Kind regards and thanks for your interest in the topic. I too would welcome further discussion.<
Why, it seems to me you are not trying to help people understand assessments but rather convince them not to use assessments.
If you are incorrect, you are doing a disservice. If you are correct, please offer a list of US court cases that support your views. Courts in the US do not agree with you.
I'm always willing to learn but I am unwilling to trust an opinion unless I can also verify it. As far as I can tell you are offering your opinions unsubstantiated by data. I'll stay with the experience of the 50,000+ employers that use our assessments rather than accept your opinion at face value.
Employers do not need perfect information about applicants but they do need better information so they can reduce their chances of making bad hiring decisions. Our clients are adamant that they reduce their bad hires substantially. I hope you won't argue this point without first knowing what our clients actually do.
Bob
From United States, Chelsea
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
"Ever since they started to think of themselves as scientists, measurement has been at the forefront of psychologists' minds. One of the overriding problems in the field of personality has concerned the question "what to measure?". [Bannister D. Fransella F. (1985) -'Inquiring Man' p 48.]
So - the first question we must answer when using a psychometric test is 'precisely what is this test measuring?'. If unable to answer the question, we shouldn't be using the test. If we say personality, we should be able to define personality in such a way that all would agree. Good luck if you want to give it a try. In 1935 Allport listed over 50 definitions of personality. There are now many more. If you are running intelligence tests you should be able to define 'intelligence' in such a way that all would agree. How can anyone measure precisely what they cannot define precisely? Operational definitions, by definition, are not precise but speculative - yet psychometric tests are claimed to be objective tests rather than merely speculative ones.
It seems possible that the word 'psychometrics' is sometimes used in different ways by psychologists and some HR professionals. This needs clarification. Psychologists differentiate between 'psychometric' tests and other methods of psychological assessment. Those in HR who have a looser interpretation have failed to understand the psychologists. This misunderstanding underlies the unrealistic beliefs of many in HR.
Any test presenting the same questions to a number of candidates and comparing answers with those of a standardised norm group is a 'psychometric', 'normative' or 'nomothetic' test. These tests apply the same set bipolar constructs to all participants (e.g. introvert v extravert ¨C stable v neurotic). Even Raymond Cattell, designer of the 16PF test, realised that his initial 16 bipolar constructs were insufficient. By the time he died in 1997 he had increased the number to 35. This was effectively an admission that despite earlier claims, factor analysis had failed to produce a set of universal personality dimensions on which all could be assessed. In reality we all use thousands of different bipolar constructs so there is no 'universal set'.
In contrast, any method of assessment exploring participants in terms of their own bipolar constructs is an 'ipsitive' or 'ideographic' test. Characteristically there are no set questions but there are specified procedures. Psychologists do not include this type of test under the banner of 'psychometrics'. These instruments are very accurate but very time consuming and very expensive indeed. In HR, these tests are sometimes included as 'psychometrics'. Applying the principle of charity I wll assume this may be the point of where Bob and I diverge. If using ideographic methods, then his customers are quite rightly satisfied. If not, they are mistaken.
George Kelly argues thus. If we wish to understand another individual, we must allow them to express themselves in terms of their own constructs. We cannot understand another individual by imposing constructs of our own making or the constructs of those who devise a particular test. On p 61 Bannister & Fransella say, "Psychologists failure derives from our habit of asking people to answer OUR questions rather than noting the nature of the questions THEY are asking."
I wish to make it clear that like Bannister and Fransella, I hold psychologists largely responsible for the misconceptions of modern occupational test methods. However, if we have been deceived, we have allowed ourselves to be deceived. HR professionals must undoubtedly shoulder a share of the blame. Like carpenters, all HR professionals should endeavour to familiarise themselves with the tools of their trade. Those who do not can expect to loose a finger or two.
My own personal position is relevant. I have been forced into retirement by deafness. My computer is my main link with the outside world. I am not in business so I have no business interests to protect. I have no potential customers to impress with evidence of ROI from former satisfied customers. As demonstrated by Piaget, I know that evidence only ever provides provisional knowledge. I know that the number of believers supporting an idea is NEVER a measure of truth or validity so ROI figures do not persuade me one way or the other. Nor should they persuade anyone else. I know that only old ideas have many supporters and that all new ideas begin with only one supporter. If we rely on numbers of supporters to establish the validity of ideas, nothing would ever change.
I can afford to be independent since I owe no allegiance to any employer or to any organization. From now until I die I am free of all shackles. I can afford the luxury of time to read and to think. I openly admit my preference is for ideographic methods of psychological assessment and make no secret of the fact that I see 'psychometrics' (as defined above) as "voodoo science" - a term used in a case against the Australian railway company Railcorp. (Google 'railcorp voodoo science' for the benefit of those who need evidence.)
Despite the wishes of others, I certainly do not see the debate about psychometrics as "being over long ago" any more than I see the debates about racism, sexism or the origin of the universe to be over. The debate will continue for as long as psychometric tests continue to be used. Psychometrics is just a fad. The fad for phrenology lasted for 170 years but there are still some believers. Provided their beliefs cause no harm to others, residual phrenologists are welcome to continue in their beliefs.
The psychometric fad will probably last for a similar period of time. However, psychometrics can cause considerable harm to others so believers must expect continuing opposition. The debate will certainly not be resolved in my lifetime so I have nothing personal to gain. Those making a living from psychometrics have much to gain and much to loose so are unlikely to be impartial. I am absolutely convinced that there are no worse or more unjust ways of hiring or firing people. Psychometrics is based on conformity. Innovators do not conform and industry needs innovators.
ROI is an entirely subjective rather than an objective measure of performance. All objective scientific evaluations conclude that no psychometric personality test has ever achieved a correlation between predicted and actual occupational performance greater than 0.3. Professor Paul Kline was a professor of psychometrics at the University of Exeter until his death in 1999. In a magazine article written shortly before his death Kline says -
"A huge analysis of the predictive power of tests in occupational psychology by Schmidt & Hunter (1998) indicated that while intelligence was a relatively good predictor of occupational performance, with correlations of about 0.6, personality tests were of far more limited value, with correlations rarely exceeding 0.25. This lack of predictive power again suggests that all is not well with psychometric measurement."
For those unfamiliar with correlations, 0.6 = 36% and 0.25 = 6.25%.
This statement from a professor of psychometrics is clearly at odds with the wildly extravagant and exaggerated claims of many in the HR industry.
Many disbelieve me when I quote Kline and I am frequently accused of making this quote up so for the doubters, the quote comes from an article in 'Psychology Review' 1999, Vol 6; Number 2 pp 6-10. It can be ordered online from the British Library and is identified by the following
ISSN 1354-1129
Unique Item Number RN068843637
Shelfmark 6946.536350.
We now each have a decision to make. Which evidence about the reliability of psychometric testing is more credible? The evidence offered by those selling psychometric tests or the evidence from the pen of a professor of psychometrics.
From my own impartial position the decision is easy. For those deeply involved in HR, the decision is one that will cause considerable anxiety and cognitive dissonance for many years to come. I make no apology for any anxiety caused. As Bacon, Descartes and Kant all suggest, "It is prudent to check the foundations before building our magnificent edifices." Psychometrics may appear a magnificent edifice to some but it has very weak foundations.
Good luck to all of you with this thorny problem. Me? I'm off to the allotment to do some therapeutic digging.
Kind regards
Mark 51
From United Kingdom, Huddersfield
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
So - the first question we must answer when using a psychometric test is 'precisely what is this test measuring?'. If unable to answer the question, we shouldn't be using the test. If we say personality, we should be able to define personality in such a way that all would agree. Good luck if you want to give it a try. In 1935 Allport listed over 50 definitions of personality. There are now many more. If you are running intelligence tests you should be able to define 'intelligence' in such a way that all would agree. How can anyone measure precisely what they cannot define precisely? Operational definitions, by definition, are not precise but speculative - yet psychometric tests are claimed to be objective tests rather than merely speculative ones.
It seems possible that the word 'psychometrics' is sometimes used in different ways by psychologists and some HR professionals. This needs clarification. Psychologists differentiate between 'psychometric' tests and other methods of psychological assessment. Those in HR who have a looser interpretation have failed to understand the psychologists. This misunderstanding underlies the unrealistic beliefs of many in HR.
Any test presenting the same questions to a number of candidates and comparing answers with those of a standardised norm group is a 'psychometric', 'normative' or 'nomothetic' test. These tests apply the same set bipolar constructs to all participants (e.g. introvert v extravert ¨C stable v neurotic). Even Raymond Cattell, designer of the 16PF test, realised that his initial 16 bipolar constructs were insufficient. By the time he died in 1997 he had increased the number to 35. This was effectively an admission that despite earlier claims, factor analysis had failed to produce a set of universal personality dimensions on which all could be assessed. In reality we all use thousands of different bipolar constructs so there is no 'universal set'.
In contrast, any method of assessment exploring participants in terms of their own bipolar constructs is an 'ipsitive' or 'ideographic' test. Characteristically there are no set questions but there are specified procedures. Psychologists do not include this type of test under the banner of 'psychometrics'. These instruments are very accurate but very time consuming and very expensive indeed. In HR, these tests are sometimes included as 'psychometrics'. Applying the principle of charity I wll assume this may be the point of where Bob and I diverge. If using ideographic methods, then his customers are quite rightly satisfied. If not, they are mistaken.
George Kelly argues thus. If we wish to understand another individual, we must allow them to express themselves in terms of their own constructs. We cannot understand another individual by imposing constructs of our own making or the constructs of those who devise a particular test. On p 61 Bannister & Fransella say, "Psychologists failure derives from our habit of asking people to answer OUR questions rather than noting the nature of the questions THEY are asking."
I wish to make it clear that like Bannister and Fransella, I hold psychologists largely responsible for the misconceptions of modern occupational test methods. However, if we have been deceived, we have allowed ourselves to be deceived. HR professionals must undoubtedly shoulder a share of the blame. Like carpenters, all HR professionals should endeavour to familiarise themselves with the tools of their trade. Those who do not can expect to loose a finger or two.
My own personal position is relevant. I have been forced into retirement by deafness. My computer is my main link with the outside world. I am not in business so I have no business interests to protect. I have no potential customers to impress with evidence of ROI from former satisfied customers. As demonstrated by Piaget, I know that evidence only ever provides provisional knowledge. I know that the number of believers supporting an idea is NEVER a measure of truth or validity so ROI figures do not persuade me one way or the other. Nor should they persuade anyone else. I know that only old ideas have many supporters and that all new ideas begin with only one supporter. If we rely on numbers of supporters to establish the validity of ideas, nothing would ever change.
I can afford to be independent since I owe no allegiance to any employer or to any organization. From now until I die I am free of all shackles. I can afford the luxury of time to read and to think. I openly admit my preference is for ideographic methods of psychological assessment and make no secret of the fact that I see 'psychometrics' (as defined above) as "voodoo science" - a term used in a case against the Australian railway company Railcorp. (Google 'railcorp voodoo science' for the benefit of those who need evidence.)
Despite the wishes of others, I certainly do not see the debate about psychometrics as "being over long ago" any more than I see the debates about racism, sexism or the origin of the universe to be over. The debate will continue for as long as psychometric tests continue to be used. Psychometrics is just a fad. The fad for phrenology lasted for 170 years but there are still some believers. Provided their beliefs cause no harm to others, residual phrenologists are welcome to continue in their beliefs.
The psychometric fad will probably last for a similar period of time. However, psychometrics can cause considerable harm to others so believers must expect continuing opposition. The debate will certainly not be resolved in my lifetime so I have nothing personal to gain. Those making a living from psychometrics have much to gain and much to loose so are unlikely to be impartial. I am absolutely convinced that there are no worse or more unjust ways of hiring or firing people. Psychometrics is based on conformity. Innovators do not conform and industry needs innovators.
ROI is an entirely subjective rather than an objective measure of performance. All objective scientific evaluations conclude that no psychometric personality test has ever achieved a correlation between predicted and actual occupational performance greater than 0.3. Professor Paul Kline was a professor of psychometrics at the University of Exeter until his death in 1999. In a magazine article written shortly before his death Kline says -
"A huge analysis of the predictive power of tests in occupational psychology by Schmidt & Hunter (1998) indicated that while intelligence was a relatively good predictor of occupational performance, with correlations of about 0.6, personality tests were of far more limited value, with correlations rarely exceeding 0.25. This lack of predictive power again suggests that all is not well with psychometric measurement."
For those unfamiliar with correlations, 0.6 = 36% and 0.25 = 6.25%.
This statement from a professor of psychometrics is clearly at odds with the wildly extravagant and exaggerated claims of many in the HR industry.
Many disbelieve me when I quote Kline and I am frequently accused of making this quote up so for the doubters, the quote comes from an article in 'Psychology Review' 1999, Vol 6; Number 2 pp 6-10. It can be ordered online from the British Library and is identified by the following
ISSN 1354-1129
Unique Item Number RN068843637
Shelfmark 6946.536350.
We now each have a decision to make. Which evidence about the reliability of psychometric testing is more credible? The evidence offered by those selling psychometric tests or the evidence from the pen of a professor of psychometrics.
From my own impartial position the decision is easy. For those deeply involved in HR, the decision is one that will cause considerable anxiety and cognitive dissonance for many years to come. I make no apology for any anxiety caused. As Bacon, Descartes and Kant all suggest, "It is prudent to check the foundations before building our magnificent edifices." Psychometrics may appear a magnificent edifice to some but it has very weak foundations.
Good luck to all of you with this thorny problem. Me? I'm off to the allotment to do some therapeutic digging.
Kind regards
Mark 51
From United Kingdom, Huddersfield
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
PART 1:
Hello Mark 51:
>… we should be able to define personality in such a way that all would agree.
…. If you are running intelligence tests you should be able to define intelligence in such a way that all would agree.<
Why? Do scientists really wait until every skeptic agrees? Of course not, so why would you make such a statement? It seems to me you are making the argument that as long you disagree the rest of us should accept your opinions as fact which is not a convincing argument at all.
>How can anyone measure precisely what they cannot define precisely?<
Where is it written that employers must have precise information about job applicants and employees? Do you write this stuff hoping that the reader will think precise information is a requirement for doing business? It isn’t.
Perhaps I missed that lecture in business school but I never missed a class so I suggest to the reader precise information is not a requirement of doing business or managing employees.
>Operational definitions, by definition, are not precise but speculative - yet psychometric tests are claimed to be objective tests rather than merely speculative ones.<
Again, employers do not need nor should they wait for, require, demand or use precise information about people as a basis for job selection because precise information does not predict job success.
>Psychologists differentiate between ¡®psychometric¡¯ tests and other methods of psychological assessment. Those in HR who have a looser interpretation have failed to understand the psychologists. This misunderstanding underlies the unrealistic beliefs of many in HR.<
Case 1: For you to be correct about psychometric assessments, all those in HR who do a better job of selecting successful employees by using assessments must be incorrect.
Case 2: If you are wrong about psychometric assessments, then only you need to be wrong.
I opt for Case 2.
>…Even Raymond Cattell, designer of the 16PF test, realised that his initial 16 bipolar constructs were insufficient.<
It is insufficient for what purpose?
>In reality we all use thousands of different bipolar constructs so there is no ¡®universal set¡¯.<
Are you saying that users of well designed psychometric assessments cannot improve their employee selection process? If your answer is yes, you are factually incorrect.
>In contrast, any method of assessment exploring participants in terms of their own bipolar constructs is an ipsitive or ideographic test.<
The 50,000+ employers that use our assessments for selection do not use an ipsative assessment.
>… This point of may be where Bob and I diverge. If using ideographic methods, then his customers are quite rightly satisfied.<
We do not provide ipsative assessments for selection. Our clients are satisfied because their retention rates go up, productivity increases and employee problems decline.
>George Kelly argues thus. If we wish to understand another individual, we must allow them to express themselves in terms of their own constructs.<
Where is it required that hiring managers “must allow them to express themselves in terms of their own constructs”? There is no such requirement. Managers want to hire successful employees who do their jobs for a long time and who enjoy their jobs as well.
>We cannot understand another individual by imposing constructs of our own making or the constructs of those who devise a particular test.<
You miss the point of an employee selection process. It is not about understanding individuals but rather identifying which qualified to be hired job applicants have the best chance of becoming a successful employee.
>On p 61 Bannister & Fransella say, ¡°Psychologists failure derives from our habit of asking people to answer OUR questions rather than noting the nature of the questions THEY are asking.¡± <
Failure at doing what? Was Bannister writing about hiring employees or counseling people who wanted or needed help?
>I wish to make it clear that like Bannister and Fransella, I hold psychologists largely responsible for the misconceptions of modern occupational test methods.<
It seems to me you are doing it as well.
continued in PART 2
From United States, Chelsea
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Mark 51:
>… we should be able to define personality in such a way that all would agree.
…. If you are running intelligence tests you should be able to define intelligence in such a way that all would agree.<
Why? Do scientists really wait until every skeptic agrees? Of course not, so why would you make such a statement? It seems to me you are making the argument that as long you disagree the rest of us should accept your opinions as fact which is not a convincing argument at all.
>How can anyone measure precisely what they cannot define precisely?<
Where is it written that employers must have precise information about job applicants and employees? Do you write this stuff hoping that the reader will think precise information is a requirement for doing business? It isn’t.
Perhaps I missed that lecture in business school but I never missed a class so I suggest to the reader precise information is not a requirement of doing business or managing employees.
>Operational definitions, by definition, are not precise but speculative - yet psychometric tests are claimed to be objective tests rather than merely speculative ones.<
Again, employers do not need nor should they wait for, require, demand or use precise information about people as a basis for job selection because precise information does not predict job success.
>Psychologists differentiate between ¡®psychometric¡¯ tests and other methods of psychological assessment. Those in HR who have a looser interpretation have failed to understand the psychologists. This misunderstanding underlies the unrealistic beliefs of many in HR.<
Case 1: For you to be correct about psychometric assessments, all those in HR who do a better job of selecting successful employees by using assessments must be incorrect.
Case 2: If you are wrong about psychometric assessments, then only you need to be wrong.
I opt for Case 2.
>…Even Raymond Cattell, designer of the 16PF test, realised that his initial 16 bipolar constructs were insufficient.<
It is insufficient for what purpose?
>In reality we all use thousands of different bipolar constructs so there is no ¡®universal set¡¯.<
Are you saying that users of well designed psychometric assessments cannot improve their employee selection process? If your answer is yes, you are factually incorrect.
>In contrast, any method of assessment exploring participants in terms of their own bipolar constructs is an ipsitive or ideographic test.<
The 50,000+ employers that use our assessments for selection do not use an ipsative assessment.
>… This point of may be where Bob and I diverge. If using ideographic methods, then his customers are quite rightly satisfied.<
We do not provide ipsative assessments for selection. Our clients are satisfied because their retention rates go up, productivity increases and employee problems decline.
>George Kelly argues thus. If we wish to understand another individual, we must allow them to express themselves in terms of their own constructs.<
Where is it required that hiring managers “must allow them to express themselves in terms of their own constructs”? There is no such requirement. Managers want to hire successful employees who do their jobs for a long time and who enjoy their jobs as well.
>We cannot understand another individual by imposing constructs of our own making or the constructs of those who devise a particular test.<
You miss the point of an employee selection process. It is not about understanding individuals but rather identifying which qualified to be hired job applicants have the best chance of becoming a successful employee.
>On p 61 Bannister & Fransella say, ¡°Psychologists failure derives from our habit of asking people to answer OUR questions rather than noting the nature of the questions THEY are asking.¡± <
Failure at doing what? Was Bannister writing about hiring employees or counseling people who wanted or needed help?
>I wish to make it clear that like Bannister and Fransella, I hold psychologists largely responsible for the misconceptions of modern occupational test methods.<
It seems to me you are doing it as well.
continued in PART 2
From United States, Chelsea
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
PART 2:
>However, if we have been deceived, we have allowed ourselves to be deceived. HR professionals must undoubtedly shoulder a share of the blame. Like carpenters, all HR professionals should endeavour to familiarise themselves with the tools of their trade.<
HR professionals do not need a Ph.D. to use such tools.
>… I am not in business so I have no business interests to protect.<
We all have biases, agendas and egos.
>I have no potential customers to impress with evidence of ROI from former satisfied customers.<
You cannot help HR professionals without such knowledge
>As demonstrated by Piaget, I know that evidence only ever provides provisional knowledge. <
But you are convinced beyond doubt that you are correct. Do you mean that to be correct we must first believe and then ignore evidence to the contrary? If provisional knowledge improves the selection process, then provisional knowledge is a competitive advantage.
>I know that the number of believers supporting an idea is NEVER a measure of truth or validity so ROI figures do not persuade me one way or the other.<
Are you persuadable?
> I know that only old ideas have many supporters and that all new ideas begin with only one supporter.<
Are you offering new ideas or rehashing old ideas?
>If we rely on numbers of supporters to establish the validity of ideas, nothing would ever change.<
Didn’t you suggest that we need to all agree before we can use an assessment? I’m glad to see you are recanting that silly idea.
>I can afford to be independent since I owe no allegiance to any employer or to any organization. From now until I die I am free of all shackles. I can afford the luxury of time to read and to think.<
That does not mean your judgment is not flawed.
>I openly admit my preference is for ideographic methods of psychological assessment and make no secret of the fact that I see psychometrics¯ (as defined above) as ¡°voodoo science¡± ¨C a term used in a case against the Australian railway company Railcorp. (Google ¡®railcorp voodoo science¡¯ for the benefit of those who need evidence.)
Who used the term? I agree, many employers use the wrong assessments and/or misuse the right assessments but that does not mean all assessment should be tossed out. I agree with Kearney who said “employers should only use job-relevant measures that are proven to predict on-the-job success and performance, such as occupational testing.”
The best I can tell from reading some Googled articles is that the RailCorp did not use appropriate assessments. The following is from http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2004/s1231109.htm
-----------------------------------------------
The Secretary of the New South Wales State Labor Council, John Robertson.
“JOHN ROBERTSON: There are three tests that go under the heading of psychometric testing. One's called the RAAT (Rules Acquisition Aptitude Test) Test, and it involves crossing out letters on a page, as instructed, using speed and accuracy. The next part of that test is a personality test, where you answer questions about what was most like about you in these questions and what was least like you. The other test in this area is called the SCAT (Safe Concentration And Attention Test) Test, where you've got to pick out patterns and lines in these particular objects, and it's effectively like a giant Gameboy or computer game. Now, we just think that these things are absurd.
