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
45>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
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
From India, Bhilai
Hi folks,
We have a worldwide mulitimillion dollar HR business affecting the lives of billions of people.
One of the cornersones 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 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
We have a worldwide mulitimillion dollar HR business affecting the lives of billions of people.
One of the cornersones 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 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
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
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
Hi Chandrasekhar,
You capture 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
You capture 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
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 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'.
I am not a brave man but when I refect upon the 'progress' of psychology since 1969, it certainly makes me tremble.
Kind Regards
Mark 51
From United Kingdom, Huddersfield
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 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'.
I am not a brave man but when I refect upon the 'progress' of psychology since 1969, it certainly makes me tremble.
Kind Regards
Mark 51
From United Kingdom, Huddersfield
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
>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
:lol: :D 8)
Dear Bob,
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. 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..."?
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 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.
Before I ask another question let me tell you a story.
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.
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.
Out of those 90000 candidates this time you have selected 7000 candidates for the next best 10 US corporates. Does it mean, you have selected incompetent people (for top 10 US corporates you have rejected the same candidates) for your clients, because you have already given off best talents of the US to top 10 US corporates?
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?
Apart from that, 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. 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.
Creation of wealth on planet is a process that involves everyone's effort and entire humanity shall be a part of that process in order that every human being enjoy equal right over the wealth thus produced. 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.
You may say... "for an employer to select the candidates, one or the other selection process is needed hence we suggest psychometric testing....no employer can select everyone who appears for interview...."
That is true. But how on Earth one candidate who is rejected by you in the selection process of one company gets selected in the selection process of another company? If you want to justify your business, then no candidate who is rejected by one psychometric testing agency must be selected by the same or any other psychometric testing agency for any other job, because psychometric testing not only involves "ability test", but also it involves "personality test" and "interest test"., and a candidate who fails personality test/interest test for Company A, cannot pass the same for Company B.
It is time, somebody starts a business of training prospective job-seekers as to how they should 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
Dear Bob,
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. 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..."?
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 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.
Before I ask another question let me tell you a story.
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.
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.
Out of those 90000 candidates this time you have selected 7000 candidates for the next best 10 US corporates. Does it mean, you have selected incompetent people (for top 10 US corporates you have rejected the same candidates) for your clients, because you have already given off best talents of the US to top 10 US corporates?
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?
Apart from that, 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. 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.
Creation of wealth on planet is a process that involves everyone's effort and entire humanity shall be a part of that process in order that every human being enjoy equal right over the wealth thus produced. 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.
You may say... "for an employer to select the candidates, one or the other selection process is needed hence we suggest psychometric testing....no employer can select everyone who appears for interview...."
That is true. But how on Earth one candidate who is rejected by you in the selection process of one company gets selected in the selection process of another company? If you want to justify your business, then no candidate who is rejected by one psychometric testing agency must be selected by the same or any other psychometric testing agency for any other job, because psychometric testing not only involves "ability test", but also it involves "personality test" and "interest test"., and a candidate who fails personality test/interest test for Company A, cannot pass the same for Company B.
It is time, somebody starts a business of training prospective job-seekers as to how they should 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
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
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
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
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
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Psychometrics - Tests & HR.pdf
Ch 31 psychometrics.p pt