---------------------------
I agree with John Robertson.
>Despite the wishes of others, I certainly do not see the debate about psychometrics as ¡®being over long ago¡¯ any more than I see the debates about racism, sexism or the origin of the universe to be over.<
I wrote that for our 50,000+ clients say the debate is over them. For the RailCorp they made a huge error in judgment. If you suggest that all assessments have the same problems as the ones used by RailCorp you do not understand all assessments.
> The debate will continue for as long as psychometric tests continue to be used.<
As long as employers use the wrong tests you are correct.
>Psychometrics is just a fad.<
Fad or not some assessments work very well.
> The fad for phrenology lasted for 170 years but there are still some believers. Provided their beliefs cause no harm to others, residual phrenologists are welcome to continue in their beliefs.<
You dismiss all assessments even though all assessments are not the same? That seems to me to be the hallmark of a true believer, evidence be damned.
>The psychometric fad will probably last for a similar period of time. However, psychometrics can cause considerable harm to others so believers must expect continuing opposition.<
You are in fact a true believer in your position since there is much evidence that disproves your assertion that assessments cannot work.
> The debate will certainly not be resolved in my lifetime so I have nothing personal to gain.<
For true believers there is always something to gain, acceptance of their position comes to mind.
>Those making a living from psychometrics have much to gain and much to loose so are unlikely to be impartial.<
That is fallacious argument and readers should reject it as such. That type of argument is often used by true believers who do not have evidence to support their claims. Using that type of argument we should reject the advice of surgeons because they too have something to gain from operating and let us not forget lawyers, engineers, accountants, etc.
>I absolutely convinced that there are no worse or more unjust ways of hiring or firing people. Psychometrics is based on conformity. Innovators do not conform and industry needs innovators. <
Oh my, you are “absolutely convinced” so therefore you are right? I think not.
>ROI is an entirely subjective rather than an objective measure of performance.<
Except in sales, see pilot study results below.
Hiring for Talent Pilot Study Results
==========================
The Company:
===========
- National and international offices
- Insurance and financial services
- 15,000+ employees worldwide
- 8 Divisions
Before Hiring for Talent:
=================
- Company-wide turnover was 34% the preceding year
- Company-wide sales averaged 101% of sales quota
- An average US Division was selected for a pilot study
After Hiring for Talent for 6 months:
==========================
- Employee turnover reduced from 34% to 19%.
- New salespeople who had a Benchmark Suitability of...
85% or above averaged 916% of sales quota
84% or below averaged 187% of sales quota
end of pilot study
When they calculated the ROI they started hiring for talent in the other divisions.
continued in PART 3
From United States, Chelsea
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
>However, if we have been deceived, we have allowed ourselves to be deceived. HR professionals must undoubtedly shoulder a share of the blame. Like carpenters, all HR professionals should endeavour to familiarise themselves with the tools of their trade.<
HR professionals do not need a Ph.D. to use such tools.
>… I am not in business so I have no business interests to protect.<
We all have biases, agendas and egos.
>I have no potential customers to impress with evidence of ROI from former satisfied customers.<
You cannot help HR professionals without such knowledge
>As demonstrated by Piaget, I know that evidence only ever provides provisional knowledge. <
But you are convinced beyond doubt that you are correct. Do you mean that to be correct we must first believe and then ignore evidence to the contrary? If provisional knowledge improves the selection process, then provisional knowledge is a competitive advantage.
>I know that the number of believers supporting an idea is NEVER a measure of truth or validity so ROI figures do not persuade me one way or the other.<
Are you persuadable?
> I know that only old ideas have many supporters and that all new ideas begin with only one supporter.<
Are you offering new ideas or rehashing old ideas?
>If we rely on numbers of supporters to establish the validity of ideas, nothing would ever change.<
Didn’t you suggest that we need to all agree before we can use an assessment? I’m glad to see you are recanting that silly idea.
>I can afford to be independent since I owe no allegiance to any employer or to any organization. From now until I die I am free of all shackles. I can afford the luxury of time to read and to think.<
That does not mean your judgment is not flawed.
>I openly admit my preference is for ideographic methods of psychological assessment and make no secret of the fact that I see psychometrics¯ (as defined above) as ¡°voodoo science¡± ¨C a term used in a case against the Australian railway company Railcorp. (Google ¡®railcorp voodoo science¡¯ for the benefit of those who need evidence.)
Who used the term? I agree, many employers use the wrong assessments and/or misuse the right assessments but that does not mean all assessment should be tossed out. I agree with Kearney who said “employers should only use job-relevant measures that are proven to predict on-the-job success and performance, such as occupational testing.”
The best I can tell from reading some Googled articles is that the RailCorp did not use appropriate assessments. The following is from http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2004/s1231109.htm
-----------------------------------------------
The Secretary of the New South Wales State Labor Council, John Robertson.
“JOHN ROBERTSON: There are three tests that go under the heading of psychometric testing. One's called the RAAT (Rules Acquisition Aptitude Test) Test, and it involves crossing out letters on a page, as instructed, using speed and accuracy. The next part of that test is a personality test, where you answer questions about what was most like about you in these questions and what was least like you. The other test in this area is called the SCAT (Safe Concentration And Attention Test) Test, where you've got to pick out patterns and lines in these particular objects, and it's effectively like a giant Gameboy or computer game. Now, we just think that these things are absurd.
---------------------------
I agree with John Robertson.
>Despite the wishes of others, I certainly do not see the debate about psychometrics as ¡®being over long ago¡¯ any more than I see the debates about racism, sexism or the origin of the universe to be over.<
I wrote that for our 50,000+ clients say the debate is over them. For the RailCorp they made a huge error in judgment. If you suggest that all assessments have the same problems as the ones used by RailCorp you do not understand all assessments.
> The debate will continue for as long as psychometric tests continue to be used.<
As long as employers use the wrong tests you are correct.
>Psychometrics is just a fad.<
Fad or not some assessments work very well.
> The fad for phrenology lasted for 170 years but there are still some believers. Provided their beliefs cause no harm to others, residual phrenologists are welcome to continue in their beliefs.<
You dismiss all assessments even though all assessments are not the same? That seems to me to be the hallmark of a true believer, evidence be damned.
>The psychometric fad will probably last for a similar period of time. However, psychometrics can cause considerable harm to others so believers must expect continuing opposition.<
You are in fact a true believer in your position since there is much evidence that disproves your assertion that assessments cannot work.
> The debate will certainly not be resolved in my lifetime so I have nothing personal to gain.<
For true believers there is always something to gain, acceptance of their position comes to mind.
>Those making a living from psychometrics have much to gain and much to loose so are unlikely to be impartial.<
That is fallacious argument and readers should reject it as such. That type of argument is often used by true believers who do not have evidence to support their claims. Using that type of argument we should reject the advice of surgeons because they too have something to gain from operating and let us not forget lawyers, engineers, accountants, etc.
>I absolutely convinced that there are no worse or more unjust ways of hiring or firing people. Psychometrics is based on conformity. Innovators do not conform and industry needs innovators. <
Oh my, you are “absolutely convinced” so therefore you are right? I think not.
>ROI is an entirely subjective rather than an objective measure of performance.<
Except in sales, see pilot study results below.
Hiring for Talent Pilot Study Results
==========================
The Company:
===========
- National and international offices
- Insurance and financial services
- 15,000+ employees worldwide
- 8 Divisions
Before Hiring for Talent:
=================
- Company-wide turnover was 34% the preceding year
- Company-wide sales averaged 101% of sales quota
- An average US Division was selected for a pilot study
After Hiring for Talent for 6 months:
==========================
- Employee turnover reduced from 34% to 19%.
- New salespeople who had a Benchmark Suitability of...
85% or above averaged 916% of sales quota
84% or below averaged 187% of sales quota
end of pilot study
When they calculated the ROI they started hiring for talent in the other divisions.
continued in PART 3
From United States, Chelsea
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
PART 3
>All objective scientific evaluations conclude that no psychometric personality test has ever achieved a correlation between predicted and actual occupational performance greater than 0.3. Professor Paul Kline was a professor of psychometrics at the University of Exeter until his death in 1999.<
I have read several of his books and have discussed his books and ideas with one of his proof readers, also a PhD psychologist. You are either misleading on purpose or you don’t know any better. Here are the correlation coefficients I have seen reported.
0.00 for a Flip of a Coin
0.14 for an Interview Only
0.26 after adding Background Checks
0.38 after adding Personality Testing
0.54 after adding Abilities Testing
0.66 after adding Interest Testing
0.75 after adding Job Match Testing
plus a few random ones...
0.18 for Job Experience (years)
0.38 for Unstructured Interviews
0.41 for Integrity Tests
0.51 for General Mental Ability Tests
0.51 for Structured Interviews
0.54 for Work Sample Tests
The secret is to use more than one method.
>In a magazine article written shortly before his death Kline says -
“A huge analysis of the predictive power of tests in occupational psychology by Schmidt & Hunter (1998) indicated that while intelligence was a relatively good predictor of occupational performance, with correlations of about 0.6, personality tests were of far more limited value, with correlations rarely exceeding 0.25. This lack of predictive power again suggests that all is not well with psychometric measurement.”<
Assessment users know that when they use both assessments the correlation is above 0.6, see my list above.
>For those unfamiliar with correlations, 0.6 is 36% and 0.25 is 6.25%.<
Do you know why? I’m educated in both engineering and business and I find your rudimentary presentation on correlations deceptive in that it does not go far enough. Copying and quoting does not substitute for understanding.
>This statement from a professor of psychometrics is clearly at odds with the wildly extravagant and exaggerated claims of many in the HR industry.<
Actually it isn’t at odds but then I again understand correlations and how to use them in business and engineering.
>Many disbelieve me when I quote Kline and I am frequently accused of making this quote up so for the doubters, the quote comes from an article in…<
Quoting an expert does not make you an expert in the subject matter quoted.
>We now each have a decision to make. Which evidence about the reliability of psychometric testing is more credible? The evidence offered by those selling psychometric tests or the evidence from the pen of a professor of psychometrics.<
What is the correlation if we interview, perform background checks, administer a personality test, assess for abilities, assess for occupational interests, and then perform a job match? The answer is found in the list above.
>From my own impartial position the decision is easy.<
You are not impartial just because you claim impartiality. And worse than that even an impartial person can be wrong. Impartiality does indicate correctness.
>For those deeply involved in HR, the decision is one that will cause considerable anxiety and cognitive dissonance for many years to come.<
Where is the evidence?
>… Psychometrics may appear a magnificent edifice to some but it has very weak foundations.<
Psychometrics is a tool that when used appropriately adds value.
>Good luck to all of you with this thorny problem.<
It is a thorny problem only if a wrong assessment is used or the right assessment is misused.
Bob Gately
From United States, Chelsea
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
>All objective scientific evaluations conclude that no psychometric personality test has ever achieved a correlation between predicted and actual occupational performance greater than 0.3. Professor Paul Kline was a professor of psychometrics at the University of Exeter until his death in 1999.<
I have read several of his books and have discussed his books and ideas with one of his proof readers, also a PhD psychologist. You are either misleading on purpose or you don’t know any better. Here are the correlation coefficients I have seen reported.
0.00 for a Flip of a Coin
0.14 for an Interview Only
0.26 after adding Background Checks
0.38 after adding Personality Testing
0.54 after adding Abilities Testing
0.66 after adding Interest Testing
0.75 after adding Job Match Testing
plus a few random ones...
0.18 for Job Experience (years)
0.38 for Unstructured Interviews
0.41 for Integrity Tests
0.51 for General Mental Ability Tests
0.51 for Structured Interviews
0.54 for Work Sample Tests
The secret is to use more than one method.
>In a magazine article written shortly before his death Kline says -
“A huge analysis of the predictive power of tests in occupational psychology by Schmidt & Hunter (1998) indicated that while intelligence was a relatively good predictor of occupational performance, with correlations of about 0.6, personality tests were of far more limited value, with correlations rarely exceeding 0.25. This lack of predictive power again suggests that all is not well with psychometric measurement.”<
Assessment users know that when they use both assessments the correlation is above 0.6, see my list above.
>For those unfamiliar with correlations, 0.6 is 36% and 0.25 is 6.25%.<
Do you know why? I’m educated in both engineering and business and I find your rudimentary presentation on correlations deceptive in that it does not go far enough. Copying and quoting does not substitute for understanding.
>This statement from a professor of psychometrics is clearly at odds with the wildly extravagant and exaggerated claims of many in the HR industry.<
Actually it isn’t at odds but then I again understand correlations and how to use them in business and engineering.
>Many disbelieve me when I quote Kline and I am frequently accused of making this quote up so for the doubters, the quote comes from an article in…<
Quoting an expert does not make you an expert in the subject matter quoted.
>We now each have a decision to make. Which evidence about the reliability of psychometric testing is more credible? The evidence offered by those selling psychometric tests or the evidence from the pen of a professor of psychometrics.<
What is the correlation if we interview, perform background checks, administer a personality test, assess for abilities, assess for occupational interests, and then perform a job match? The answer is found in the list above.
>From my own impartial position the decision is easy.<
You are not impartial just because you claim impartiality. And worse than that even an impartial person can be wrong. Impartiality does indicate correctness.
>For those deeply involved in HR, the decision is one that will cause considerable anxiety and cognitive dissonance for many years to come.<
Where is the evidence?
>… Psychometrics may appear a magnificent edifice to some but it has very weak foundations.<
Psychometrics is a tool that when used appropriately adds value.
>Good luck to all of you with this thorny problem.<
It is a thorny problem only if a wrong assessment is used or the right assessment is misused.
Bob Gately
From United States, Chelsea
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hey Hi! How come i am not getting a mail saying that a new post has been added? Both of you have left me one page ago! Anyways .... Have a nice day! Sujatha
From India, Bhilai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Bhilai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi folks,
We have a worldwide multimillion-dollar HR business affecting the lives of billions of people. One of the cornerstones of this business is psychometric testing. We have a leading figure in psychometrics telling us that "all is not well with psychometric measurement" and that 'personality tests are a poor predictor of occupational performance.'
How much more plainly must it be said before the industry sits up and takes notice? "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story" (or in this case, a good business).
Kind regards,
Mark 51
From United Kingdom, Huddersfield
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
We have a worldwide multimillion-dollar HR business affecting the lives of billions of people. One of the cornerstones of this business is psychometric testing. We have a leading figure in psychometrics telling us that "all is not well with psychometric measurement" and that 'personality tests are a poor predictor of occupational performance.'
How much more plainly must it be said before the industry sits up and takes notice? "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story" (or in this case, a good business).
Kind regards,
Mark 51
From United Kingdom, Huddersfield
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mark,
What interested me in your article is the following:
(Quote) In inventing countless theories of motivation, psychologists extend and perpetuate these mind games. They then charge you to untangle the web of distrust and confusion they are partially responsible for creating. All theories of motivation can be replaced with a single word – ask. It seems the ‘Emperor of Motivation’ has no clothes. He is not wearing robes made of a rich, complex beautiful fabric visible only to psychologists. He is as naked as the day he was born.
People behave in the ways they choose for their own reasons (conscious or unconscious), in accordance with their own feelings, moderated by the social pressures they feel at the time. The only hope of understanding what motivates any individual at the present time is to ask them. We can now discard all theories of motivation.
All we really need to know about psychology is this. The way we feel affects the way we think. What we think directs our behaviour. How we behave and the way others behave towards us affects the way we feel. This feeling – thinking – behaviour cycle was described by Galen almost 2000 years ago. It seems the smartest animal on Earth can sometimes be awfully slow to learn. (unquote)
I don't know how many of these HR theories like Psychometrics, Competency mapping, Performance appraisal etc., really contribute to the welfare of the personnel, well being of the organization and motivation of the employees.
I don't know whether the Western nations effectively use these tools to improve the quality of life and quality of work of their personnel, but in our country these are flambouyant tools used by budding HR professionals to impress top management. The same people who talk relentlessly about motivation, work ethics would leave the organization when they find a better opportunity or when they have any Ego conflict with anyone of the Executives in top management.
In India, more people are agonised, harrassed and aggrieved by HR departments than the people who are satisfied and motivated by them. The ratio could be as high as 4:1. This fact questions and shakes the very foundations of practise of HRM in India. I feel the big HR philosophies that we talk in India are again a process of imitation of West, which is a widespread disease in our country. We find the roots of this disease in films, film songs and it also percolates down to Management philosophies.
I feel there is no use talking big philosophies conducting various tests without addressing simple problems relating to personnel.
For instance, in the organization where I last worked, I had a good experience of how our HR departments function.
I went for a courtesy visit to meet DGM-HR (Dy. General Manager) who was situated in Bangalore. Alongwith me came one of my clerks (I was Officer) who came along with me to submit a representation to DGM to get a transfer to Delhi. We were working in Punjab.
DGM-HR was talking over phone about the "Power point presentation on Competency mapping & Performance appraisal” with one of the top executives of the organization. My colleague was not performing properly because he was aggrieved by the transfer he had four years ago, and his family was in Delhi. He was staying alone because he could not afford to shift his family to Delhi for various reasons.
Because of his resentment towards transfer to Punjab he was aggrieved and he developed resentment towards the organization. He has no guts to leave the organization, he has no market value as an employee because he is not educated much.
DGM-HR took the representation and told him diplomatically, “I will look into the matter”. They don’t speak more than that. My colleague wanted to speak about all his difficulties because he will not get one more opportunity to meet DGM, unless he travels 3000 miles distance in train spending almost 40 hours time. But DGM had no time and patience. He was busy with his Powerpoint presentation of Performance appraisal and Competency mapping to the top management in one Executives conference.
We left the place, and I went to Manager-ER who was subordinate to DGM-HR. My colleague did not come to meet Manager – ER he left because he had some other work to do. When I went to meet Manager – ER I found one fellow (who was a Clerk) from Punjab posted to Delhi aggrieved by the decision of Management to post him in Delhi and he came up with representation to post him to Punjab.
He was friend of Manager – ER, he had no guts to see the DGM and he met Manager – ER to put forward his request/representation to DGM through him. Manager – ER was in the process of assisting DGM to prepare for his Executives’ conference, he took the representation and kept it in his desk and said “I am busy now, we will meet later…you talk to me over phone or Email later….”.
That fellow left.
I gave the information about the fellow seeking transfer to Punjab to my colleague and told him you both can give a joint representation about your grievance and suggest the management about “mutual transfer”, because my colleague wants a posting in Delhi and the Delhi fellow wants posting in Punjab.
Even after four years after they gave joint representation, there is still no response and they are where they are working with dissatisfaction! The DGM-HR left the organization because he had some other better opportunity.
Now tell me what is the use of these big HR philosophies when we can’t do the little help to employees that does not cause any kind of disturbance to the organization. The only reason why I feel their request for mutual transfer was not considered was lethargy and neglect. DGM-HR received the representation of my colleague, he thrown it in his desk. Manager – HR did the same with Punjab fellow. They may not even have opened the covers! The fate of joint representation could also be the same.
I experienced the repercussion of that negligence and lethargy in my office 3000 miles away from Corporate Head Office, because my Clerk was not performing with dedication. When I ask him, “please … today it is year ending day, we have to sit 2 hours extra to finish off the extra work…”, he responds by saying, “what organization has given to me Saaheb? Why should I do extra work?”.
I feel the big philosophies that we use in HR are only meant to satisfy our appetite to be recognized as a good thinker by the people who watch us performing, and to please the top management, it is generally of no use for employees at grass roots level. This is the situation and reality in India.
Regarding the study of psychometry, competency mapping etc., my comment is : IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO KNOW THE NAME OF FLOWER TO ENJOY ITS FRAGRANCE. ONCE WE KNOW HOW TO ENJOY FRAGRANCE WITHOUT TRYING TO NAME IT OR INTERPRET IT, THAT ITSELF WILL ACT AS MOTIVATION FOR THE FLOWER TO SPREAD MORE AND MORE OF ITS FRAGRANCE.
Chandrasekhar
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
What interested me in your article is the following:
(Quote) In inventing countless theories of motivation, psychologists extend and perpetuate these mind games. They then charge you to untangle the web of distrust and confusion they are partially responsible for creating. All theories of motivation can be replaced with a single word – ask. It seems the ‘Emperor of Motivation’ has no clothes. He is not wearing robes made of a rich, complex beautiful fabric visible only to psychologists. He is as naked as the day he was born.
People behave in the ways they choose for their own reasons (conscious or unconscious), in accordance with their own feelings, moderated by the social pressures they feel at the time. The only hope of understanding what motivates any individual at the present time is to ask them. We can now discard all theories of motivation.
All we really need to know about psychology is this. The way we feel affects the way we think. What we think directs our behaviour. How we behave and the way others behave towards us affects the way we feel. This feeling – thinking – behaviour cycle was described by Galen almost 2000 years ago. It seems the smartest animal on Earth can sometimes be awfully slow to learn. (unquote)
I don't know how many of these HR theories like Psychometrics, Competency mapping, Performance appraisal etc., really contribute to the welfare of the personnel, well being of the organization and motivation of the employees.
I don't know whether the Western nations effectively use these tools to improve the quality of life and quality of work of their personnel, but in our country these are flambouyant tools used by budding HR professionals to impress top management. The same people who talk relentlessly about motivation, work ethics would leave the organization when they find a better opportunity or when they have any Ego conflict with anyone of the Executives in top management.
In India, more people are agonised, harrassed and aggrieved by HR departments than the people who are satisfied and motivated by them. The ratio could be as high as 4:1. This fact questions and shakes the very foundations of practise of HRM in India. I feel the big HR philosophies that we talk in India are again a process of imitation of West, which is a widespread disease in our country. We find the roots of this disease in films, film songs and it also percolates down to Management philosophies.
I feel there is no use talking big philosophies conducting various tests without addressing simple problems relating to personnel.
For instance, in the organization where I last worked, I had a good experience of how our HR departments function.
I went for a courtesy visit to meet DGM-HR (Dy. General Manager) who was situated in Bangalore. Alongwith me came one of my clerks (I was Officer) who came along with me to submit a representation to DGM to get a transfer to Delhi. We were working in Punjab.
DGM-HR was talking over phone about the "Power point presentation on Competency mapping & Performance appraisal” with one of the top executives of the organization. My colleague was not performing properly because he was aggrieved by the transfer he had four years ago, and his family was in Delhi. He was staying alone because he could not afford to shift his family to Delhi for various reasons.
Because of his resentment towards transfer to Punjab he was aggrieved and he developed resentment towards the organization. He has no guts to leave the organization, he has no market value as an employee because he is not educated much.
DGM-HR took the representation and told him diplomatically, “I will look into the matter”. They don’t speak more than that. My colleague wanted to speak about all his difficulties because he will not get one more opportunity to meet DGM, unless he travels 3000 miles distance in train spending almost 40 hours time. But DGM had no time and patience. He was busy with his Powerpoint presentation of Performance appraisal and Competency mapping to the top management in one Executives conference.
We left the place, and I went to Manager-ER who was subordinate to DGM-HR. My colleague did not come to meet Manager – ER he left because he had some other work to do. When I went to meet Manager – ER I found one fellow (who was a Clerk) from Punjab posted to Delhi aggrieved by the decision of Management to post him in Delhi and he came up with representation to post him to Punjab.
He was friend of Manager – ER, he had no guts to see the DGM and he met Manager – ER to put forward his request/representation to DGM through him. Manager – ER was in the process of assisting DGM to prepare for his Executives’ conference, he took the representation and kept it in his desk and said “I am busy now, we will meet later…you talk to me over phone or Email later….”.
That fellow left.
I gave the information about the fellow seeking transfer to Punjab to my colleague and told him you both can give a joint representation about your grievance and suggest the management about “mutual transfer”, because my colleague wants a posting in Delhi and the Delhi fellow wants posting in Punjab.
Even after four years after they gave joint representation, there is still no response and they are where they are working with dissatisfaction! The DGM-HR left the organization because he had some other better opportunity.
Now tell me what is the use of these big HR philosophies when we can’t do the little help to employees that does not cause any kind of disturbance to the organization. The only reason why I feel their request for mutual transfer was not considered was lethargy and neglect. DGM-HR received the representation of my colleague, he thrown it in his desk. Manager – HR did the same with Punjab fellow. They may not even have opened the covers! The fate of joint representation could also be the same.
I experienced the repercussion of that negligence and lethargy in my office 3000 miles away from Corporate Head Office, because my Clerk was not performing with dedication. When I ask him, “please … today it is year ending day, we have to sit 2 hours extra to finish off the extra work…”, he responds by saying, “what organization has given to me Saaheb? Why should I do extra work?”.
I feel the big philosophies that we use in HR are only meant to satisfy our appetite to be recognized as a good thinker by the people who watch us performing, and to please the top management, it is generally of no use for employees at grass roots level. This is the situation and reality in India.
Regarding the study of psychometry, competency mapping etc., my comment is : IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO KNOW THE NAME OF FLOWER TO ENJOY ITS FRAGRANCE. ONCE WE KNOW HOW TO ENJOY FRAGRANCE WITHOUT TRYING TO NAME IT OR INTERPRET IT, THAT ITSELF WILL ACT AS MOTIVATION FOR THE FLOWER TO SPREAD MORE AND MORE OF ITS FRAGRANCE.
Chandrasekhar
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Chandrasekhar,
You captured my main point beautifully. We need to forget the fancy tools, impressive theories, and the smoke and mirrors and start talking to one another and looking after one another. People matter more than theories.
Kind Regards,
Mark 51
From United Kingdom, Huddersfield
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You captured my main point beautifully. We need to forget the fancy tools, impressive theories, and the smoke and mirrors and start talking to one another and looking after one another. People matter more than theories.
Kind Regards,
Mark 51
From United Kingdom, Huddersfield
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi All,
In 1969, George Miller gave an address to the American Psychological Association. In it, he said this: "If we were ever to achieve substantial progress toward our stated aim - toward the understanding, prediction, and control of mental and behavioral phenomena - the implications for every aspect of society would make brave men tremble."
If nothing else, I would like people to reflect on the idea that psychometrics emphasizes 'prediction' and 'control' but seems to fall short of 'understanding'. I am not a brave man, but when I reflect upon the 'progress' of psychology since 1969, it certainly makes me tremble.
Kind Regards,
Mark 51
From United Kingdom, Huddersfield
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In 1969, George Miller gave an address to the American Psychological Association. In it, he said this: "If we were ever to achieve substantial progress toward our stated aim - toward the understanding, prediction, and control of mental and behavioral phenomena - the implications for every aspect of society would make brave men tremble."
If nothing else, I would like people to reflect on the idea that psychometrics emphasizes 'prediction' and 'control' but seems to fall short of 'understanding'. I am not a brave man, but when I reflect upon the 'progress' of psychology since 1969, it certainly makes me tremble.
Kind Regards,
Mark 51
From United Kingdom, Huddersfield
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Mark 51:
>We have a worldwide mulitimillion dollar HR business affecting the lives of billions of people.<
And you think employees were treated better before testing? In the good old days the wrong skin color could not get hired or promoted, the wrong faith was a career killer, getting fired was easy. The good old days are old for a reason and one reason is better selection practices. Governments have finally learned and so have some employers that predicting job success requires more than competence, education, college degrees, certifications, age, color, faith, etc.
It is unfortunate you exhibit no knowledge of hiring for talent. Hiring for talent helps applicants who would not have been hired to get hired. Your way just ensures the best candidates get hired while hiring for talent ensures that the best employees get hired.
Readers know that alma maters are held in high regard by employers everywhere. Employers who hire for talent know that alma maters are irrelevant to job success.
>One of the cornersones of this business is psychometric testing.<
And as you demonstrated so well some employers do not know what they are doing. It is too bad that many managers do things they ought not to do but if we toss all misused tools in the trash, there would be nothing left to for business to use.
All tools, services, theories, and even accounting principles, etc., are misused and abused by some manager somewhere at some time. There is no end to the mistakes incompetent managers will make.
A fool with a tool is still a fool so we cannot blame the tool for the fool's misuse of the tool. Who or what do we blame when a carpenter drives screws with a hammer? Is it the hammer's fault that the carpenter doesn't know enough or care enough to use a screwdriver?
>We have a leading figure in psychometrics telling us that "all is not well with psychometric measurement" and that 'personality tests are a poor predictor of occupational performance'.<
What leading figure supports your contention that all assessments cannot work?
If a hiring manager only assesses for personality, the manager is a fool.
If a hiring manager uses the MBTI for selection, the hiring manager is a fool because the MBTI publisher says the MBTI is not to be used for selection.
Adults should be careful to assign blame where it belongs.
>How more plainly must it be said before the industry sits up and takes notice?<
Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of "all is not well with psychometric measurement"? That statement does not mean all assessments cannot work. I think you understand the written word well enough to know that but choose to ignore the meaning.
You have yet to explain why non-ipastive assessments cannot work. You seem to focus on ipsative assessments which should not be used for selection.
>"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story"<
Which is what you are doing.
>We need to forget the fancy tools, impressive theories and the smoke and mirrors and start talking to one another and looking after one another. People matter more than theories.<
That is laudable but inadequate.
What makes you think hiring managers who hire for talent do not talk to their applicants? Hiring for talent is another step in the selection process after face-to-face interviews but before the job offer is made. The assessment often leads to better discussions as the hiring manager gets to know the applicants.
You have no explanation for the success of our clients, 50,000+ employers, that have increased employee retention and increased the number of successful employees while saving time and money. Perhaps your contention that all assessments cannot work is incorrect?
I know that you cannot afford the luxury of finding an assessment that works because that would negate your belief that all assessments cannot work.
>In 1969 George Miller…said this. "If we were ever to achieve substantial progress toward our stated aim - toward the understanding, prediction and control of mental and behavioural pheonomena - the implications for every aspect of society would make brave men tremble."
If nothing else, I would like people to refect on the the idea that psychometrics emphasises 'prediction' and 'control' seems to fall short of 'understanding'. <
Was George Miller referring to hiring employees?
Do you have anything form George Miller more recent than 38 years?
Please provide an Internet web page where I can read what he says about pre-employment testing.
If you do not provide a reference about George Miller's expertise in employee selection, I’ll take that to mean you posted one more old quote that is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
>I am not a brave man but when I refect upon the 'progress' of psychology since 1969, it certainly makes me tremble. <
It should since you may not understand why employers use assessments or how and why some assessments work so well.
Employers use assessments so that they can hire new employees who do not need to be controlled, who do not need to be trained to behave appropriately especially when stressed, and who will become long-term successful employees.
By the way, I notice you ignore what I write which tells me you are not interested in a discussion at all. A closed mind is sure way to keep from learning anything that might impact a bias.
I thought you praised CITEHR for open vigorous discussions but you act as if you are on your soap box.
Do you feel that you need not respond to those of us who disagree with you?
Bob
From United States, Chelsea
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
>We have a worldwide mulitimillion dollar HR business affecting the lives of billions of people.<
And you think employees were treated better before testing? In the good old days the wrong skin color could not get hired or promoted, the wrong faith was a career killer, getting fired was easy. The good old days are old for a reason and one reason is better selection practices. Governments have finally learned and so have some employers that predicting job success requires more than competence, education, college degrees, certifications, age, color, faith, etc.
It is unfortunate you exhibit no knowledge of hiring for talent. Hiring for talent helps applicants who would not have been hired to get hired. Your way just ensures the best candidates get hired while hiring for talent ensures that the best employees get hired.
Readers know that alma maters are held in high regard by employers everywhere. Employers who hire for talent know that alma maters are irrelevant to job success.
>One of the cornersones of this business is psychometric testing.<
And as you demonstrated so well some employers do not know what they are doing. It is too bad that many managers do things they ought not to do but if we toss all misused tools in the trash, there would be nothing left to for business to use.
All tools, services, theories, and even accounting principles, etc., are misused and abused by some manager somewhere at some time. There is no end to the mistakes incompetent managers will make.
A fool with a tool is still a fool so we cannot blame the tool for the fool's misuse of the tool. Who or what do we blame when a carpenter drives screws with a hammer? Is it the hammer's fault that the carpenter doesn't know enough or care enough to use a screwdriver?
>We have a leading figure in psychometrics telling us that "all is not well with psychometric measurement" and that 'personality tests are a poor predictor of occupational performance'.<
What leading figure supports your contention that all assessments cannot work?
If a hiring manager only assesses for personality, the manager is a fool.
If a hiring manager uses the MBTI for selection, the hiring manager is a fool because the MBTI publisher says the MBTI is not to be used for selection.
Adults should be careful to assign blame where it belongs.
>How more plainly must it be said before the industry sits up and takes notice?<
Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of "all is not well with psychometric measurement"? That statement does not mean all assessments cannot work. I think you understand the written word well enough to know that but choose to ignore the meaning.
You have yet to explain why non-ipastive assessments cannot work. You seem to focus on ipsative assessments which should not be used for selection.
>"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story"<
Which is what you are doing.
>We need to forget the fancy tools, impressive theories and the smoke and mirrors and start talking to one another and looking after one another. People matter more than theories.<
That is laudable but inadequate.
What makes you think hiring managers who hire for talent do not talk to their applicants? Hiring for talent is another step in the selection process after face-to-face interviews but before the job offer is made. The assessment often leads to better discussions as the hiring manager gets to know the applicants.
You have no explanation for the success of our clients, 50,000+ employers, that have increased employee retention and increased the number of successful employees while saving time and money. Perhaps your contention that all assessments cannot work is incorrect?
I know that you cannot afford the luxury of finding an assessment that works because that would negate your belief that all assessments cannot work.
>In 1969 George Miller…said this. "If we were ever to achieve substantial progress toward our stated aim - toward the understanding, prediction and control of mental and behavioural pheonomena - the implications for every aspect of society would make brave men tremble."
If nothing else, I would like people to refect on the the idea that psychometrics emphasises 'prediction' and 'control' seems to fall short of 'understanding'. <
Was George Miller referring to hiring employees?
Do you have anything form George Miller more recent than 38 years?
Please provide an Internet web page where I can read what he says about pre-employment testing.
If you do not provide a reference about George Miller's expertise in employee selection, I’ll take that to mean you posted one more old quote that is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
>I am not a brave man but when I refect upon the 'progress' of psychology since 1969, it certainly makes me tremble. <
It should since you may not understand why employers use assessments or how and why some assessments work so well.
Employers use assessments so that they can hire new employees who do not need to be controlled, who do not need to be trained to behave appropriately especially when stressed, and who will become long-term successful employees.
By the way, I notice you ignore what I write which tells me you are not interested in a discussion at all. A closed mind is sure way to keep from learning anything that might impact a bias.
I thought you praised CITEHR for open vigorous discussions but you act as if you are on your soap box.
Do you feel that you need not respond to those of us who disagree with you?
Bob
From United States, Chelsea
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Bob,
You are aware that the unemployment level across the globe is always on the rise because of the growing populations in developing and underdeveloped nations. In that context, the ethical question I have for people who do the business of psychometric testing is, "Do you have any concern for people who are incompetent for various reasons like lack of amenities, facilities to receive education in their countries...?"
Your business stands on the premise that "only competent people" are fit to survive in this world, and incompetence has no place, but our conscience suggests that every human being, whether educated or illiterate, competent or incompetent, has the right to live on this planet.
Hence, I feel compelled to suggest to employers that only the best talents should be absorbed into the jobs and that those who don't have talent must be excluded at the interview/psychometric testing stage itself. This approach is totally unethical by any standards.
Before I ask another question, let me tell you a story.
The ten biggest corporations in the USA approached a psychometric testing agency for help in hiring the best talents for their businesses. Let's say, a businessman like you has selected 10,000 brightest candidates by conducting psychometric tests out of 100,000 people interviewed. 90,000 people were rejected in the process and did not get jobs in the ten biggest corporations of the US.
Later, the next ten biggest corporations approached you to select candidates for their firms. 200,000 candidates appeared for interviews and tests, and among them were those 90,000 candidates you had previously rejected for the top ten US companies.
Out of those 90,000 candidates, this time you selected 7,000 candidates for the next best ten US corporations. Does it mean you have selected incompetent people (since you rejected the same candidates for the top ten US corporations) for your clients, as you have already given the best talents of the US to the top ten US corporations?
Is it not a blatant lie to sell yourselves by saying, "we select the best talents for your firm/company" when you give off the best talents to your best clients and supply incompetent candidates to less preferred clients?
Moreover, I feel your business is a violation of human rights. Every human being on Earth has the right to live, and in order to enjoy that right, every citizen must have a right to employment, whether competent or incompetent. To operate a business that only focuses on competent people and disregards its responsibility towards billions of Earth's citizens who are labeled as "incompetent" by your psychometric testing is unethical.
The creation of wealth on the planet is a process that involves everyone's effort, and the entire humanity should be a part of that process so that every human being can enjoy an equal right over the wealth produced. To claim that only competent people are eligible to be part of that process, without considering those rejected candidates labeled as incompetent in comparison to the candidates you select, is immoral.
You may argue, "for an employer to select candidates, some selection process is needed, hence we suggest psychometric testing... no employer can select everyone who appears for an interview..."
That is true. But how does a candidate who is rejected by you in the selection process of one company get selected in the selection process of another company? If you want to justify your business, then no candidate rejected by one psychometric testing agency should be selected by the same or any other psychometric testing agency for any other job, because psychometric testing not only involves an "ability test" but also a "personality test" and an "interest test." A candidate who fails the personality test/interest test for Company A cannot pass the same for Company B.
It is time somebody started a business of training prospective job-seekers on how to pass psychometric testing conducted by agencies like yours. Then your psychometric testing will fail to understand whether they are "genuine candidates" or "trained candidates."
Chandrasekhar
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You are aware that the unemployment level across the globe is always on the rise because of the growing populations in developing and underdeveloped nations. In that context, the ethical question I have for people who do the business of psychometric testing is, "Do you have any concern for people who are incompetent for various reasons like lack of amenities, facilities to receive education in their countries...?"
Your business stands on the premise that "only competent people" are fit to survive in this world, and incompetence has no place, but our conscience suggests that every human being, whether educated or illiterate, competent or incompetent, has the right to live on this planet.
Hence, I feel compelled to suggest to employers that only the best talents should be absorbed into the jobs and that those who don't have talent must be excluded at the interview/psychometric testing stage itself. This approach is totally unethical by any standards.
Before I ask another question, let me tell you a story.
The ten biggest corporations in the USA approached a psychometric testing agency for help in hiring the best talents for their businesses. Let's say, a businessman like you has selected 10,000 brightest candidates by conducting psychometric tests out of 100,000 people interviewed. 90,000 people were rejected in the process and did not get jobs in the ten biggest corporations of the US.
Later, the next ten biggest corporations approached you to select candidates for their firms. 200,000 candidates appeared for interviews and tests, and among them were those 90,000 candidates you had previously rejected for the top ten US companies.
Out of those 90,000 candidates, this time you selected 7,000 candidates for the next best ten US corporations. Does it mean you have selected incompetent people (since you rejected the same candidates for the top ten US corporations) for your clients, as you have already given the best talents of the US to the top ten US corporations?
Is it not a blatant lie to sell yourselves by saying, "we select the best talents for your firm/company" when you give off the best talents to your best clients and supply incompetent candidates to less preferred clients?
Moreover, I feel your business is a violation of human rights. Every human being on Earth has the right to live, and in order to enjoy that right, every citizen must have a right to employment, whether competent or incompetent. To operate a business that only focuses on competent people and disregards its responsibility towards billions of Earth's citizens who are labeled as "incompetent" by your psychometric testing is unethical.
The creation of wealth on the planet is a process that involves everyone's effort, and the entire humanity should be a part of that process so that every human being can enjoy an equal right over the wealth produced. To claim that only competent people are eligible to be part of that process, without considering those rejected candidates labeled as incompetent in comparison to the candidates you select, is immoral.
You may argue, "for an employer to select candidates, some selection process is needed, hence we suggest psychometric testing... no employer can select everyone who appears for an interview..."
That is true. But how does a candidate who is rejected by you in the selection process of one company get selected in the selection process of another company? If you want to justify your business, then no candidate rejected by one psychometric testing agency should be selected by the same or any other psychometric testing agency for any other job, because psychometric testing not only involves an "ability test" but also a "personality test" and an "interest test." A candidate who fails the personality test/interest test for Company A cannot pass the same for Company B.
It is time somebody started a business of training prospective job-seekers on how to pass psychometric testing conducted by agencies like yours. Then your psychometric testing will fail to understand whether they are "genuine candidates" or "trained candidates."
Chandrasekhar
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Chandrasekhar:
Thank you for your response since it gives me a chance to clear up the misunderstandings you have about what it is we do. Please forgive me if you think my comments are harsh but I am in rush and want to get this posted before I leave the office.
>You are aware the unemployment level across the globe is always on the rising because of the growing populations in developing and under-developed nations.<
Perhaps we need know why governments do nothing too solve the problem?
>In that context the ethical question I have for people who do the business of psychometric testing - "Do you have any concern for people who are incompetent for various reasons like lack of amenities, facilities to receive education in their countries..."?<
Talent assessments do not assess for competencies. Employers that hire for talent learn to hire incompetent people who have a good or better talent for the job provided the employer can train them to become competent. Employers cannot train employees to increase their job talent.
>Your business stands on the premise that "only competent people" are fit to survive in this world<
You are factually incorrect since hiring for talent is unrelated to competence. Perhaps you should ask more questions before passing judgment, reread my paragraph above.
> and incompetence has no place, but our conscience suggests that every human being whether educated or illiterate, competent or incompetent has right to live on this planet.<
What has that got to do with hiring for talent? Talent assessments do not assess for competencies.
>Hence I feel to suggest to the employers that only the best talents shall be absorbed in the jobs and those who don't have talent must be thrown out at interview/psychometric testing stage itself, is totally unethical by any standards.<
Talent is not competence therefore your comments are unrelated to my comments. If you wish to comment on what I write, at least take the time to understand what I write. Ask questions if you must but do not presume you understand when you do not.
You need to understand what it is we do. Reread my messages with an open mind and don't presume that I am only concerned with hiring the best educated applicants, quite to the contrary. Only about 20% of the jobs in the US actually require a 4 year college degree so I am always on the side of hiring for talent which is unrelated to educational achievement, race, faith, age, gender, etc.. If you read the section below about hiring for talent, you’ll see three cases when the competent should not be hired and two cases when the incompetent should be hired.
>10 Biggest corporates of USA approached one psychometric testing agency for help to hire best talents for their businesses. Let us say, a businessman like you have selected 10000 brightest candidates by conducting psychometric tests out of 100000 people interviewed. 90000 people were rejected in the process, they did not get jobs in the 10 Biggest corporates of US.<
Yikes, how many times do I have to write on CITEHR that talent is unrelated to how bright or how well educated a person happens to be or their alma mater or their parents social standing?
Please learn what it is we do before you accuse us of doing something we do not do. Your lack of understanding of what we do is getting in the way of meaningful dialogue.
>Later the next 10 Biggest corporates approached you to select candidates for their firms, 200000 candidates appeared for interviews and tests, and out of them there are those 90000 candidates you have earlier rejected for top 10 US companies.<
Your examples are not relevant to what we do. Please take some time to learn before assuming you know enough to criticize.
>Is it not a blatant lie to sell yourselves by saying, "we select best talents for your firm/company" when you yourself give off best talents to your best clients and supply incompetent candidates to less preferred clients?<
It is sad that you know so little about what we do while offering so much misinformation. We do not “select best talents for your firm/company” but we do show employers how to identify the right talent to hire. Be sure to read the section below on Hiring for Talent.
>I feel your business is Human rights violation, every human being on Earth has a right to live, and in order to enjoy that right, every citizen must have a right to employment whether he is competent or incompetent.<
You demonstrate quite nicely why feelings are irrelevant. Your feelings are based on your own thoughts and biases but your feelings are unrelated to our business.
You should be joining with me in educating hiring managers to hire for talent because it gives them a reason to hire incompetent job applicants and then train them to become competent. Had you asked a question I would have shared this with you.
>To say or do a business that only bothers about competent people and forgets its responsiblity about billions of citizens of Earth who according to you and your psychometric testing are "incompetent" is unethical.<
It is unethical to accuse people of doing something that they do not do. Had you asked questions, you could have saved yourself the embarrassment.
>To say only competent people are eligible to be part of that process, we don't have anything to say about those people who we reject labelling them as incompetent in comparison to the candidates you select is immoral.<
The only person saying such things is you. I reject all the nonsense you have posted about what you think we do. Take the time to educate yourself before you go off on another tangent.
Hiring for Talent:
Hiring for talent is the key to hiring successful employees. If we want to be sure that all our new hires and employees become long-term successful employees, we need to make sure that all employees are competent and have a talent for their jobs.
For employees to find job success
... talent is necessary, but not sufficient.
... skills are necessary, but not sufficient.
... training is necessary, but not sufficient.
... orientation is necessary, but not sufficient.
... knowledge is necessary, but not sufficient.
... competency is necessary, but not sufficient.
... qualifications are necessary, but not sufficient.
... effective management is necessary, but not sufficient.
... successful interviews are necessary, but not sufficient.
Talent is the only necessary condition for job success that employers cannot provide their employees and schools cannot provide their students. Employers must hire talent, see the book "First, Break All the Rules, What the world's greatest managers do differently." See my book review at “http://tinyurl.com/cwpa9” .
Most employers don't measure talent so they can't hire for talent even if they do hire the best and the brightest.
Competence and Talent are necessary but they are not the same. The following ties competence and talent together in a short guide for selecting the right people for a position. Talent and competence are necessary but they are two different things. Selecting for competence and talent avoids many performance problems. There are two conditions, see 3A and 3B below, when competent people should not be hired or selected for a position. Each position has its own talent requirement.
Job applicants can have
1. Excellent Talent ... greater than 85% job suitability
2. Adequate Talent ... 85% to 70% job suitability
3. Inadequate Talent ... less than 70% job suitability
Job applicants can also be
A. Highly Competent
B. Competent
C. Not Competent
The following is the order in which applicants and/or employees should be selected for positions.
1A = Excellent Talent and Highly Competent
1B = Excellent Talent and Competent
2A = Adequate Talent and Highly Competent
2B = Adequate Talent and Competent
The following should be selected if they can become competent.
1C = Excellent Talent and Not Competent
2C = Adequate Talent and Not Competent
The following should not be selected.
3A = Inadequate Talent and Highly Competent
3B = Inadequate Talent and Competent
3C = Inadequate Talent and Not Competent
Talent must be hired since it cannot be imparted or acquired after the hire.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and feelings.
I thoink we agree much more than we disagree.
Bob
From United States, Chelsea
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you for your response since it gives me a chance to clear up the misunderstandings you have about what it is we do. Please forgive me if you think my comments are harsh but I am in rush and want to get this posted before I leave the office.
>You are aware the unemployment level across the globe is always on the rising because of the growing populations in developing and under-developed nations.<
Perhaps we need know why governments do nothing too solve the problem?
>In that context the ethical question I have for people who do the business of psychometric testing - "Do you have any concern for people who are incompetent for various reasons like lack of amenities, facilities to receive education in their countries..."?<
Talent assessments do not assess for competencies. Employers that hire for talent learn to hire incompetent people who have a good or better talent for the job provided the employer can train them to become competent. Employers cannot train employees to increase their job talent.
>Your business stands on the premise that "only competent people" are fit to survive in this world<
You are factually incorrect since hiring for talent is unrelated to competence. Perhaps you should ask more questions before passing judgment, reread my paragraph above.
> and incompetence has no place, but our conscience suggests that every human being whether educated or illiterate, competent or incompetent has right to live on this planet.<
What has that got to do with hiring for talent? Talent assessments do not assess for competencies.
>Hence I feel to suggest to the employers that only the best talents shall be absorbed in the jobs and those who don't have talent must be thrown out at interview/psychometric testing stage itself, is totally unethical by any standards.<
Talent is not competence therefore your comments are unrelated to my comments. If you wish to comment on what I write, at least take the time to understand what I write. Ask questions if you must but do not presume you understand when you do not.
You need to understand what it is we do. Reread my messages with an open mind and don't presume that I am only concerned with hiring the best educated applicants, quite to the contrary. Only about 20% of the jobs in the US actually require a 4 year college degree so I am always on the side of hiring for talent which is unrelated to educational achievement, race, faith, age, gender, etc.. If you read the section below about hiring for talent, you’ll see three cases when the competent should not be hired and two cases when the incompetent should be hired.
>10 Biggest corporates of USA approached one psychometric testing agency for help to hire best talents for their businesses. Let us say, a businessman like you have selected 10000 brightest candidates by conducting psychometric tests out of 100000 people interviewed. 90000 people were rejected in the process, they did not get jobs in the 10 Biggest corporates of US.<
Yikes, how many times do I have to write on CITEHR that talent is unrelated to how bright or how well educated a person happens to be or their alma mater or their parents social standing?
Please learn what it is we do before you accuse us of doing something we do not do. Your lack of understanding of what we do is getting in the way of meaningful dialogue.
>Later the next 10 Biggest corporates approached you to select candidates for their firms, 200000 candidates appeared for interviews and tests, and out of them there are those 90000 candidates you have earlier rejected for top 10 US companies.<
Your examples are not relevant to what we do. Please take some time to learn before assuming you know enough to criticize.
>Is it not a blatant lie to sell yourselves by saying, "we select best talents for your firm/company" when you yourself give off best talents to your best clients and supply incompetent candidates to less preferred clients?<
It is sad that you know so little about what we do while offering so much misinformation. We do not “select best talents for your firm/company” but we do show employers how to identify the right talent to hire. Be sure to read the section below on Hiring for Talent.
>I feel your business is Human rights violation, every human being on Earth has a right to live, and in order to enjoy that right, every citizen must have a right to employment whether he is competent or incompetent.<
You demonstrate quite nicely why feelings are irrelevant. Your feelings are based on your own thoughts and biases but your feelings are unrelated to our business.
You should be joining with me in educating hiring managers to hire for talent because it gives them a reason to hire incompetent job applicants and then train them to become competent. Had you asked a question I would have shared this with you.
>To say or do a business that only bothers about competent people and forgets its responsiblity about billions of citizens of Earth who according to you and your psychometric testing are "incompetent" is unethical.<
It is unethical to accuse people of doing something that they do not do. Had you asked questions, you could have saved yourself the embarrassment.
>To say only competent people are eligible to be part of that process, we don't have anything to say about those people who we reject labelling them as incompetent in comparison to the candidates you select is immoral.<
The only person saying such things is you. I reject all the nonsense you have posted about what you think we do. Take the time to educate yourself before you go off on another tangent.
Hiring for Talent:
Hiring for talent is the key to hiring successful employees. If we want to be sure that all our new hires and employees become long-term successful employees, we need to make sure that all employees are competent and have a talent for their jobs.
For employees to find job success
... talent is necessary, but not sufficient.
... skills are necessary, but not sufficient.
... training is necessary, but not sufficient.
... orientation is necessary, but not sufficient.
... knowledge is necessary, but not sufficient.
... competency is necessary, but not sufficient.
... qualifications are necessary, but not sufficient.
... effective management is necessary, but not sufficient.
... successful interviews are necessary, but not sufficient.
Talent is the only necessary condition for job success that employers cannot provide their employees and schools cannot provide their students. Employers must hire talent, see the book "First, Break All the Rules, What the world's greatest managers do differently." See my book review at “http://tinyurl.com/cwpa9” .
Most employers don't measure talent so they can't hire for talent even if they do hire the best and the brightest.
Competence and Talent are necessary but they are not the same. The following ties competence and talent together in a short guide for selecting the right people for a position. Talent and competence are necessary but they are two different things. Selecting for competence and talent avoids many performance problems. There are two conditions, see 3A and 3B below, when competent people should not be hired or selected for a position. Each position has its own talent requirement.
Job applicants can have
1. Excellent Talent ... greater than 85% job suitability
2. Adequate Talent ... 85% to 70% job suitability
3. Inadequate Talent ... less than 70% job suitability
Job applicants can also be
A. Highly Competent
B. Competent
C. Not Competent
The following is the order in which applicants and/or employees should be selected for positions.
1A = Excellent Talent and Highly Competent
1B = Excellent Talent and Competent
2A = Adequate Talent and Highly Competent
2B = Adequate Talent and Competent
The following should be selected if they can become competent.
1C = Excellent Talent and Not Competent
2C = Adequate Talent and Not Competent
The following should not be selected.
3A = Inadequate Talent and Highly Competent
3B = Inadequate Talent and Competent
3C = Inadequate Talent and Not Competent
Talent must be hired since it cannot be imparted or acquired after the hire.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and feelings.
I thoink we agree much more than we disagree.
Bob
From United States, Chelsea
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Bob,
I don't read books filled with theories of nonsense to understand concepts. I use my own imaginative faculties to understand concepts my own way. Hence please don't dictate to me what to read what not to read. You can present constructive criticism but not be so authoritative and arrogant as to say to somebody what he shall do and what he shall not do. The usage of the word “nonsense” and the “tone and tenor” of some parts of your letter is not polite, it is arrogant. I did not raise questions to you in my earlier communication with an intent to disagree with what you do. They are raised more to know your view point.
Questions are often raised by people with two frames of mind :
1. With a preconceived notion and attitude, "I don't agree with you nor I am going to agree with you whatever you say, because I don't like you..."
2. With an open mind, inviting answers to know the truth of the matter.
It is not the questions that we find to be offensive, but the "way they are asked". And when any question is asked in written we will not know with what frame of mind he is asking the question...i.e., whether it is asked with an open mind with the mindset of a student or whether it is asked with a preconceived notion to disagree to whatever the respondent is going to say.
The following is my understanding and ideas about "Competence", "Skill", "Experience" and "Performance". You have a right to disagree with my ideas, I don’t want to force you to accept my definitions about what is competence, what is skill, what is experience and what is performance.
......................
Skill is the ability to perform a certain work with a certain degree of perfection. Skill relates to the merit and efficiency of the person performing the job, whereas the Experience relates to the knowledge of a person who has performed certain job/work for a certain period of time. Depending on the level of understanding/depth of knowledge in performing the job/work one gains skill. An experienced man may not be as skilled as a meritorious man, and a meritorious man may not be as skillful as an experienced man. Both are possible. The reason is, the experienced man may not possess as much IQ/ability to understand the work in such depth that he is required to know. On the other side, a meritorious man may understand the work much faster, much deeper than an experienced man. It is very difficult to address the debate of whether experience shall be given priority or the merit in promotions. The reason is, sometimes the experienced man may be possessing more skill than a meritorious man, sometimes the meritorious man may be possessing more skill than a experienced man. Hence I feel we should not generalize this subject as “Experience Vs. Merit”. Both experience and merit contribute towards development of a skill. When we contend “Seniority” must be given preference over “Merit” what we mean is that the Senior man is more “experienced” man of the two. Hence there is no difference between the words “seniority” and “experience”.
Experience (from HR point of view) is the knowledge of various ways, limitations, methods, application of skill to perform a work. When experience adds to skill and merit one becomes efficient and competent. Many people mistake experience as time spent on a particular job. That is why in job market, one’s Experience is mentioned as 10 years, 5 years, 15 years and so on. It is wrong because greater amount of time spent on a job need not necessarily improve one’s skill, and less time spent on a job need not necessarily mean lesser (skill) ability to perform a job. Hence I believe, ‘time factor’ has nothing to do with experience, experience relates to the ‘knowledge factor’. As it is possible for someone to achieve greater level of knowledge in less amount of time, one’s experience should not be measured in terms of ‘time factor’. In this context we have to understand that it is not necessary that knowledge means the knowledge gained from books. Knowledge can be knowledge gained from experience. One experienced man knows that if he goes a certain way, it becomes late to reach home. He learnt it practically by experience. Hence experience also contributes to knowledge. What we mean by experience here is one’s living through an event or happening. If he knows that if he can avoid that way he can reach home faster, he will avoid that way the next time. That will help him to reach home faster. That is why I say, knowledge gained by practical experience contributes to Experience. One also gets Experience by observation. Some other fellow who is neighbor of the fellow mentioned above who watched the abovementioned fellow reaching home late by going a certain way knows that if he goes that way, he will be late. That is experience gained through observation.
It is possible for a meritorious man to achieve greater levels of depth in understanding the ways, limitation, methods and application of skills to perform a work. Hence one year work experience of a meritorious man sometimes can be equated to 10 years experience of a non-meritorious man. The knowledge and understanding of a non-meritorious man stagnates at some level. That is why many people remain in lower levels in organizations. A meritorious man while performing the job applies the already gained theoretical knowledge to the practical work situation and thus gains greater depths of understanding in performing a job with greater level of efficiency. The knowledge and understanding of a meritorious man may stagnate, and the knowledge and understanding of a non-meritorious man may improve with greater interest shown in learning. Hence it is difficult to say, whether a meritorious man necessarily achieves greater level of skill & efficiency in performing a job and a non-meritorious man necessarily stagnates even if he spends years in job. But the general notion is that the meritorious people achieve greater levels of efficiency within short of period of time and non-meritorious people stagnate at one level without growing in their skills, competencies. 80 out of 100 meritorious people don’t stagnate, and only 10-20 out of 100 non-meritorious people can rise to such high positions that meritorious people rise in organizations because of keen interest and initiative shown in learning about the job while spending time in their organization.
Competence is the ability to perform certain job with greater level of perfection. In other words it is display of greater levels of efficiency in one’s skill. Though many people view ‘competence’ and ‘skill’ as synonyms, I sense there is slight difference between competence and skill. What is the relationship/difference between skill and competence? A person called X may run 100 metres distance in 50 seconds. That is the level of his skill. Another person called Y runs 100 metres distance in 20 seconds. We say Y is more competent than X. Hence I define competence as the ‘measure of one’s skill’. Both X and Y have the skill to run 100 metres distance. But they are not equally competent in performing that job. It may also be possible that X improves his skill and run 100 metres distance in 30 seconds after a few days. Hence competence is always relative to past level of one’s skill or to the skill of some other person.
Performance is the amount of contributions the employee made to the organization in terms of work. A competent employee need not be a good performer. A good performer need not be competent. He may take more time to perform a job than a competent person. But because of his dedication towards organization and work, he may spend more time per day to generate greater level of output than a competent man who does not spend as much time to generate as much output as an ordinary employee generates by spending more time. This can be explained by the example of two persons, X and Y who have the skill to make a pair of shoes. Y is more competent than X, he can make 5 pairs of shoes in 5 hours. X can make only 3 pairs of shoes in 5 hours. The daily minimum requirement the organization expects from an employee making shoes is 5 pairs of shoes per day. Y spends exactly 5 hours per day and finishes his work and goes off. Whereas X spends 10 hours to make 6 pairs of shoes. That is how the performance of X is better than Y, though Y is more competent than X.
...................
I don't know what do you psychometric theorists mean by "talent". Can you explain to me what do you mean by "talent"? Can we say "Talent and Merit" are synonymous?
Earlier I have written to you assuming that there is no difference between “talent” and “competence”. If you have any problem with my usage of word, “incompetence” in my earlier communication, then replace the word incompetence with the phrase “lack of talent”.
Now that you are saying there is some difference between “talent” and “competence”, I want to know what it is. This is only inquiry not interrogation.
Do you mean to say Justin Gatlin has the talent to run 100 metres sprint in 9.77 seconds, but he does not have the competence to outrun his competitors who cannot complete the race even in 10 seconds? Do you mean to say he displays talent without having any "inclination within" to outperform his competitors? Do you mean to say there are some people on Globe who express their talent with out trying to outsmart anyone/their competitors?
Is it possible for anyone to have talent but not be competent and to have competence but not have talent? Can you give me an example of some renowned person who satisfies the condition of 1C., i.e., Excellent talent, but not competent.
Roger Federer competed with Rafael Nadal in Wimbledon Finals recently. He outclassed Nadal in the game. What do you see in Federer, Talent or Competence? I say, he competed well with Nadal that is why he outperformed him. Is it possible to say, he has competence but no talent? Can you give me an example of some renowned person who satisfies the condition of 3A, i.e., highly competitive but inadequate talent?
Next, is there any correlation between “talent” and “individual loyalty”? Why do you say that people having both “talent and competence” in good amounts will remain for a long-term in organizations? Do we have to accept because Bob Gately said it?
You say, “Talent is the only necessary condition for job success that employers cannot provide for their employees and schools cannot provide for their students”. Do you mean to say ‘talent’ is some inborn quality that cannot be developed through practice and perseverance? Who authenticated the idea that Talent is the only necessary condition for job success? Do we have to accept because Bob Gately said it?
You say, “Competence and Talent are necessary but they are not the same”. When you build a big theory on this premise, you have a responsibility to explain what is the difference between two, but you did not explain anything about the difference between two. Why should anyone accept “competence and talent are not the same”, because Bob Gately said it?
I don’t agree with anything that any great thinker would have said, unless I know, accept and authenticate it by my own reasoning. If you say, “some book has said like that so, you have to accept it”, I am not going to accept like that.
If you find my questions reasonable, then please answer. You may not find these questions reasonable, but the forum members may find them reasonable.
Chandrasekhar
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I don't read books filled with theories of nonsense to understand concepts. I use my own imaginative faculties to understand concepts my own way. Hence please don't dictate to me what to read what not to read. You can present constructive criticism but not be so authoritative and arrogant as to say to somebody what he shall do and what he shall not do. The usage of the word “nonsense” and the “tone and tenor” of some parts of your letter is not polite, it is arrogant. I did not raise questions to you in my earlier communication with an intent to disagree with what you do. They are raised more to know your view point.
Questions are often raised by people with two frames of mind :
1. With a preconceived notion and attitude, "I don't agree with you nor I am going to agree with you whatever you say, because I don't like you..."
2. With an open mind, inviting answers to know the truth of the matter.
It is not the questions that we find to be offensive, but the "way they are asked". And when any question is asked in written we will not know with what frame of mind he is asking the question...i.e., whether it is asked with an open mind with the mindset of a student or whether it is asked with a preconceived notion to disagree to whatever the respondent is going to say.
The following is my understanding and ideas about "Competence", "Skill", "Experience" and "Performance". You have a right to disagree with my ideas, I don’t want to force you to accept my definitions about what is competence, what is skill, what is experience and what is performance.
......................
Skill is the ability to perform a certain work with a certain degree of perfection. Skill relates to the merit and efficiency of the person performing the job, whereas the Experience relates to the knowledge of a person who has performed certain job/work for a certain period of time. Depending on the level of understanding/depth of knowledge in performing the job/work one gains skill. An experienced man may not be as skilled as a meritorious man, and a meritorious man may not be as skillful as an experienced man. Both are possible. The reason is, the experienced man may not possess as much IQ/ability to understand the work in such depth that he is required to know. On the other side, a meritorious man may understand the work much faster, much deeper than an experienced man. It is very difficult to address the debate of whether experience shall be given priority or the merit in promotions. The reason is, sometimes the experienced man may be possessing more skill than a meritorious man, sometimes the meritorious man may be possessing more skill than a experienced man. Hence I feel we should not generalize this subject as “Experience Vs. Merit”. Both experience and merit contribute towards development of a skill. When we contend “Seniority” must be given preference over “Merit” what we mean is that the Senior man is more “experienced” man of the two. Hence there is no difference between the words “seniority” and “experience”.
Experience (from HR point of view) is the knowledge of various ways, limitations, methods, application of skill to perform a work. When experience adds to skill and merit one becomes efficient and competent. Many people mistake experience as time spent on a particular job. That is why in job market, one’s Experience is mentioned as 10 years, 5 years, 15 years and so on. It is wrong because greater amount of time spent on a job need not necessarily improve one’s skill, and less time spent on a job need not necessarily mean lesser (skill) ability to perform a job. Hence I believe, ‘time factor’ has nothing to do with experience, experience relates to the ‘knowledge factor’. As it is possible for someone to achieve greater level of knowledge in less amount of time, one’s experience should not be measured in terms of ‘time factor’. In this context we have to understand that it is not necessary that knowledge means the knowledge gained from books. Knowledge can be knowledge gained from experience. One experienced man knows that if he goes a certain way, it becomes late to reach home. He learnt it practically by experience. Hence experience also contributes to knowledge. What we mean by experience here is one’s living through an event or happening. If he knows that if he can avoid that way he can reach home faster, he will avoid that way the next time. That will help him to reach home faster. That is why I say, knowledge gained by practical experience contributes to Experience. One also gets Experience by observation. Some other fellow who is neighbor of the fellow mentioned above who watched the abovementioned fellow reaching home late by going a certain way knows that if he goes that way, he will be late. That is experience gained through observation.
It is possible for a meritorious man to achieve greater levels of depth in understanding the ways, limitation, methods and application of skills to perform a work. Hence one year work experience of a meritorious man sometimes can be equated to 10 years experience of a non-meritorious man. The knowledge and understanding of a non-meritorious man stagnates at some level. That is why many people remain in lower levels in organizations. A meritorious man while performing the job applies the already gained theoretical knowledge to the practical work situation and thus gains greater depths of understanding in performing a job with greater level of efficiency. The knowledge and understanding of a meritorious man may stagnate, and the knowledge and understanding of a non-meritorious man may improve with greater interest shown in learning. Hence it is difficult to say, whether a meritorious man necessarily achieves greater level of skill & efficiency in performing a job and a non-meritorious man necessarily stagnates even if he spends years in job. But the general notion is that the meritorious people achieve greater levels of efficiency within short of period of time and non-meritorious people stagnate at one level without growing in their skills, competencies. 80 out of 100 meritorious people don’t stagnate, and only 10-20 out of 100 non-meritorious people can rise to such high positions that meritorious people rise in organizations because of keen interest and initiative shown in learning about the job while spending time in their organization.
Competence is the ability to perform certain job with greater level of perfection. In other words it is display of greater levels of efficiency in one’s skill. Though many people view ‘competence’ and ‘skill’ as synonyms, I sense there is slight difference between competence and skill. What is the relationship/difference between skill and competence? A person called X may run 100 metres distance in 50 seconds. That is the level of his skill. Another person called Y runs 100 metres distance in 20 seconds. We say Y is more competent than X. Hence I define competence as the ‘measure of one’s skill’. Both X and Y have the skill to run 100 metres distance. But they are not equally competent in performing that job. It may also be possible that X improves his skill and run 100 metres distance in 30 seconds after a few days. Hence competence is always relative to past level of one’s skill or to the skill of some other person.
Performance is the amount of contributions the employee made to the organization in terms of work. A competent employee need not be a good performer. A good performer need not be competent. He may take more time to perform a job than a competent person. But because of his dedication towards organization and work, he may spend more time per day to generate greater level of output than a competent man who does not spend as much time to generate as much output as an ordinary employee generates by spending more time. This can be explained by the example of two persons, X and Y who have the skill to make a pair of shoes. Y is more competent than X, he can make 5 pairs of shoes in 5 hours. X can make only 3 pairs of shoes in 5 hours. The daily minimum requirement the organization expects from an employee making shoes is 5 pairs of shoes per day. Y spends exactly 5 hours per day and finishes his work and goes off. Whereas X spends 10 hours to make 6 pairs of shoes. That is how the performance of X is better than Y, though Y is more competent than X.
...................
I don't know what do you psychometric theorists mean by "talent". Can you explain to me what do you mean by "talent"? Can we say "Talent and Merit" are synonymous?
Earlier I have written to you assuming that there is no difference between “talent” and “competence”. If you have any problem with my usage of word, “incompetence” in my earlier communication, then replace the word incompetence with the phrase “lack of talent”.
Now that you are saying there is some difference between “talent” and “competence”, I want to know what it is. This is only inquiry not interrogation.
Do you mean to say Justin Gatlin has the talent to run 100 metres sprint in 9.77 seconds, but he does not have the competence to outrun his competitors who cannot complete the race even in 10 seconds? Do you mean to say he displays talent without having any "inclination within" to outperform his competitors? Do you mean to say there are some people on Globe who express their talent with out trying to outsmart anyone/their competitors?
Is it possible for anyone to have talent but not be competent and to have competence but not have talent? Can you give me an example of some renowned person who satisfies the condition of 1C., i.e., Excellent talent, but not competent.
Roger Federer competed with Rafael Nadal in Wimbledon Finals recently. He outclassed Nadal in the game. What do you see in Federer, Talent or Competence? I say, he competed well with Nadal that is why he outperformed him. Is it possible to say, he has competence but no talent? Can you give me an example of some renowned person who satisfies the condition of 3A, i.e., highly competitive but inadequate talent?
Next, is there any correlation between “talent” and “individual loyalty”? Why do you say that people having both “talent and competence” in good amounts will remain for a long-term in organizations? Do we have to accept because Bob Gately said it?
You say, “Talent is the only necessary condition for job success that employers cannot provide for their employees and schools cannot provide for their students”. Do you mean to say ‘talent’ is some inborn quality that cannot be developed through practice and perseverance? Who authenticated the idea that Talent is the only necessary condition for job success? Do we have to accept because Bob Gately said it?
You say, “Competence and Talent are necessary but they are not the same”. When you build a big theory on this premise, you have a responsibility to explain what is the difference between two, but you did not explain anything about the difference between two. Why should anyone accept “competence and talent are not the same”, because Bob Gately said it?
I don’t agree with anything that any great thinker would have said, unless I know, accept and authenticate it by my own reasoning. If you say, “some book has said like that so, you have to accept it”, I am not going to accept like that.
If you find my questions reasonable, then please answer. You may not find these questions reasonable, but the forum members may find them reasonable.
Chandrasekhar
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi All,
Yes Bob Kudos to you, wherever you are.
I did quote the same quote for another posting too. However i will repeat it here again.
“The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life. Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, the education, the money, than circumstances, than failure, than successes, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness or skill. It will make or break a company... a church... a home. The remarkable thing is we have a choice everyday regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We cannot change our past... we cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude. I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% of how I react to it. And so it is with you... we are in charge of our Attitudes.” Charles R. Swindoll quotes
Now coming back to the above discussion. There are certain facts I would like to state:
I would like to end with a joke:
A girl is found drowning when a passerby jumps in and brings her out and provides artificial respiration. Her rich father comes running and blasts away questions at everyone...."what happened....she is my daughter...YOu know I am the richest here....tell me what you are doing?!!!". The rescuer replies that he founde her drowning and so was providing her artificial respiration. The father screams out" what ? artificial? I want you to provide the real thing..."
Have a nice day friends...Sujatha
From India, Bhilai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Yes Bob Kudos to you, wherever you are.
I did quote the same quote for another posting too. However i will repeat it here again.
“The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life. Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, the education, the money, than circumstances, than failure, than successes, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness or skill. It will make or break a company... a church... a home. The remarkable thing is we have a choice everyday regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We cannot change our past... we cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude. I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% of how I react to it. And so it is with you... we are in charge of our Attitudes.” Charles R. Swindoll quotes
Now coming back to the above discussion. There are certain facts I would like to state:
- Human behavior or "Behaviour" is observable, Universal, silent & in itself a language, i.e spell it the British way or the American way from Empodocles to William Marston why even our very own Ayurveda speaks about the qualities ,nature ,Emotional levels and even to the extent of possible ailments of individuals.....
In cultivation, people have been working on bringing out the best in each vegetable and have now understood the ill effects of chemical fertilisers etc, using the same Analogy I would say that it is time for each individual to understand self thoroughly, Recognise the other and try to work to bring out the best for the best of all....
From the above study of recognizing others Manipulation can be a big temptation here is where personal integrity and Ethics prove to be the Qualifiers.Certain Psychometrics can and do speak about such qualifiers.
Companies are disturbed when individuals at high, Decision making positions choose to select only those they are comfortable with, or worse still select a Me-duplicate....or adopt measures which are lacking integrity...
Somewhere maybe due to freedom struggle or partial growth in bits and pieces, or sudden expansion of opportunities world wide. Every one is baffled what to do, not all at all times are able to make the right choice.So assessments help from the scientific way.We have to use our intuition, that there is no doubt.But this helps to a great extent.
Let us try if this can help mankind.
I would like to end with a joke:
A girl is found drowning when a passerby jumps in and brings her out and provides artificial respiration. Her rich father comes running and blasts away questions at everyone...."what happened....she is my daughter...YOu know I am the richest here....tell me what you are doing?!!!". The rescuer replies that he founde her drowning and so was providing her artificial respiration. The father screams out" what ? artificial? I want you to provide the real thing..."
Have a nice day friends...Sujatha
From India, Bhilai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Chandrasekhar:
>I don't read books filled with theories of nonsense to understand concepts.<
I'm not too sure that is an admirable admission given the number of errors you made while questioning my honesty, integrity, morals and ethics. You should be ashamed of yourself. Professionals need to point out to those who exhibit such bad behaviors that their behavior is unacceptable.
You did not do your home work yet you think you know enough to critique what we do. Stamping your feet now that you have been chastised for doing so is adding insult to injury. You would be wise to apologize like an adult.
>Hence please don't dictate to me what to read what not to read.<
That means you are not interested in learning just in criticizing. Is that admirable? I think not.
>You can present constructive criticism but not be so authoritative and arrogant…<
I was and am insulted by your attempt to demean our work with no knowledge of what we do. You did it because you are ignorant of what we do and you refuse to educate yourself about what we do. I posted an authoritative response to your error filled message because I am an expert in what we do and you are not. You would be well advised to read more and write less so that you can learn more.
I have been doing this work since 1992 and your message was a flagrant abuse of good manners.
You are blind to your own faults. Reread your comments with an unbiased eye if you can.
I have copied below some of your obnoxious and incorrect statements and unfounded accusations so that even you should be able to an see why you received a pointed and serious response from me.
"Do you have any concern for people who are incompetent for various reasons like lack of amenities, facilities to receive education in their countries..."?
“Your business stands on the premise that "only competent people" are fit to survive in this world”
“ and incompetence has no place”
“our conscience suggests that every human being whether educated or illiterate, competent or incompetent has right to live on this planet.”
“Hence I feel to suggest to the employers that only the best talents shall be absorbed in the jobs”
“and those who don't have talent must be thrown out at interview/psychometric testing stage itself, is totally unethical by any standards.”
The above six insults and accusations are all incorrect and were in just the first three paragraphs. You ought not lecture anyone on “tone and tenor” of the written word.
>as to say to somebody what he shall do and what he shall not do.<
We often make a fool of ourselves when we assume too much and know too little. You are guilty of both.
> The usage of the word “nonsense” and the “tone and tenor” of your letter is not polite, it is arrogant.<
Of course it wasn’t polite neither was your long diatribe filled with accusations and errors. If you do not like the tone and tenor of responses to your comments stop posting such rants about things you know nothing about. Had you bothered to ask before writing such a rant, you would have avoided the problem.
I find it curious that you never bothered to ask me for my definition of talent. I presume you did that to satisfy your own need to post such drivel.
>The usage of the word “nonsense” and the “tone and tenor” of some parts of your letter is not polite, it is arrogant. I did not raise questions to you in my earlier communication with an intent to disagree with what you do. They are raised more to know your view point.<
Let me help you understand your own words.
“… I feel your business is Human rights violation”
An unfounded accusation.
>every human being on Earth has a right to live, and in order to enjoy that right, every citizen must have a right to employment whether he is competent or incompetent.”
Another unfounded accusation.
“ To say or do a business that only bothers about competent people and forgets its responsiblity about billions of citizens of Earth who according to you and your psychometric testing are "incompetent" is unethical..”
Another unfounded accusation.
You accuse me of being unethical and worse than that you are factually incorrect. I expect an apology from you. Not only are your comments nonsense but also mean spirited since it does not describe me or my business but it may open a window into your thought process which seems to be driven by fear of things you know nothing about. Perhaps if you did read more you would know more?
>1. With a preconceived notion and attitude, "I don't agree with you nor I am going to agree with you whatever you say, because I don't like you..."<
That does describe your error filled post to me.
>2. With an open mind, inviting answers to know the truth of the matter.<
That is how I try to behave all the time, even with you. You, on the other hand, did not do that yourself.
Your message was filled with accusations and falsehoods. I do not use the word lies because I think you are ignorant of what we do and you write stuff that makes you feel good. I find it sad that you may have so little self-awareness.
>It is not the questions that we find to be offensive, but the "way they are asked".<
Even more offensive are accusations based on feelings and no facts. You would be well advised to clarify before accusing anyone of anything.
The problem I have with your questions is that they are fabricated around errors. You presumed to know something about what we do but you are unaware of what we do as evidenced by your groundless attack on what we do. We actually do what it is you are want us to do, we show employers when they should hire the incompetent, the uneducated, and long term unemployed.
> And when any question is asked in written we will not know with what frame of mind he is asking the question...i.e., whether it is asked with an open mind with the mindset of a student or whether it is asked with a preconceived notion to disagree to whatever the respondent is going to say.<
You did very a good job of demonstrating how to ask questions without an open mind and you are continuing to do so.
>The following is my understanding and ideas about "Competence", "Skill", "Experience" and "Performance". You have a right to disagree with my ideas, I don’t want to force you to accept my definitions about what is competence, what is skill, what is experience and what is performance.<
Your understanding is irrelevant. It is your duty as a reader to know what the author means and not to presume the author’s words mean what you think they mean. You failed miserably in your duty as a reader.
>I don't know what do you psychometric theorists mean by "talent".<
If you asked, you would have avoided your error filled rant. If you had read my review of the book “First break all the rules…” you would know and would have avoided this last rant.
>Can you explain to me what do you mean by "talent"?<
Read the book review I suggested. I will not spoon feed you like a child.
>Can we say "Talent and Merit" are synonymous?<
No.
>Earlier I have written to you assuming that there is no difference between “talent” and “competence”.<
Assuming makes an “ass” out of “u” and “me”.
>If you have any problem with my usage of word, “incompetence” in my earlier communication, then replace the word incompetence with the phrase “lack of talent”.<
An employee can be…
competent and have talent.
competent and not have talent.
incompetent and have talent.
incompetent and not have talent.
I see you either failed to read my last message or you failed to remember my message.
>Now that you are saying there is some difference between “talent” and “competence”, I want to know what it is. This is only inquiry not interrogation.<
Your inquiry comes way too late.
>Do you mean to say Justin Gatlin has the talent to run 100 metres sprint in 9.77 seconds, but he does not have the competence to outrun his competitors who cannot complete the race even in 10 seconds?<
Please stick to issues related to hiring employees not evaluating self-selected runners.
> Do you mean to say there are some people on Globe who express their talent with out trying to outsmart anyone/their competitors?<
Talent is not related to out smarting anyone.
>Is it possible for anyone to have talent but not be competent<
Yes, and if you had read my message you would know that answer.
>and to have competence but not have talent?<
Yes, and if you had read my message you would know that answer.
>Can you give me an example of some renowned person who satisfies the condition of 1C., i.e., Excellent talent, but not competent.<
How could the person have excellent talent and not be competent if he is renowned?
>Roger Federer competed with Rafael Nadal…<
I am not involved in hiring athletes although talent is important in deciding what position a team player should be assigned to play.
>Can you give me an example of some renowned person who satisfies the condition of 3A, i.e., highly competitive but inadequate talent?<
Where did highly competitive come from, please read what I write.
>Next, is there any correlation between “talent” and “individual loyalty”?<
Employees with adequate or better talent stay on the job longer than employees with mediocre to poor talent. If you want to call that loyalty, you are free to do so.
> Why do you say that people having both “talent and competence” in good amounts will remain for a long-term in organizations?<
Because they do.
> Do we have to accept because Bob Gately said it?<
Not at all, but if you read my messages and my book review you might start to get a clue.
>You say, “Talent is the only necessary condition for job success that employers cannot provide for their employees and schools cannot provide for their students”. Do you mean to say ‘talent’ is some inborn quality that cannot be developed through practice and perseverance?<
It is something we have by the time we get to the workplace. It is irrelevant if we are born with it or we develop it or both.
>Who authenticated the idea that Talent is the only necessary condition for job success? Do we have to accept because Bob Gately said it? <
Reread my messages. You are free to believe anything you wish but you are not free to mis-characterize my work or to attack my honesty and ethics.
>You say, “Competence and Talent are necessary but they are not the same”.<
Yes.
>When you build a big theory on this premise, you have a responsibility to explain what is the difference between two, but you did not explain anything about the difference between two. Why should anyone accept “competence and talent are not the same”, because Bob Gately said it?<
Intelligent readers who don’t have an axe to grind ask me to explain which is what you should have done in the first place.
>I don’t agree with anything that any great thinker would have said, unless I know, accept and authenticate it by my own reasoning.<
That is too bad because your reasoning is faulty as evidenced by your most recent comments. You assume too much and you don’t ask enough questions.
>If you say, “some book has said like that so, you have to accept it”, I am not going to accept like that.<
I’m not telling you to accept anything but I do demand that you stop telling the forum things that are untrue about we do. I freely share with the forum what I know but you seem to want to criticize for the sake of criticizing.
>If you find my questions reasonable, then please answer. You may not find these questions reasonable, but the forum members may find them reasonable.<
I would be more impressed if you read my messages, remembered what was in the messages, and read my book review followed by asking relevant questions. All the answers are there but you seem to want to be spoon fed.
Bob
From United States, Chelsea
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
>I don't read books filled with theories of nonsense to understand concepts.<
I'm not too sure that is an admirable admission given the number of errors you made while questioning my honesty, integrity, morals and ethics. You should be ashamed of yourself. Professionals need to point out to those who exhibit such bad behaviors that their behavior is unacceptable.
You did not do your home work yet you think you know enough to critique what we do. Stamping your feet now that you have been chastised for doing so is adding insult to injury. You would be wise to apologize like an adult.
>Hence please don't dictate to me what to read what not to read.<
That means you are not interested in learning just in criticizing. Is that admirable? I think not.
>You can present constructive criticism but not be so authoritative and arrogant…<
I was and am insulted by your attempt to demean our work with no knowledge of what we do. You did it because you are ignorant of what we do and you refuse to educate yourself about what we do. I posted an authoritative response to your error filled message because I am an expert in what we do and you are not. You would be well advised to read more and write less so that you can learn more.
I have been doing this work since 1992 and your message was a flagrant abuse of good manners.
You are blind to your own faults. Reread your comments with an unbiased eye if you can.
I have copied below some of your obnoxious and incorrect statements and unfounded accusations so that even you should be able to an see why you received a pointed and serious response from me.
"Do you have any concern for people who are incompetent for various reasons like lack of amenities, facilities to receive education in their countries..."?
“Your business stands on the premise that "only competent people" are fit to survive in this world”
“ and incompetence has no place”
“our conscience suggests that every human being whether educated or illiterate, competent or incompetent has right to live on this planet.”
“Hence I feel to suggest to the employers that only the best talents shall be absorbed in the jobs”
“and those who don't have talent must be thrown out at interview/psychometric testing stage itself, is totally unethical by any standards.”
The above six insults and accusations are all incorrect and were in just the first three paragraphs. You ought not lecture anyone on “tone and tenor” of the written word.
>as to say to somebody what he shall do and what he shall not do.<
We often make a fool of ourselves when we assume too much and know too little. You are guilty of both.
> The usage of the word “nonsense” and the “tone and tenor” of your letter is not polite, it is arrogant.<
Of course it wasn’t polite neither was your long diatribe filled with accusations and errors. If you do not like the tone and tenor of responses to your comments stop posting such rants about things you know nothing about. Had you bothered to ask before writing such a rant, you would have avoided the problem.
I find it curious that you never bothered to ask me for my definition of talent. I presume you did that to satisfy your own need to post such drivel.
>The usage of the word “nonsense” and the “tone and tenor” of some parts of your letter is not polite, it is arrogant. I did not raise questions to you in my earlier communication with an intent to disagree with what you do. They are raised more to know your view point.<
Let me help you understand your own words.
“… I feel your business is Human rights violation”
An unfounded accusation.
>every human being on Earth has a right to live, and in order to enjoy that right, every citizen must have a right to employment whether he is competent or incompetent.”
Another unfounded accusation.
“ To say or do a business that only bothers about competent people and forgets its responsiblity about billions of citizens of Earth who according to you and your psychometric testing are "incompetent" is unethical..”
Another unfounded accusation.
You accuse me of being unethical and worse than that you are factually incorrect. I expect an apology from you. Not only are your comments nonsense but also mean spirited since it does not describe me or my business but it may open a window into your thought process which seems to be driven by fear of things you know nothing about. Perhaps if you did read more you would know more?
>1. With a preconceived notion and attitude, "I don't agree with you nor I am going to agree with you whatever you say, because I don't like you..."<
That does describe your error filled post to me.
>2. With an open mind, inviting answers to know the truth of the matter.<
That is how I try to behave all the time, even with you. You, on the other hand, did not do that yourself.
Your message was filled with accusations and falsehoods. I do not use the word lies because I think you are ignorant of what we do and you write stuff that makes you feel good. I find it sad that you may have so little self-awareness.
>It is not the questions that we find to be offensive, but the "way they are asked".<
Even more offensive are accusations based on feelings and no facts. You would be well advised to clarify before accusing anyone of anything.
The problem I have with your questions is that they are fabricated around errors. You presumed to know something about what we do but you are unaware of what we do as evidenced by your groundless attack on what we do. We actually do what it is you are want us to do, we show employers when they should hire the incompetent, the uneducated, and long term unemployed.
> And when any question is asked in written we will not know with what frame of mind he is asking the question...i.e., whether it is asked with an open mind with the mindset of a student or whether it is asked with a preconceived notion to disagree to whatever the respondent is going to say.<
You did very a good job of demonstrating how to ask questions without an open mind and you are continuing to do so.
>The following is my understanding and ideas about "Competence", "Skill", "Experience" and "Performance". You have a right to disagree with my ideas, I don’t want to force you to accept my definitions about what is competence, what is skill, what is experience and what is performance.<
Your understanding is irrelevant. It is your duty as a reader to know what the author means and not to presume the author’s words mean what you think they mean. You failed miserably in your duty as a reader.
>I don't know what do you psychometric theorists mean by "talent".<
If you asked, you would have avoided your error filled rant. If you had read my review of the book “First break all the rules…” you would know and would have avoided this last rant.
>Can you explain to me what do you mean by "talent"?<
Read the book review I suggested. I will not spoon feed you like a child.
>Can we say "Talent and Merit" are synonymous?<
No.
>Earlier I have written to you assuming that there is no difference between “talent” and “competence”.<
Assuming makes an “ass” out of “u” and “me”.
>If you have any problem with my usage of word, “incompetence” in my earlier communication, then replace the word incompetence with the phrase “lack of talent”.<
An employee can be…
competent and have talent.
competent and not have talent.
incompetent and have talent.
incompetent and not have talent.
I see you either failed to read my last message or you failed to remember my message.
>Now that you are saying there is some difference between “talent” and “competence”, I want to know what it is. This is only inquiry not interrogation.<
Your inquiry comes way too late.
>Do you mean to say Justin Gatlin has the talent to run 100 metres sprint in 9.77 seconds, but he does not have the competence to outrun his competitors who cannot complete the race even in 10 seconds?<
Please stick to issues related to hiring employees not evaluating self-selected runners.
> Do you mean to say there are some people on Globe who express their talent with out trying to outsmart anyone/their competitors?<
Talent is not related to out smarting anyone.
>Is it possible for anyone to have talent but not be competent<
Yes, and if you had read my message you would know that answer.
>and to have competence but not have talent?<
Yes, and if you had read my message you would know that answer.
>Can you give me an example of some renowned person who satisfies the condition of 1C., i.e., Excellent talent, but not competent.<
How could the person have excellent talent and not be competent if he is renowned?
>Roger Federer competed with Rafael Nadal…<
I am not involved in hiring athletes although talent is important in deciding what position a team player should be assigned to play.
>Can you give me an example of some renowned person who satisfies the condition of 3A, i.e., highly competitive but inadequate talent?<
Where did highly competitive come from, please read what I write.
>Next, is there any correlation between “talent” and “individual loyalty”?<
Employees with adequate or better talent stay on the job longer than employees with mediocre to poor talent. If you want to call that loyalty, you are free to do so.
> Why do you say that people having both “talent and competence” in good amounts will remain for a long-term in organizations?<
Because they do.
> Do we have to accept because Bob Gately said it?<
Not at all, but if you read my messages and my book review you might start to get a clue.
>You say, “Talent is the only necessary condition for job success that employers cannot provide for their employees and schools cannot provide for their students”. Do you mean to say ‘talent’ is some inborn quality that cannot be developed through practice and perseverance?<
It is something we have by the time we get to the workplace. It is irrelevant if we are born with it or we develop it or both.
>Who authenticated the idea that Talent is the only necessary condition for job success? Do we have to accept because Bob Gately said it? <
Reread my messages. You are free to believe anything you wish but you are not free to mis-characterize my work or to attack my honesty and ethics.
>You say, “Competence and Talent are necessary but they are not the same”.<
Yes.
>When you build a big theory on this premise, you have a responsibility to explain what is the difference between two, but you did not explain anything about the difference between two. Why should anyone accept “competence and talent are not the same”, because Bob Gately said it?<
Intelligent readers who don’t have an axe to grind ask me to explain which is what you should have done in the first place.
>I don’t agree with anything that any great thinker would have said, unless I know, accept and authenticate it by my own reasoning.<
That is too bad because your reasoning is faulty as evidenced by your most recent comments. You assume too much and you don’t ask enough questions.
>If you say, “some book has said like that so, you have to accept it”, I am not going to accept like that.<
I’m not telling you to accept anything but I do demand that you stop telling the forum things that are untrue about we do. I freely share with the forum what I know but you seem to want to criticize for the sake of criticizing.
>If you find my questions reasonable, then please answer. You may not find these questions reasonable, but the forum members may find them reasonable.<
I would be more impressed if you read my messages, remembered what was in the messages, and read my book review followed by asking relevant questions. All the answers are there but you seem to want to be spoon fed.
Bob
From United States, Chelsea
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Bob,
So far, I have made proposals to which you have responded, not always charitably I might add. I like to apply the principle of charity to all my communications. I would therefore like to offer my apologies if you think I was ignoring you but the error is yours. I have actually answered most of your points and even pre-empted many.
I construct - you demolish. Like others, I have found your comments amusing and I accept that this may be the way you prefer to work. I can accept that we are all different. I would actually prefer to state my case and let you state yours. Others can then read, compare and contrast the merits of each argument and reach their own decisions. I find your style abrasive at best and offensive at times.
I see demolition as a slight intellectual challenge compared with construction but if you insist: -
"And you think employees were treated better before testing? In the good old days the wrong skin color could not get hired or promoted, the wrong faith was a career killer, getting fired was easy. The good old days are old for a reason and one reason is better selection practices. Governments have finally learned and so have some employers that predicting job success requires more than competence, education, college degrees, certifications, age, color, faith, etc."
You assume because I am retired, I want to go back to the ‘good old days’. It seems not to have crossed your mind that an ‘old duffer’ like myself is capable of suggesting moving ‘forward’ to something better, not ‘backwards’ to something I simply imagine was better. Again, the error is entirely yours. As a supporter of psychometrics, stereotyping other people is an error you seem unable to avoid. Psychometrics is after all an institutionalised form of stereotyping.
As for “PREDICTING job success”, this is the very reason I quoted Miller. Prediction and control (the bit you think unnecessary if the ‘right’ people are chosen) may be desirable in chemical or manufacturing processes. However, the prediction and control (even by default) of people by a “rich and powerful elite” what made Miller tremble. The quote may be old but it is still relevant.
There are two mistakes people often make when evaluating ideas. The first is to assume that if something is old, it is good. The second is to assume that if something is new, it is better. You accuse me of the first yet you constantly fall foul of the second.
In my experience, far from eliminating racism or sexism, psychometrics offers a safe haven for bigots hide and continue in their prejudices by simply saying the rejection of candidate X or Y was due to a poor test scores. Since evidence rather than reason impresses you, I offer the following evidence.
The UK Civil Service uses batteries of the most up to date and sophisticated psychometric tests available at a dedicated assessment centre using specially trained staff. The selection process takes up to three days for higher grades. Despite these rigorous procedures, women in the Civil Service are proportionately less well represented as they move up the promotion ladder (70% of the workforce are women at lower grades – 15% at senior grades). If you are not white, proportionate representation at senior grades is even worse. Figures can be verified on the UK Civil Service website.
Since I am unable to accept that white European or American males are intellectually superior, more capable or have more ‘talent’ than women or other races, I can only conclude that bias is built into the selection process. The Civil Service use similar procedures to your own. In light of this evidence, I disagree absolutely with any suggestion that psychometrics may help to eliminate sexism and racism. The tests are biased and help perpetuate white male supremacy.
"Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of "all is not well with psychometric measurement"? That statement does not mean all assessments cannot work. I think you understand the written word well enough to know that but choose to ignore the meaning."
If a respected geologist publicly announces “all is not well with the San Andreas Fault”, I would be foolish to wait ten years before moving my family away from San Francisco. I think I understand the English language perfectly. I am deaf. You have chosen not to hear. The difference apparently eludes you.
I am not a believer in ‘evidence’ divorced from reason. The ‘evidence’ you offer is not factual. ROI is merely a mathematical representation of former customers’ opinions. It is certainly not a scientific measure. Presenting facts about opinions does not convert opinions into facts. You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between fact and opinion. I prefer to rely on absolute facts and deductive reasoning.
I have already made reference to Piaget’s demonstration which I will recount briefly for the benefit of those unfamiliar. Piaget posed two questions, identical in format but with very different types of methodology for providing the answer.
1. Are there more apples or more oranges in the world?
2. Are there more fathers or more sons in the world?
To answer the first question we must count and compare the figures. However, since results may vary from season to season or from year to year, this empirical method only ever yields provisional knowledge. Psychometrics therefore only provides provisional knowledge since psychometrics rest on a foundation of quantitative statistical evidence – an empirical method.
The second question can be answered using deductive reasoning alone. Since every father is also somebody’s son, and some sons are not fathers, there will always be more sons than fathers. There are no circumstances under which there could ever be more fathers than sons so there is not the remotest chance that this answer could possibly be wrong.
It is not that I doubt your figures. I doubt the value and your interpretation of your figures. I doubt them because I doubt ALL evidence that contradicts deductive reasoning no matter how strong the evidence may appear to some.
"You have yet to explain why non-ipastive assessments cannot work. You seem to focus on ipsative assessments which should not be used for selection."
I have actually explained my reasons before. You just failed to understand them. I use only deductive reasoning to show why non-ipsitive methods cannot work. This way I can be absolutely certain that there are no circumstances under which I can be mistaken. Arrogant if I am unable to back it up – confident if I can.
Freud provides a clue. He said that the personality has three distinct parts which he named, ego, superego and id. This is often dismissed as merely Freud’s opinion. It is not.
• Ego - aspects of the personality are universal so common to ALL people.
• Superego - group centred or socio-cultural aspects of the personality shared by SOME people.
• Id - self-centred aspects of the personality are unique to ONE person.
While Kant may use the terms unity, plurality and totality, the terms ONE, SOME and ALL are more accessible. These terms permit no possible exception since NONE is simply the negation of ALL. There are no other possible options.
This is something my three year old grand daughter understands perfectly as does any three year old. Given a packet of sweets, she can eat ONE of them, SOME of them or ALL of them. None left = All gone. Pearls of wisdom fall out of the mouth of babes but ‘sophisticated adults’ often miss them.
• It is clearly pointless exploring the universal aspects of personality that are common to ALL people since these will be the same for ALL people.
• Since psychometrics relies upon comparing people with one another, psychometrics MUST focus on those aspects of the personality that are common to SOME people. This is the point at which the bias in the UK Civil Service above manifests itself. SOME people (usually white European/American middle aged males) decide which factors are important in the selection process and which are not. They can keep their prejudices, blame the test and evade any ethical doubts about their own integrity.
• Most aspects of the personality are unique to the individual, and as you quite rightly observe, these cannot be used for direct comparison between individuals. This does not mean they cannot be used for selection. Kelly’s repertory grid allows us to explore the individual and I have seen it used very effectively in helping to make decisions for the most senior posts.
In ‘Inquiring Man’, (1985) Don Bannister and Fay Fransella say this.
“The castrating effect of separating personality off as a mini-psychology in its own right is perhaps best seen in the curiously named study of ‘individual differences’ which turns out to be a study of ‘group sameness’. Here we have focused on the establishment of some general dimensions, at some point along which all individuals can be placed rather than on a study of the dimensions which each individual develops in order to organise their world. ….
…The attempt to encompass the person within the study of personality is additionally bedevilled by the persistence of trait psychology. The habit of seeing others in a rather simple, rigid and typological manner has stunted the life of many individuals and its formalisation in psychology has had a similar effect upon the discipline.”
Time to eat your own words Bob - “I think you understand the written word well enough to know that but choose to ignore the meaning.”
Psychometrics uses dimensions of personality common to SOME people (the chosen ones) but has the arrogance to impose these dimensions upon ALL and protest if others disagree. If you are still having difficulty with the concept, the following analogy may help.
Psychometrics assumes people are all like chocolate cakes with varying amounts of the same ingredients - butter, sugar, eggs, flour and cocoa. But, psychometrics cannot account for a coffee and walnut cake because it cannot account for differences due to qualitative variations in ingredients.
People differ qualitatively as well as quantitatively. Psychometrics set the standard ingredients – the personality factors thought to be important. The greatest variation between people is found in the qualities unique to the individual – not in the qualities we share with SOME people and obviously not in the qualities we share with ALL of the rest of humanity.
When looking for the ideal employee, we must take into account the qualities that make the individual unique rather than concentrating on measuring group sameness (aka conformity).
Chandrasekhar quite rightly challenges your right to impose your conformities upon others since this is unjustifiable and unethical. Ethics are not a final step to scientific procedures. Ethics is an attitude that must be built into any procedure, theory or business from the very beginning. This lack of ethics is what Miller foresaw and feared. This lack of ethics is apparent in your attitude. Mankind does not exist to enhance business. All business should be aimed towards enhancing mans existence.
Your defence of psychometrics can be seen as inevitable because it perpetuates the self interests of an elite group of chosen ones - your group - as chosen by your group.
As for the rest of your comments, Chandrasekhar has already dealt with many of the ethical points quite admirably and questioned you definition of ‘talent’. Thank you Chandrasekhar.
My view is that psychometric tests are a biased, dehumanising and unethical form of institutional stereotyping. I am not alone. Whilst you may have every right to disagree, your inability to do so without humiliating others is a sign that you are not happy with yourself. In that at least I think you are right.
As for the ‘necessary but not sufficient’ mantra, ‘sufficient’ is an imposed, flexible and ill-defined construct that allows you to deceive the poorly educated. Kant’s categories of possibility, actuality and necessity are precise, unambiguous and permit no exception.
• Possibilities describe what might exist or might happen.
• Actualities describe what does exist or does happen.
• Necessities describe what must exist or must happen.
It seems to me you would benefit greatly by reading some philosophy. The opening two paragraphs of Kant’s ‘Critique of Pure Reason’ would be a good start. It is very old but it is enlightning. It is also very precise if you take the time to understand it.
Regards
Mark 51
From United Kingdom, Huddersfield
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
So far, I have made proposals to which you have responded, not always charitably I might add. I like to apply the principle of charity to all my communications. I would therefore like to offer my apologies if you think I was ignoring you but the error is yours. I have actually answered most of your points and even pre-empted many.
I construct - you demolish. Like others, I have found your comments amusing and I accept that this may be the way you prefer to work. I can accept that we are all different. I would actually prefer to state my case and let you state yours. Others can then read, compare and contrast the merits of each argument and reach their own decisions. I find your style abrasive at best and offensive at times.
I see demolition as a slight intellectual challenge compared with construction but if you insist: -
"And you think employees were treated better before testing? In the good old days the wrong skin color could not get hired or promoted, the wrong faith was a career killer, getting fired was easy. The good old days are old for a reason and one reason is better selection practices. Governments have finally learned and so have some employers that predicting job success requires more than competence, education, college degrees, certifications, age, color, faith, etc."
You assume because I am retired, I want to go back to the ‘good old days’. It seems not to have crossed your mind that an ‘old duffer’ like myself is capable of suggesting moving ‘forward’ to something better, not ‘backwards’ to something I simply imagine was better. Again, the error is entirely yours. As a supporter of psychometrics, stereotyping other people is an error you seem unable to avoid. Psychometrics is after all an institutionalised form of stereotyping.
As for “PREDICTING job success”, this is the very reason I quoted Miller. Prediction and control (the bit you think unnecessary if the ‘right’ people are chosen) may be desirable in chemical or manufacturing processes. However, the prediction and control (even by default) of people by a “rich and powerful elite” what made Miller tremble. The quote may be old but it is still relevant.
There are two mistakes people often make when evaluating ideas. The first is to assume that if something is old, it is good. The second is to assume that if something is new, it is better. You accuse me of the first yet you constantly fall foul of the second.
In my experience, far from eliminating racism or sexism, psychometrics offers a safe haven for bigots hide and continue in their prejudices by simply saying the rejection of candidate X or Y was due to a poor test scores. Since evidence rather than reason impresses you, I offer the following evidence.
The UK Civil Service uses batteries of the most up to date and sophisticated psychometric tests available at a dedicated assessment centre using specially trained staff. The selection process takes up to three days for higher grades. Despite these rigorous procedures, women in the Civil Service are proportionately less well represented as they move up the promotion ladder (70% of the workforce are women at lower grades – 15% at senior grades). If you are not white, proportionate representation at senior grades is even worse. Figures can be verified on the UK Civil Service website.
Since I am unable to accept that white European or American males are intellectually superior, more capable or have more ‘talent’ than women or other races, I can only conclude that bias is built into the selection process. The Civil Service use similar procedures to your own. In light of this evidence, I disagree absolutely with any suggestion that psychometrics may help to eliminate sexism and racism. The tests are biased and help perpetuate white male supremacy.
"Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of "all is not well with psychometric measurement"? That statement does not mean all assessments cannot work. I think you understand the written word well enough to know that but choose to ignore the meaning."
If a respected geologist publicly announces “all is not well with the San Andreas Fault”, I would be foolish to wait ten years before moving my family away from San Francisco. I think I understand the English language perfectly. I am deaf. You have chosen not to hear. The difference apparently eludes you.
I am not a believer in ‘evidence’ divorced from reason. The ‘evidence’ you offer is not factual. ROI is merely a mathematical representation of former customers’ opinions. It is certainly not a scientific measure. Presenting facts about opinions does not convert opinions into facts. You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between fact and opinion. I prefer to rely on absolute facts and deductive reasoning.
I have already made reference to Piaget’s demonstration which I will recount briefly for the benefit of those unfamiliar. Piaget posed two questions, identical in format but with very different types of methodology for providing the answer.
1. Are there more apples or more oranges in the world?
2. Are there more fathers or more sons in the world?
To answer the first question we must count and compare the figures. However, since results may vary from season to season or from year to year, this empirical method only ever yields provisional knowledge. Psychometrics therefore only provides provisional knowledge since psychometrics rest on a foundation of quantitative statistical evidence – an empirical method.
The second question can be answered using deductive reasoning alone. Since every father is also somebody’s son, and some sons are not fathers, there will always be more sons than fathers. There are no circumstances under which there could ever be more fathers than sons so there is not the remotest chance that this answer could possibly be wrong.
It is not that I doubt your figures. I doubt the value and your interpretation of your figures. I doubt them because I doubt ALL evidence that contradicts deductive reasoning no matter how strong the evidence may appear to some.
"You have yet to explain why non-ipastive assessments cannot work. You seem to focus on ipsative assessments which should not be used for selection."
I have actually explained my reasons before. You just failed to understand them. I use only deductive reasoning to show why non-ipsitive methods cannot work. This way I can be absolutely certain that there are no circumstances under which I can be mistaken. Arrogant if I am unable to back it up – confident if I can.
Freud provides a clue. He said that the personality has three distinct parts which he named, ego, superego and id. This is often dismissed as merely Freud’s opinion. It is not.
• Ego - aspects of the personality are universal so common to ALL people.
• Superego - group centred or socio-cultural aspects of the personality shared by SOME people.
• Id - self-centred aspects of the personality are unique to ONE person.
While Kant may use the terms unity, plurality and totality, the terms ONE, SOME and ALL are more accessible. These terms permit no possible exception since NONE is simply the negation of ALL. There are no other possible options.
This is something my three year old grand daughter understands perfectly as does any three year old. Given a packet of sweets, she can eat ONE of them, SOME of them or ALL of them. None left = All gone. Pearls of wisdom fall out of the mouth of babes but ‘sophisticated adults’ often miss them.
• It is clearly pointless exploring the universal aspects of personality that are common to ALL people since these will be the same for ALL people.
• Since psychometrics relies upon comparing people with one another, psychometrics MUST focus on those aspects of the personality that are common to SOME people. This is the point at which the bias in the UK Civil Service above manifests itself. SOME people (usually white European/American middle aged males) decide which factors are important in the selection process and which are not. They can keep their prejudices, blame the test and evade any ethical doubts about their own integrity.
• Most aspects of the personality are unique to the individual, and as you quite rightly observe, these cannot be used for direct comparison between individuals. This does not mean they cannot be used for selection. Kelly’s repertory grid allows us to explore the individual and I have seen it used very effectively in helping to make decisions for the most senior posts.
In ‘Inquiring Man’, (1985) Don Bannister and Fay Fransella say this.
“The castrating effect of separating personality off as a mini-psychology in its own right is perhaps best seen in the curiously named study of ‘individual differences’ which turns out to be a study of ‘group sameness’. Here we have focused on the establishment of some general dimensions, at some point along which all individuals can be placed rather than on a study of the dimensions which each individual develops in order to organise their world. ….
…The attempt to encompass the person within the study of personality is additionally bedevilled by the persistence of trait psychology. The habit of seeing others in a rather simple, rigid and typological manner has stunted the life of many individuals and its formalisation in psychology has had a similar effect upon the discipline.”
Time to eat your own words Bob - “I think you understand the written word well enough to know that but choose to ignore the meaning.”
Psychometrics uses dimensions of personality common to SOME people (the chosen ones) but has the arrogance to impose these dimensions upon ALL and protest if others disagree. If you are still having difficulty with the concept, the following analogy may help.
Psychometrics assumes people are all like chocolate cakes with varying amounts of the same ingredients - butter, sugar, eggs, flour and cocoa. But, psychometrics cannot account for a coffee and walnut cake because it cannot account for differences due to qualitative variations in ingredients.
People differ qualitatively as well as quantitatively. Psychometrics set the standard ingredients – the personality factors thought to be important. The greatest variation between people is found in the qualities unique to the individual – not in the qualities we share with SOME people and obviously not in the qualities we share with ALL of the rest of humanity.
When looking for the ideal employee, we must take into account the qualities that make the individual unique rather than concentrating on measuring group sameness (aka conformity).
Chandrasekhar quite rightly challenges your right to impose your conformities upon others since this is unjustifiable and unethical. Ethics are not a final step to scientific procedures. Ethics is an attitude that must be built into any procedure, theory or business from the very beginning. This lack of ethics is what Miller foresaw and feared. This lack of ethics is apparent in your attitude. Mankind does not exist to enhance business. All business should be aimed towards enhancing mans existence.
Your defence of psychometrics can be seen as inevitable because it perpetuates the self interests of an elite group of chosen ones - your group - as chosen by your group.
As for the rest of your comments, Chandrasekhar has already dealt with many of the ethical points quite admirably and questioned you definition of ‘talent’. Thank you Chandrasekhar.
My view is that psychometric tests are a biased, dehumanising and unethical form of institutional stereotyping. I am not alone. Whilst you may have every right to disagree, your inability to do so without humiliating others is a sign that you are not happy with yourself. In that at least I think you are right.
As for the ‘necessary but not sufficient’ mantra, ‘sufficient’ is an imposed, flexible and ill-defined construct that allows you to deceive the poorly educated. Kant’s categories of possibility, actuality and necessity are precise, unambiguous and permit no exception.
• Possibilities describe what might exist or might happen.
• Actualities describe what does exist or does happen.
• Necessities describe what must exist or must happen.
It seems to me you would benefit greatly by reading some philosophy. The opening two paragraphs of Kant’s ‘Critique of Pure Reason’ would be a good start. It is very old but it is enlightning. It is also very precise if you take the time to understand it.
Regards
Mark 51
From United Kingdom, Huddersfield
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
:D :lol: :lol:
Don't assume such a moral high ground, Bob!
If you had no fear that my criticism would impact the readers, you would not have given such a lengthy reply to my criticism. You know, sometimes I challenge others to stimulate their emotional intelligence; that is not an attempt to insult the person. Moreover, I have not spoken anything against you; I have only spoken against your business.
And we should not assume such a moral high ground on anything we do; every business has its unethical standards. You know in our country, there is a big film industry. The stars depend on the principle of "you scratch my back, I scratch your back" to survive and get opportunities to work. In that process, they never speak anything negative (even by mistake) towards each other; they don't criticize any work done by any director, any actor howsoever bad it is. If they want to speak the truth, they don't want the media to put it on record. Informally, they will talk to you and express their views about the negative aspects of their work, about the people they worked with, and so on.
100% of them have a few stereotyped sentences to say about their work in films... like:
Interviewer: How was the film you last worked on?
Star: It is an excellently made film, full credit to the entire team that worked on it. It is for every Indian family; every Indian family should go along with every family member to theaters and see the film...
Interviewer: What was your experience working with Hero X?
Star: Oh! Wow! It is fun and educative! You never know how time passes off when you work with him! I am looking forward to working with him in more and more films...
Interviewer: What was your experience working with Director Y?
Star: Fantastic! He is a master! He is brilliant... I don't have words to describe his authority on the subject... it is simply my luck that I have got an opportunity to work with him...
Even if they know that the film was badly made, they don't say that it is a bad film because that will hurt the business. If the star himself admits that the film is badly made, who will go to theaters to see the movie? So they never admit anything wrong about any film they work on. And 90 out of every 100 films made in any industry (Hindi, Telugu, Malayalam, etc... these are our languages) flop at the box office, i.e., the same films which these stars, technicians, directors, producers, etc., give the certificate/rating of "excellent film" before release.
Even in the field of HR, politics, government services, law, etc., nobody speaks the truth until he retires (if I am not wrong... Marks is also not an exception) (Sorry... Mark). The greatest truths are always simple.
When we speak to please others with a motive to maintain good relationships to survive, make money in any industry, then most often we don't speak the truth for fear of hurting the fellow who could be useful for us to survive in the industry. Even when we speak with a business motive, we don't speak the truth.
The greatest obstacle in the path of seeing the truth is "business interest" itself... whatever the business, people may do.
I feel the community of lawyers is more mature than the community of psychometricians (don't rake up another controversy by saying, "you are ignorant; that is why you are using that word 'psychometrician,' such word is not there at all in the dictionary... what if it is not there... I have coined that word... accept it if you can, leave it if you can't) because I found them very open about the negative side of their professionalism. I found them often joking about their own profession unlike you, who can't bear anything said against your profession.
A lawyer was out hiking with a friend when they encountered a mountain lion. The lawyer dropped his pack and got ready to run. "You'll never outrun a hungry mountain lion!" exclaimed his friend. "I don't have to outrun him," replied the lawyer. "I just have to outrun you!"
The next day, a coyote came upon that same mountain lion licking a pile of dung. "What on earth are you doing?" the coyote asked in amazement. The mountain lion looked up dolefully. "I ate a lawyer yesterday, and I'm still trying to get the taste out of my mouth."
Just see how honest they are about their antagonism towards their profession!
You know what Addison Mizner said?
"Ignorance of law excuses no man... from practicing it."
We (we means, people like me and Mark) can say, seeing what you do,
"Ignorance of psychology excuses no man... from practicing psychometrics..."
Thanks and regards,
Chandrasekhar
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Don't assume such a moral high ground, Bob!
If you had no fear that my criticism would impact the readers, you would not have given such a lengthy reply to my criticism. You know, sometimes I challenge others to stimulate their emotional intelligence; that is not an attempt to insult the person. Moreover, I have not spoken anything against you; I have only spoken against your business.
And we should not assume such a moral high ground on anything we do; every business has its unethical standards. You know in our country, there is a big film industry. The stars depend on the principle of "you scratch my back, I scratch your back" to survive and get opportunities to work. In that process, they never speak anything negative (even by mistake) towards each other; they don't criticize any work done by any director, any actor howsoever bad it is. If they want to speak the truth, they don't want the media to put it on record. Informally, they will talk to you and express their views about the negative aspects of their work, about the people they worked with, and so on.
100% of them have a few stereotyped sentences to say about their work in films... like:
Interviewer: How was the film you last worked on?
Star: It is an excellently made film, full credit to the entire team that worked on it. It is for every Indian family; every Indian family should go along with every family member to theaters and see the film...
Interviewer: What was your experience working with Hero X?
Star: Oh! Wow! It is fun and educative! You never know how time passes off when you work with him! I am looking forward to working with him in more and more films...
Interviewer: What was your experience working with Director Y?
Star: Fantastic! He is a master! He is brilliant... I don't have words to describe his authority on the subject... it is simply my luck that I have got an opportunity to work with him...
Even if they know that the film was badly made, they don't say that it is a bad film because that will hurt the business. If the star himself admits that the film is badly made, who will go to theaters to see the movie? So they never admit anything wrong about any film they work on. And 90 out of every 100 films made in any industry (Hindi, Telugu, Malayalam, etc... these are our languages) flop at the box office, i.e., the same films which these stars, technicians, directors, producers, etc., give the certificate/rating of "excellent film" before release.
Even in the field of HR, politics, government services, law, etc., nobody speaks the truth until he retires (if I am not wrong... Marks is also not an exception) (Sorry... Mark). The greatest truths are always simple.
When we speak to please others with a motive to maintain good relationships to survive, make money in any industry, then most often we don't speak the truth for fear of hurting the fellow who could be useful for us to survive in the industry. Even when we speak with a business motive, we don't speak the truth.
The greatest obstacle in the path of seeing the truth is "business interest" itself... whatever the business, people may do.
I feel the community of lawyers is more mature than the community of psychometricians (don't rake up another controversy by saying, "you are ignorant; that is why you are using that word 'psychometrician,' such word is not there at all in the dictionary... what if it is not there... I have coined that word... accept it if you can, leave it if you can't) because I found them very open about the negative side of their professionalism. I found them often joking about their own profession unlike you, who can't bear anything said against your profession.
A lawyer was out hiking with a friend when they encountered a mountain lion. The lawyer dropped his pack and got ready to run. "You'll never outrun a hungry mountain lion!" exclaimed his friend. "I don't have to outrun him," replied the lawyer. "I just have to outrun you!"
The next day, a coyote came upon that same mountain lion licking a pile of dung. "What on earth are you doing?" the coyote asked in amazement. The mountain lion looked up dolefully. "I ate a lawyer yesterday, and I'm still trying to get the taste out of my mouth."
Just see how honest they are about their antagonism towards their profession!
You know what Addison Mizner said?
"Ignorance of law excuses no man... from practicing it."
We (we means, people like me and Mark) can say, seeing what you do,
"Ignorance of psychology excuses no man... from practicing psychometrics..."
Thanks and regards,
Chandrasekhar
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Chandrasekhar:
>Don't assume such a moral high ground Bob! <
I am on the moral high ground whenever I am accused of doing things I do not do.
>If you had no fear that my criticism would impact the readers, you would not have given such a lengthy reply to my criticism.<
I do fear that uninformed readers could be swayed by your nonsense.
> You know sometimes I challenge others to stimulate their emotional intelligence, that is not an attempt to insult the person.<
Who are you to do such thing? That is about as arrogant as you can get.
> Moreover I have not spoken anything against you, I have only spoken against your business. <
And you got all the details wrong.
>And we should not assume such a moral high ground on anything we do, every business has its unethical standards.<
All the insipid things you accused me of doing puts me on the moral high ground since I am not guilty of any of them.
>Even in the field of HR, Politics, Government services, Law etc., nobody speaks truth till he retires (if I am not wrong......Marks is also not an exception) (Sorry.....Mark). Greatest truths are always simple. <
In the US that just isn’t true.
>When we speak to please others to with a motive to maintain good relationships in order to survive, make money in any industry, then most often we don't speak the truth with the fear of hurting the fellow who could be useful for us to survive in the industry. Even when we speak with a business motive we don't speak truth.<
Perhaps that is a weakness in your culture because without speaking the truth we cannot fix our problems.
>The greatest obstacle in the path of seeing the truth is "business interest" itself....whatever be the business people may do.,
Perhaps in your culture but not in all cultures.
> unlike you, who can't bear anything said against your profession. <
You insulted me and lied about what I do and why I do it.
>Just see how honest they are about their antagonism towards their profession! <
Try calling a particular lawyer unethical, immoral, and a human rights violator in public and see if he smiles at you.
>We (we means, pple like me and Mark) can say, seeing what you do,<
You are not free from criticism when you make things up, lie, to make yourself feel good.
I’m still waiting for the apology.
Bob
From United States, Chelsea
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
>Don't assume such a moral high ground Bob! <
I am on the moral high ground whenever I am accused of doing things I do not do.
>If you had no fear that my criticism would impact the readers, you would not have given such a lengthy reply to my criticism.<
I do fear that uninformed readers could be swayed by your nonsense.
> You know sometimes I challenge others to stimulate their emotional intelligence, that is not an attempt to insult the person.<
Who are you to do such thing? That is about as arrogant as you can get.
> Moreover I have not spoken anything against you, I have only spoken against your business. <
And you got all the details wrong.
>And we should not assume such a moral high ground on anything we do, every business has its unethical standards.<
All the insipid things you accused me of doing puts me on the moral high ground since I am not guilty of any of them.
>Even in the field of HR, Politics, Government services, Law etc., nobody speaks truth till he retires (if I am not wrong......Marks is also not an exception) (Sorry.....Mark). Greatest truths are always simple. <
In the US that just isn’t true.
>When we speak to please others to with a motive to maintain good relationships in order to survive, make money in any industry, then most often we don't speak the truth with the fear of hurting the fellow who could be useful for us to survive in the industry. Even when we speak with a business motive we don't speak truth.<
Perhaps that is a weakness in your culture because without speaking the truth we cannot fix our problems.
>The greatest obstacle in the path of seeing the truth is "business interest" itself....whatever be the business people may do.,
Perhaps in your culture but not in all cultures.
> unlike you, who can't bear anything said against your profession. <
You insulted me and lied about what I do and why I do it.
>Just see how honest they are about their antagonism towards their profession! <
Try calling a particular lawyer unethical, immoral, and a human rights violator in public and see if he smiles at you.
>We (we means, pple like me and Mark) can say, seeing what you do,<
You are not free from criticism when you make things up, lie, to make yourself feel good.
I’m still waiting for the apology.
Bob
From United States, Chelsea
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Chandrasekhar,
Thank you for your message. I have reviewed the text you provided and made corrections where necessary. Please see the revised version below:
---
:lol: :lol:
> My statement: The greatest obstacle in the path of seeing the truth is "business interest" itself... whatever business people may do.
Your response:
Perhaps in your culture, but not in all cultures.
Have you seen the film Titanic, Bob? What do you understand from seeing the characters of Rose's mother and her potential suitor, whom her mother wants her to marry?
Whether it is Indian culture, American culture, or any other culture, the languages and cultures may vary, but the attitude of a businessman remains the same. Culture has nothing to do with it. That is why I said, "Ignorance of psychology is no excuse to practice."
> My statement: Just see how honest they are about their antagonism towards their profession!
Your response:
Try calling a particular lawyer unethical, immoral, or a human rights violator in public and see if he smiles at you.
Why do we label someone as unethical, immoral, or a human rights violator when they themselves aim to be reasonable about their actions? We are only concerned about incorrigible hypocrites.
Thanks and Regards,
Take care of your health,
Chandrasekhar
---
I hope this helps. Let me know if you need any further assistance.
Best regards.
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you for your message. I have reviewed the text you provided and made corrections where necessary. Please see the revised version below:
---
:lol: :lol:
> My statement: The greatest obstacle in the path of seeing the truth is "business interest" itself... whatever business people may do.
Your response:
Perhaps in your culture, but not in all cultures.
Have you seen the film Titanic, Bob? What do you understand from seeing the characters of Rose's mother and her potential suitor, whom her mother wants her to marry?
Whether it is Indian culture, American culture, or any other culture, the languages and cultures may vary, but the attitude of a businessman remains the same. Culture has nothing to do with it. That is why I said, "Ignorance of psychology is no excuse to practice."
> My statement: Just see how honest they are about their antagonism towards their profession!
Your response:
Try calling a particular lawyer unethical, immoral, or a human rights violator in public and see if he smiles at you.
Why do we label someone as unethical, immoral, or a human rights violator when they themselves aim to be reasonable about their actions? We are only concerned about incorrigible hypocrites.
Thanks and Regards,
Take care of your health,
Chandrasekhar
---
I hope this helps. Let me know if you need any further assistance.
Best regards.
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Bob,
I notice that you have not replied to my last post but have chosen instead to attack Chandrasekhar. Once again your response is extremely uncharitable.
It seems to me that you only cross swords with those you think are easy targets. Applying the principle of charity, I allowed you to get away with two such attacks on my own posts before biting back. In addition to adhering to the principle of charity I operate a ‘three strikes rule’.
Your response to Chandrasekhar is reprehensible and no better than that of a playground bully, which is a shame. You obviously have considerable experience in the HR field and I’m sure many would welcome your views and benefit from your experience.
I may also be able to offer knowledge that would be of benefit to others. We can each contribute in our own way even though we may be diametrically opposed on the issue of psychometrics.
I would like to offer an olive branch. I offer you my unreserved apologies and give my word to refrain from ad hominem attacks again if you will do the same and apologise to Chandrasekhar.
We can then resume a constructive debate from which all can benefit. I have put the case against psychometrics. Maybe you would like to put the case for psychometrics. Others can then make up their own minds.
Regards
Mark 51
From United Kingdom, Huddersfield
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I notice that you have not replied to my last post but have chosen instead to attack Chandrasekhar. Once again your response is extremely uncharitable.
It seems to me that you only cross swords with those you think are easy targets. Applying the principle of charity, I allowed you to get away with two such attacks on my own posts before biting back. In addition to adhering to the principle of charity I operate a ‘three strikes rule’.
Your response to Chandrasekhar is reprehensible and no better than that of a playground bully, which is a shame. You obviously have considerable experience in the HR field and I’m sure many would welcome your views and benefit from your experience.
I may also be able to offer knowledge that would be of benefit to others. We can each contribute in our own way even though we may be diametrically opposed on the issue of psychometrics.
I would like to offer an olive branch. I offer you my unreserved apologies and give my word to refrain from ad hominem attacks again if you will do the same and apologise to Chandrasekhar.
We can then resume a constructive debate from which all can benefit. I have put the case against psychometrics. Maybe you would like to put the case for psychometrics. Others can then make up their own minds.
Regards
Mark 51
From United Kingdom, Huddersfield
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mark,
We are all traveling on the same ship but looking at the world from different parts of the ship in different directions. Therefore, perceptions may vary, but we should not forget that there is one issue on which we all share a responsibility, and there won't be any contention about it: We shall all travel towards a better world!
The attitude of employers towards employees worldwide must change. It should shift from a "Master-slave" relationship to a Businessman-Businesspartner relationship.
All employers should consider their employees as their business partners rather than as their "employees" or "servants of the organization." What do employers aim to share with their employees in terms of salaries? They expect that their profits will cover operational costs.
In light of this, I believe the time has come for every business organization to pay at least half of the compensation (to personnel) in the form of shares and the other half in the form of salaries. If necessary, they should even consider paying the entire compensation in the form of shares, meaning that the dividends their shares yield would be their salary. This approach would lead employees to feel like partners in the advancement of business organizations. What would be the result? Every employee would view the organization as their own. They would strive to enhance the organization to increase the share value, such that each share yields better dividends annually, resulting in improved compensation per year. They would take personal interest, perhaps even burning the midnight oil, to enhance the organization's performance because their own interests are tied to the organization's success. This is the most effective way to instill organizational loyalty, motivation, commitment, a sense of belonging, and so on. When a person possesses all these qualities, talent will naturally gravitate towards them because a person who is genuinely interested in improving something will explore numerous methods to enhance it.
In such a scenario, there would be no need for psychometrics to determine the interest, personality, propensity for long-term commitment, talent, competence, and other qualities in individuals that organizations seek to recruit.
Chandrasekhar
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
We are all traveling on the same ship but looking at the world from different parts of the ship in different directions. Therefore, perceptions may vary, but we should not forget that there is one issue on which we all share a responsibility, and there won't be any contention about it: We shall all travel towards a better world!
The attitude of employers towards employees worldwide must change. It should shift from a "Master-slave" relationship to a Businessman-Businesspartner relationship.
All employers should consider their employees as their business partners rather than as their "employees" or "servants of the organization." What do employers aim to share with their employees in terms of salaries? They expect that their profits will cover operational costs.
In light of this, I believe the time has come for every business organization to pay at least half of the compensation (to personnel) in the form of shares and the other half in the form of salaries. If necessary, they should even consider paying the entire compensation in the form of shares, meaning that the dividends their shares yield would be their salary. This approach would lead employees to feel like partners in the advancement of business organizations. What would be the result? Every employee would view the organization as their own. They would strive to enhance the organization to increase the share value, such that each share yields better dividends annually, resulting in improved compensation per year. They would take personal interest, perhaps even burning the midnight oil, to enhance the organization's performance because their own interests are tied to the organization's success. This is the most effective way to instill organizational loyalty, motivation, commitment, a sense of belonging, and so on. When a person possesses all these qualities, talent will naturally gravitate towards them because a person who is genuinely interested in improving something will explore numerous methods to enhance it.
In such a scenario, there would be no need for psychometrics to determine the interest, personality, propensity for long-term commitment, talent, competence, and other qualities in individuals that organizations seek to recruit.
Chandrasekhar
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Chandrasekhar,
I actually began my career working for the industrial giant Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI). They operated the very scheme you talk about in the 1960s. Every employee received a bonus at the end of each financial year in the form of company shares. It did instill great pride in the company in some employees, but others had difficulty associating their own efforts with the success of such a big company. The division of shares was the same whether they worked hard or not.
I have no idea if the firm still operates the scheme today since I moved on after only 3 years and sold my shares long ago.
I too would like to think that we are all sailing towards a better world but sadly fear that this may not be the case.
Philosopher John Gray observes that we have an ever-increasing world population competing for an ever-diminishing supply of non-renewable resources. Unless we all work together to solve the problems this will inevitably create, this is a recipe for disaster.
Mankind's violent history suggests that the disastrous outcome is more likely than the cooperative outcome.
Regards,
Mark 51
From United Kingdom, Huddersfield
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I actually began my career working for the industrial giant Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI). They operated the very scheme you talk about in the 1960s. Every employee received a bonus at the end of each financial year in the form of company shares. It did instill great pride in the company in some employees, but others had difficulty associating their own efforts with the success of such a big company. The division of shares was the same whether they worked hard or not.
I have no idea if the firm still operates the scheme today since I moved on after only 3 years and sold my shares long ago.
I too would like to think that we are all sailing towards a better world but sadly fear that this may not be the case.
Philosopher John Gray observes that we have an ever-increasing world population competing for an ever-diminishing supply of non-renewable resources. Unless we all work together to solve the problems this will inevitably create, this is a recipe for disaster.
Mankind's violent history suggests that the disastrous outcome is more likely than the cooperative outcome.
Regards,
Mark 51
From United Kingdom, Huddersfield
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
:D :D
Dear Mark,
I am not talking about employees getting shares as Bonus. That may do some good in helping employees to identify themselves with the success of the company. I am talking about a “Compensation Mix” of Shares and Salary. Let us say, for the job of Vice President - Marketing in some XYZ company, the company wants to pay $30000 in the present system for that job.
In the system of “compensation Mix of Shares and Salary”, the company decides, “I will pay half the salary in the form of dividends and half in the form of monthly salary”.
Then the VPM gets $15000 in the form of monthly salary and $45000 per quarter in the form of dividends. Let us say, the value of stock of XYZ company is $200 per share, and the each share is expected to yield a dividend of $20 in the coming 12 months. Then the VPM should be credited with 9000 shares so that he gets a dividend of $180000 per annum.
If a Clerk in the same company gets $3000 per month, then, he shall be credited with 900 shares of the company so that he earns $18000 per annum on his “share component”.
In the company you worked (ICI) the division of shares was the same whether they worked hard or not. That is the difference between system I am proposing and the system you worked.
Having spread the shares like this across the hierarchy for each job, the company should put the following conditions :
1. In case of resignation/removal of the employee from job, the employee should return the shares (existing with him) to the company existing in his name.
2. The employee is eligible to sell 1/10th of the shares he has after completion of two years term/service. Up to 1/5th of the shares after completion of 3 years service. Up to 2/5th of the shares after completion of 5 years service. Up to ½ of the shares after completion of 10 years service and total number of shares after completion of 20 years service.
3. After putting in 10/20/30 years of service with the company the company can decide to pay full compensation in the form of shares depending on its internal policies.
I don’t know whether the laws would allow the companies to get back the shares credited to the employees account, if laws don’t facilitate then governments should make laws to facilitate this arrangement between employers and employees.
The motive behind payment of compensation half in the form of shares is to inculcate a sense of responsibility and a sense of belongingness in the personnel of organizations, I feel this will create a positive atmosphere for personnel to do “team work”. This we will ensure without disturbing the “job description” if we adopt this model of paying compensation to employees.
The benefits of this compensation package to employees will be :
If company performs better (which in turn depends on their own commitment and individual performance) then the share value will increase in the market, and dividend per share will increase. Let us say the $200 share of XYZ company increases to $400 per share in 4 years and the Dividend per share gets doubled i.e., $40 per share. Then what happens? The VPM will get $360000 per annum on his share component (of compensation) itself! That means the payment for one component of compensation package is doubled within 4 years!! In other words, the total salary would be more than $540000 per annum after 4 years and he has a choice to sell 20 per cent of his shares after completion of 4 years service.
In India we don’t pay dividends quarterly, but we have to do that so that we facilitate this kind of “compensation package” to employees, because employees cannot afford to receive half of their compensation once in a year in a country like India.
I feel payment in the form of Bonus shares at the end of year and payment of half the compensation in the form of shares makes lot of difference on the morale of the employee.
The differences between the ICI model and my model is this :
A. ICI pays all employees the Bonus shares equally, whereas, in my model the number of shares owned by each employee differs from the position he holds in the company
B. In ICI model, the employee has the option to sell off his shares whenever he wants, that will give him freedom to sell off his shares and bid farewell to the company. In my model, as the number of shares the company credits to the account of employee will be more, the authority to sell the shares is given by company to employee as explained by me above (1/10th after 2 years, 1/5th after 3 years and so on…). The idea is depending on the loyalty shown by way of serving for a long term the company yields the authority to sell off his shares. Remember while he makes the decision to sell off his shares, the “salary component” of his compensation would be adequate (with every year increase in DA, Basic etc) for him to make the choice easier.
C. The employee realizes in my model that the more he contributes to the success of organization, the more he benefits and the longer he stays with the organization, the better the advantage of selling great number of shares.
I invite the comments of all who have been actively participating in this discussion on this compensation package…. The premise on which these ideas stands is that "it is the attitude of employer/firm/organization towards his/its employees that makes the difference on the morale of the employee not the personal integrity, character of the employee alone..."
Thanks and regards,
Chandrasekhar
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mark,
I am not talking about employees getting shares as Bonus. That may do some good in helping employees to identify themselves with the success of the company. I am talking about a “Compensation Mix” of Shares and Salary. Let us say, for the job of Vice President - Marketing in some XYZ company, the company wants to pay $30000 in the present system for that job.
In the system of “compensation Mix of Shares and Salary”, the company decides, “I will pay half the salary in the form of dividends and half in the form of monthly salary”.
Then the VPM gets $15000 in the form of monthly salary and $45000 per quarter in the form of dividends. Let us say, the value of stock of XYZ company is $200 per share, and the each share is expected to yield a dividend of $20 in the coming 12 months. Then the VPM should be credited with 9000 shares so that he gets a dividend of $180000 per annum.
If a Clerk in the same company gets $3000 per month, then, he shall be credited with 900 shares of the company so that he earns $18000 per annum on his “share component”.
In the company you worked (ICI) the division of shares was the same whether they worked hard or not. That is the difference between system I am proposing and the system you worked.
Having spread the shares like this across the hierarchy for each job, the company should put the following conditions :
1. In case of resignation/removal of the employee from job, the employee should return the shares (existing with him) to the company existing in his name.
2. The employee is eligible to sell 1/10th of the shares he has after completion of two years term/service. Up to 1/5th of the shares after completion of 3 years service. Up to 2/5th of the shares after completion of 5 years service. Up to ½ of the shares after completion of 10 years service and total number of shares after completion of 20 years service.
3. After putting in 10/20/30 years of service with the company the company can decide to pay full compensation in the form of shares depending on its internal policies.
I don’t know whether the laws would allow the companies to get back the shares credited to the employees account, if laws don’t facilitate then governments should make laws to facilitate this arrangement between employers and employees.
The motive behind payment of compensation half in the form of shares is to inculcate a sense of responsibility and a sense of belongingness in the personnel of organizations, I feel this will create a positive atmosphere for personnel to do “team work”. This we will ensure without disturbing the “job description” if we adopt this model of paying compensation to employees.
The benefits of this compensation package to employees will be :
If company performs better (which in turn depends on their own commitment and individual performance) then the share value will increase in the market, and dividend per share will increase. Let us say the $200 share of XYZ company increases to $400 per share in 4 years and the Dividend per share gets doubled i.e., $40 per share. Then what happens? The VPM will get $360000 per annum on his share component (of compensation) itself! That means the payment for one component of compensation package is doubled within 4 years!! In other words, the total salary would be more than $540000 per annum after 4 years and he has a choice to sell 20 per cent of his shares after completion of 4 years service.
In India we don’t pay dividends quarterly, but we have to do that so that we facilitate this kind of “compensation package” to employees, because employees cannot afford to receive half of their compensation once in a year in a country like India.
I feel payment in the form of Bonus shares at the end of year and payment of half the compensation in the form of shares makes lot of difference on the morale of the employee.
The differences between the ICI model and my model is this :
A. ICI pays all employees the Bonus shares equally, whereas, in my model the number of shares owned by each employee differs from the position he holds in the company
B. In ICI model, the employee has the option to sell off his shares whenever he wants, that will give him freedom to sell off his shares and bid farewell to the company. In my model, as the number of shares the company credits to the account of employee will be more, the authority to sell the shares is given by company to employee as explained by me above (1/10th after 2 years, 1/5th after 3 years and so on…). The idea is depending on the loyalty shown by way of serving for a long term the company yields the authority to sell off his shares. Remember while he makes the decision to sell off his shares, the “salary component” of his compensation would be adequate (with every year increase in DA, Basic etc) for him to make the choice easier.
C. The employee realizes in my model that the more he contributes to the success of organization, the more he benefits and the longer he stays with the organization, the better the advantage of selling great number of shares.
I invite the comments of all who have been actively participating in this discussion on this compensation package…. The premise on which these ideas stands is that "it is the attitude of employer/firm/organization towards his/its employees that makes the difference on the morale of the employee not the personal integrity, character of the employee alone..."
Thanks and regards,
Chandrasekhar
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mark,
This is what you said to me.
>Philosopher, John Gray observes that we have an ever increasing world population competing for an ever diminishing supply of non-renewable resources. Unless we all work together to solve the problems this will inevitably create, this is a recipe for disaster<
These are my views on that viewpoint expressed by you.
..............................
It is better to worry about worldly matters than about material; even better to worry about spiritual matters than worldly matters.
This does not mean we should totally ignore material, worldly matters. The difference of interest to be shown in those things (in degrees) is explained in the quotation above. If you ask me if there is anything more wonderful and more complex than human mind, then I don’t have an answer to offer. As far as I can see and understand, the most complex and wonderful object I have ever found is the “human mind”. It is as deep as Ocean and as complex as a dense Forest.
We are HR professionals, we do the job of “indirectly contributing” to the process of creation of wealth all over the world. We need to know what motivates human beings, in their thinking patterns and their working patterns. I am deeply surprised by the discovery of the fact that most often the behavior of human beings, their thinking patterns and working patterns are governed by their emotions and feelings rather than by their ability to reason. And I am disturbed by it because if at all we can motivate human beings to use their reasoning faculties rather than being swayed away by emotions and feelings, then we can help the process of transfer of wealth from richer to poorer sections of the world population, but we fail to do so.
This is important because the Planet Earth can satisfy the needs of human beings not their greed (Mahatma Gandhi). That is why as responsible habitats of this planet we must learn to use the natural resources as optimally as possible and utilize the material (wealth) produced of it the most optimum way possible.
What comes in the way of this noble cause is the complexity of human mind itself!
For instance I have the story of my own family members to tell.
Till the end of last month I used to stay with my parents in their house. Because of some reasons, I am compelled to shift to another city and they are compelled to shift to another city. We vacated the house during the last week of the month. I had my PC, TV and some books…to shift to the new house (near my sister’s place) in the new city. In my room, there was lot of unused material. I wanted to give off all that material in charity to one of the servants who worked at our house. During the shifting process, my father was confused and scared which objects he shall shift, which objects he shall ignore, which objects I will take, which objects he will take and so on.
I had a philosophy about “art of living”. We should keep as few things as possible in our houses if we cannot afford to clean them up every day. One new thing we bring into the house, our work increases because we have to clean the dust accumulated to it. That is why we should keep as few things at home as possible so that we can keep our house clean and so that we can clean our house easily and fastly. When we rise to such a position wherein we can appoint one worker to clean all the objects in the house, then only we should keep all the things (that we use for interior decoration) in the house.
And whatever things we need to run a small house, like Refrigerator, TV, Fans, Cots, Stove, Utensils for cooking etc., we can purchase just by spending Rs.50000/- or so.
When we have capacity to earn Rs.30000/- per month we should not worry about the material we have at home. That is my philosophy about “art of living”.
So I told my father, “my property is my PC, my TV and these books, rest of the things I am going to give off to Krishnaveni …(the maid servant who worked at our home)…”.
My father did not like the idea at all because he did not want to give off the things that he (or we) purchased for money to servant just like that. He became jealous of the thought that our servant would enjoy all those things I leave for nothing. He started searching what are all the things in my room that he purchased so that he can at least avoid giving off those things by me to the servant.
He found a heap of Cassettes gathering dust in one almirah. After I left the job in North India I stayed with him for almost 4 years. During those four years, he never heard one song of those cassettes! He had a Tape recorder and Cassette player that he purchased more to show off to others than to hear songs. He bundled the Cassette player and speakers and stored it in store room for all those four years. In other words, not to speak of cassettes, even the Tape recorder-cum- Cassette player itself is a burden on him.
But he did not want to get rid of that burden because, he did not want to allow others to enjoy it. We purchased it for money, why should we give it off free for others? Does anyone give anything free of cost to us when we need it?
These are all the arguments that people often make, and my father is no exception to it.
He will allow that tape recorder-cum-cassette player to gather dust and in that process become dysfunctional, and after 10 years or so, (if he is still alive) he will throw it away.
I feel, “how nice if he can give off that object to someone who need it or someone who has a desire to own it and enjoy it, so that they don’t have to purchase a new one from market. If my father gives off that object in charity, then one tape-recorder cum cassette player will not be purchased from the market. If one tape-recorder cum cassette player is not purchased from the market, then one producer will have to produce one of it less. In other words, one manufacturer will not use the Earth’s resources as much as he uses to make on Tape recorder-cum-cassette player. That is how we save the “natural resources” on this planet.
That is how we use the wealth produced optimally. That is how we save and preserve the depleting natural resources for the future generations.
Once we search any house in the world, we will find so much of unused material that could be of help/use to others. But what comes in the way of giving off all that unused material to poor people is our own attachment towards objects. There is no reason why people are attached to objects and keep them at home thinking this will be of use to me some day or the other. But that day never comes. A cement bag kept in the store room never comes out and it is forgotten by the owner of the house himself that he has it in his store room. And when he needs a cement bag for any repair, he will purchase a new one from the market!
That is why wise people said, “It is better to worry about worldly matters than about material; even better to worry about spiritual matters than worldly matters….”.
After I shifted my material to my sister’s house, I found so many objects here that she kept in her small house which almost looks like a Villain’s den. When I was eating food, I encounter so many insects. Yesterday when I was eating food, one spider came into my food to share it. I left the food as it is and took a new plate.
Lizards say Hello to me from the roof of the house. Every object inside the house is full of dust, but there is no way she gets the idea to get rid of those objects. That is a small house they stay. But they themselves say, because of the exhorbitant rise in real estate prices, that small house, the area occupied by that small house costs around Rs.18 lacs!
Now tell me when they are capable of getting 18 lacs by selling off that house, why should they worry about these small objects that does not cost even Rs.10000/- for them if their cost is totaled?
My brother-in-law took the Life membership of Country club spending Rs.40000/-. He spent another Rs.50000/- or so to construct a small temple in his village. He is a small employee in a small cooperative Bank. He cannot actually afford to do all that. But what motivated him to spend like this is, his inclination to get name and fame from his villagers, friends and relatives.
On the other side, my sister’s kitchen has grown dark with the smoke emanating from the stove. There is so much of dust gathered inside the kitchen around and inside the dust, spider’s webs, they have so many insects moving around. It just takes Rs.500/- to get it white-washed. They did not get the idea for the last 18 years or so, to get it white washed. If they get it white-washed once, so many insects will die and the room will look livable.
What is the reason…why my brother-in-law could spend Rs.50000/- to construct a temple in his village and Rs.40000/- to take Life membership of Country club, but he did not get the idea to get his house white-washed so that he could avoid insects falling into his plate when he eats food?
There is no reason why she has kept so many small, small objects in her house and living without being capable of cleaning them? I have discovered a big Jacket that I left in her house when I came 8 years back on the top of one wooden frame kept to throw away unused articles! That has been gathering dust there and so many little insects have started their families inside that Jacket.
I questioned my sister about so many objects. There are four legs of one cot, kept in the kitchen gathering dust. I asked my sister why did you keep them. She said, if you throw them away, your brother-in-law will scold me, he wants them to be kept.
Just see the ignorance of people!
I told my sister my philosophy. It just requires Rs.50000/- or so to get whatever material you want to make a living in a house, don’t worry about all these things, “can’t we afford to send Rs.50000/- or so when we need to spend on these objects….?”. I told her, “I will give you all the money you require in future to purchase objects such as these, now you get rid of all these unused things so that you don’t make your house a Hell…”.
She is convinced with my logic, but she is scared of my brother-in-law.
Just see how complex and unreasonable the human mind is!
They have kept all the objects without having time to clean them up, without having capacity to clean them up so that they can avoid gathering dust, and gathering insects, spiders, spider web around them etc. They themselves are capable of spending Rs.50000/- or so to purchase all those objects if they construct a new house. But their attachment to old articles have at present made their lives miserable. When they eat, we don’t know how many insects they eat along with their food!
My purpose of writing this to HR community is to think about it seriously.
Spend one Holiday paying a visit to unused and old articles kept in your storage places, store rooms, almirahs etc in your house. Say "hello" to every object and "good bye" to every unused object. It is time worth spending for your happiness and also for the happiness of all those people who benefit from your charity.
If you are not using them, just throw them away if they are of no use, or if they are of use to somebody else, and you don’t have interest to use, donate them to needy people!
There are millions of poor people in India who will willingly take what we offer to them, even if what we offer to them are old objects.
That will serve the cause of “transfer of wealth” from rich to poor and also it will make your lives easier and happier, and the lives of people who receive such objects happier because they can better enjoy the objects you offer to them in charity than you can!
thanks and regards,
Chandrasekhar
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This is what you said to me.
>Philosopher, John Gray observes that we have an ever increasing world population competing for an ever diminishing supply of non-renewable resources. Unless we all work together to solve the problems this will inevitably create, this is a recipe for disaster<
These are my views on that viewpoint expressed by you.
..............................
It is better to worry about worldly matters than about material; even better to worry about spiritual matters than worldly matters.
This does not mean we should totally ignore material, worldly matters. The difference of interest to be shown in those things (in degrees) is explained in the quotation above. If you ask me if there is anything more wonderful and more complex than human mind, then I don’t have an answer to offer. As far as I can see and understand, the most complex and wonderful object I have ever found is the “human mind”. It is as deep as Ocean and as complex as a dense Forest.
We are HR professionals, we do the job of “indirectly contributing” to the process of creation of wealth all over the world. We need to know what motivates human beings, in their thinking patterns and their working patterns. I am deeply surprised by the discovery of the fact that most often the behavior of human beings, their thinking patterns and working patterns are governed by their emotions and feelings rather than by their ability to reason. And I am disturbed by it because if at all we can motivate human beings to use their reasoning faculties rather than being swayed away by emotions and feelings, then we can help the process of transfer of wealth from richer to poorer sections of the world population, but we fail to do so.
This is important because the Planet Earth can satisfy the needs of human beings not their greed (Mahatma Gandhi). That is why as responsible habitats of this planet we must learn to use the natural resources as optimally as possible and utilize the material (wealth) produced of it the most optimum way possible.
What comes in the way of this noble cause is the complexity of human mind itself!
For instance I have the story of my own family members to tell.
Till the end of last month I used to stay with my parents in their house. Because of some reasons, I am compelled to shift to another city and they are compelled to shift to another city. We vacated the house during the last week of the month. I had my PC, TV and some books…to shift to the new house (near my sister’s place) in the new city. In my room, there was lot of unused material. I wanted to give off all that material in charity to one of the servants who worked at our house. During the shifting process, my father was confused and scared which objects he shall shift, which objects he shall ignore, which objects I will take, which objects he will take and so on.
I had a philosophy about “art of living”. We should keep as few things as possible in our houses if we cannot afford to clean them up every day. One new thing we bring into the house, our work increases because we have to clean the dust accumulated to it. That is why we should keep as few things at home as possible so that we can keep our house clean and so that we can clean our house easily and fastly. When we rise to such a position wherein we can appoint one worker to clean all the objects in the house, then only we should keep all the things (that we use for interior decoration) in the house.
And whatever things we need to run a small house, like Refrigerator, TV, Fans, Cots, Stove, Utensils for cooking etc., we can purchase just by spending Rs.50000/- or so.
When we have capacity to earn Rs.30000/- per month we should not worry about the material we have at home. That is my philosophy about “art of living”.
So I told my father, “my property is my PC, my TV and these books, rest of the things I am going to give off to Krishnaveni …(the maid servant who worked at our home)…”.
My father did not like the idea at all because he did not want to give off the things that he (or we) purchased for money to servant just like that. He became jealous of the thought that our servant would enjoy all those things I leave for nothing. He started searching what are all the things in my room that he purchased so that he can at least avoid giving off those things by me to the servant.
He found a heap of Cassettes gathering dust in one almirah. After I left the job in North India I stayed with him for almost 4 years. During those four years, he never heard one song of those cassettes! He had a Tape recorder and Cassette player that he purchased more to show off to others than to hear songs. He bundled the Cassette player and speakers and stored it in store room for all those four years. In other words, not to speak of cassettes, even the Tape recorder-cum- Cassette player itself is a burden on him.
But he did not want to get rid of that burden because, he did not want to allow others to enjoy it. We purchased it for money, why should we give it off free for others? Does anyone give anything free of cost to us when we need it?
These are all the arguments that people often make, and my father is no exception to it.
He will allow that tape recorder-cum-cassette player to gather dust and in that process become dysfunctional, and after 10 years or so, (if he is still alive) he will throw it away.
I feel, “how nice if he can give off that object to someone who need it or someone who has a desire to own it and enjoy it, so that they don’t have to purchase a new one from market. If my father gives off that object in charity, then one tape-recorder cum cassette player will not be purchased from the market. If one tape-recorder cum cassette player is not purchased from the market, then one producer will have to produce one of it less. In other words, one manufacturer will not use the Earth’s resources as much as he uses to make on Tape recorder-cum-cassette player. That is how we save the “natural resources” on this planet.
That is how we use the wealth produced optimally. That is how we save and preserve the depleting natural resources for the future generations.
Once we search any house in the world, we will find so much of unused material that could be of help/use to others. But what comes in the way of giving off all that unused material to poor people is our own attachment towards objects. There is no reason why people are attached to objects and keep them at home thinking this will be of use to me some day or the other. But that day never comes. A cement bag kept in the store room never comes out and it is forgotten by the owner of the house himself that he has it in his store room. And when he needs a cement bag for any repair, he will purchase a new one from the market!
That is why wise people said, “It is better to worry about worldly matters than about material; even better to worry about spiritual matters than worldly matters….”.
After I shifted my material to my sister’s house, I found so many objects here that she kept in her small house which almost looks like a Villain’s den. When I was eating food, I encounter so many insects. Yesterday when I was eating food, one spider came into my food to share it. I left the food as it is and took a new plate.
Lizards say Hello to me from the roof of the house. Every object inside the house is full of dust, but there is no way she gets the idea to get rid of those objects. That is a small house they stay. But they themselves say, because of the exhorbitant rise in real estate prices, that small house, the area occupied by that small house costs around Rs.18 lacs!
Now tell me when they are capable of getting 18 lacs by selling off that house, why should they worry about these small objects that does not cost even Rs.10000/- for them if their cost is totaled?
My brother-in-law took the Life membership of Country club spending Rs.40000/-. He spent another Rs.50000/- or so to construct a small temple in his village. He is a small employee in a small cooperative Bank. He cannot actually afford to do all that. But what motivated him to spend like this is, his inclination to get name and fame from his villagers, friends and relatives.
On the other side, my sister’s kitchen has grown dark with the smoke emanating from the stove. There is so much of dust gathered inside the kitchen around and inside the dust, spider’s webs, they have so many insects moving around. It just takes Rs.500/- to get it white-washed. They did not get the idea for the last 18 years or so, to get it white washed. If they get it white-washed once, so many insects will die and the room will look livable.
What is the reason…why my brother-in-law could spend Rs.50000/- to construct a temple in his village and Rs.40000/- to take Life membership of Country club, but he did not get the idea to get his house white-washed so that he could avoid insects falling into his plate when he eats food?
There is no reason why she has kept so many small, small objects in her house and living without being capable of cleaning them? I have discovered a big Jacket that I left in her house when I came 8 years back on the top of one wooden frame kept to throw away unused articles! That has been gathering dust there and so many little insects have started their families inside that Jacket.
I questioned my sister about so many objects. There are four legs of one cot, kept in the kitchen gathering dust. I asked my sister why did you keep them. She said, if you throw them away, your brother-in-law will scold me, he wants them to be kept.
Just see the ignorance of people!
I told my sister my philosophy. It just requires Rs.50000/- or so to get whatever material you want to make a living in a house, don’t worry about all these things, “can’t we afford to send Rs.50000/- or so when we need to spend on these objects….?”. I told her, “I will give you all the money you require in future to purchase objects such as these, now you get rid of all these unused things so that you don’t make your house a Hell…”.
She is convinced with my logic, but she is scared of my brother-in-law.
Just see how complex and unreasonable the human mind is!
They have kept all the objects without having time to clean them up, without having capacity to clean them up so that they can avoid gathering dust, and gathering insects, spiders, spider web around them etc. They themselves are capable of spending Rs.50000/- or so to purchase all those objects if they construct a new house. But their attachment to old articles have at present made their lives miserable. When they eat, we don’t know how many insects they eat along with their food!
My purpose of writing this to HR community is to think about it seriously.
Spend one Holiday paying a visit to unused and old articles kept in your storage places, store rooms, almirahs etc in your house. Say "hello" to every object and "good bye" to every unused object. It is time worth spending for your happiness and also for the happiness of all those people who benefit from your charity.
If you are not using them, just throw them away if they are of no use, or if they are of use to somebody else, and you don’t have interest to use, donate them to needy people!
There are millions of poor people in India who will willingly take what we offer to them, even if what we offer to them are old objects.
That will serve the cause of “transfer of wealth” from rich to poor and also it will make your lives easier and happier, and the lives of people who receive such objects happier because they can better enjoy the objects you offer to them in charity than you can!
thanks and regards,
Chandrasekhar
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mark,
The following is one reply I have given to a member of this forum when she asked how to help underprivileged people. This appeared to be relevant for our discussion too because if companies allow two persons to do one job, then the commitment level will be higher because even if one person quits, the other will remain. This is purely lateral thinking, written from the perspective of Indian conditions. These ideas may also benefit Western countries.
"I have a good idea about how to reduce unemployment and offer employment to underprivileged people. But it requires a great deal of dynamism on the part of the government and CII to respond to that idea. If you can push through this concept, try to promote it.
Don't we see maid-servants working at the houses of the middle class and higher middle-class people for cleaning utensils, washing clothes, and cleaning the house's floors? In our home, if a maid-servant does not come one day, she sends another worker to do her job. Why can't we apply the same practice to other jobs?
Let's consider an example: Shilpi is the Manager-HR in a company like Reliance Industries Ltd. She earns a salary of Rs. 50,000 per month but works from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., leaving her with little time for family. She is willing to share half of her salary with her friend Vijaya, who is also an HR professional. The law should allow Shilpi to share half of her job with Vijaya so she can have a better work-life balance.
The advantage of this system is that employees work fewer hours, which may result in reduced leaves being taken. The company benefits from this arrangement by having two dedicated employees. If privileged individuals can share their job with underprivileged people, it can help address unemployment issues.
This flexibility can happen at all job levels, from factory workers to company executives. Allowing employees to share their job responsibilities can lead to better job performance and opportunities for growth.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Thanks and regards,
Chandrasekhar"
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The following is one reply I have given to a member of this forum when she asked how to help underprivileged people. This appeared to be relevant for our discussion too because if companies allow two persons to do one job, then the commitment level will be higher because even if one person quits, the other will remain. This is purely lateral thinking, written from the perspective of Indian conditions. These ideas may also benefit Western countries.
"I have a good idea about how to reduce unemployment and offer employment to underprivileged people. But it requires a great deal of dynamism on the part of the government and CII to respond to that idea. If you can push through this concept, try to promote it.
Don't we see maid-servants working at the houses of the middle class and higher middle-class people for cleaning utensils, washing clothes, and cleaning the house's floors? In our home, if a maid-servant does not come one day, she sends another worker to do her job. Why can't we apply the same practice to other jobs?
Let's consider an example: Shilpi is the Manager-HR in a company like Reliance Industries Ltd. She earns a salary of Rs. 50,000 per month but works from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., leaving her with little time for family. She is willing to share half of her salary with her friend Vijaya, who is also an HR professional. The law should allow Shilpi to share half of her job with Vijaya so she can have a better work-life balance.
The advantage of this system is that employees work fewer hours, which may result in reduced leaves being taken. The company benefits from this arrangement by having two dedicated employees. If privileged individuals can share their job with underprivileged people, it can help address unemployment issues.
This flexibility can happen at all job levels, from factory workers to company executives. Allowing employees to share their job responsibilities can lead to better job performance and opportunities for growth.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Thanks and regards,
Chandrasekhar"
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Gathering data for an AI comment.... Sending emails to relevant members...
Join Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.
Psychometrics - Tests & HR.pdf
Ch 31 psychometrics.p pt