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
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
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
45>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
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
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
: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 Sterio typed sentences to say about their work in films....like....
..................
Interviewer : How was the film you last worked?
Star : It is excellently made film, full credit to the entire team that worked. It is for every Indian family, every Indian family should go along with every family member to theatres and see the film....
Interviewer : What was your experience working with Hero X?
Star : Oh! Vaav!! It is fun and educative! You never know how time passes off when you work with him!! I am looking forward to work with him in more and more films....
Interviewer : What was your experience working with Director Y?
Star : Fantastic!! He is 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 Star himself admits that the film is badly made who will go to theatres to see the movie? So they never admit anything wrong about any film that they work. And 90 out of every 100 films made in any industry (Hindi, Telugu, Malayalam etc...these are our languages) flop at 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 truth till he retires (if I am not wrong......Marks is also not an exception) (Sorry.....Mark). Greatest truths are always simple.
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.
The greatest obstacle in the path of seeing the truth is "business interest" itself....whatever be the business people may do.
I feel the community of lawyers is more matured 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 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 on 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!" exlaimed 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 practising it".
We (we means, people like me and Mark) can say, seeing what you do,
"Ignorance of psychology excuses no man....from practising psychometrics..."
Thanks and regards,
Chandrasekhar
From India, Hyderabad
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 Sterio typed sentences to say about their work in films....like....
..................
Interviewer : How was the film you last worked?
Star : It is excellently made film, full credit to the entire team that worked. It is for every Indian family, every Indian family should go along with every family member to theatres and see the film....
Interviewer : What was your experience working with Hero X?
Star : Oh! Vaav!! It is fun and educative! You never know how time passes off when you work with him!! I am looking forward to work with him in more and more films....
Interviewer : What was your experience working with Director Y?
Star : Fantastic!! He is 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 Star himself admits that the film is badly made who will go to theatres to see the movie? So they never admit anything wrong about any film that they work. And 90 out of every 100 films made in any industry (Hindi, Telugu, Malayalam etc...these are our languages) flop at 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 truth till he retires (if I am not wrong......Marks is also not an exception) (Sorry.....Mark). Greatest truths are always simple.
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.
The greatest obstacle in the path of seeing the truth is "business interest" itself....whatever be the business people may do.
I feel the community of lawyers is more matured 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 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 on 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!" exlaimed 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 practising it".
We (we means, people like me and Mark) can say, seeing what you do,
"Ignorance of psychology excuses no man....from practising psychometrics..."
Thanks and regards,
Chandrasekhar
From India, Hyderabad
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
>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
:lol: :lol:
>My statement : The greatest obstacle in the path of seeing the truth is "business interest" itself....whatever be the 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 seeing the characters of mother of Rose and her "would be" that her mother wants her to marry?
Whether it is Indian culture or American culture or any other culture, the languages, cultures may be different but attitude of Businessman is same, culture has nothing to do with it. That is why I said - Ignorance of psychology is no excuse...to practise....
>My statement : Just see how honest they are about their antagonism towards their profession!
Your response :
Try calling a particular lawyer unethical, immoral, and a human rights violator in public and see if he smiles at you. <
Why do we call someone unethical, immoral and human rights violator when he himself wants to be reasonable about what he does? We are only worried about incorrigible hypocrites.
Thanks and Regards,
Take care of your health,
Chandrasekhar
From India, Hyderabad
>My statement : The greatest obstacle in the path of seeing the truth is "business interest" itself....whatever be the 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 seeing the characters of mother of Rose and her "would be" that her mother wants her to marry?
Whether it is Indian culture or American culture or any other culture, the languages, cultures may be different but attitude of Businessman is same, culture has nothing to do with it. That is why I said - Ignorance of psychology is no excuse...to practise....
>My statement : Just see how honest they are about their antagonism towards their profession!
Your response :
Try calling a particular lawyer unethical, immoral, and a human rights violator in public and see if he smiles at you. <
Why do we call someone unethical, immoral and human rights violator when he himself wants to be reasonable about what he does? We are only worried about incorrigible hypocrites.
Thanks and Regards,
Take care of your health,
Chandrasekhar
From India, Hyderabad
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
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
Dear Mark,
We all are travelling in same ship but looking the world from different places of the ship into different directions, hence perceptions may differ but we should not forget that on one issue 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 all over the world must change. It should change from a "Master-slave" relationship to Businessman-Businesspartner relationship.
All employers should treat their employees as their business partners not as their "employees" or "servants of organization". What is it that employers want to share with their employees in the form of salaries? They do expect that their profits cover operating costs.
That being the case, I feel time has come for every business organization to pay atleast half the compensation (to personnel) in the form of shares and half in the form of salaries....(if necessary they should pay full compensation in the form of shares....i.e., the dividends that their shares will get is their salary)..... so that employees feel they are partners in the progress of business organizations. What happens then? Then what happens is, every employee will treat the organization as his own! He will work towards developing organization in order that the share value increases and each share pays better dividends every year so that he gets better compensation per annum! He will take personal interest, even burn up midnight oil to improve the performance of the organization, because his interest is also involved in the success of organization. That is surest way of inculcating organizational loyalty, motivation, commitment, sense of belongingness etc. If a person have all these, then "talent" will come on its own to him because when a person himself is interested to improve something, he will explore 1000 methods per hour to improve it.
Then we don't require the help of psychometrics to know the interest, personality, inclination to stay long time, talent, competence etc., in the people that organizations want to hire.
Chandrasekhar
From India, Hyderabad
We all are travelling in same ship but looking the world from different places of the ship into different directions, hence perceptions may differ but we should not forget that on one issue 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 all over the world must change. It should change from a "Master-slave" relationship to Businessman-Businesspartner relationship.
All employers should treat their employees as their business partners not as their "employees" or "servants of organization". What is it that employers want to share with their employees in the form of salaries? They do expect that their profits cover operating costs.
That being the case, I feel time has come for every business organization to pay atleast half the compensation (to personnel) in the form of shares and half in the form of salaries....(if necessary they should pay full compensation in the form of shares....i.e., the dividends that their shares will get is their salary)..... so that employees feel they are partners in the progress of business organizations. What happens then? Then what happens is, every employee will treat the organization as his own! He will work towards developing organization in order that the share value increases and each share pays better dividends every year so that he gets better compensation per annum! He will take personal interest, even burn up midnight oil to improve the performance of the organization, because his interest is also involved in the success of organization. That is surest way of inculcating organizational loyalty, motivation, commitment, sense of belongingness etc. If a person have all these, then "talent" will come on its own to him because when a person himself is interested to improve something, he will explore 1000 methods per hour to improve it.
Then we don't require the help of psychometrics to know the interest, personality, inclination to stay long time, talent, competence etc., in the people that organizations want to hire.
Chandrasekhar
From India, Hyderabad
Hi Chandrasekhar,
I actually began my career working for 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 co-operative outcome.
Regards
Mark 51
From United Kingdom, Huddersfield
I actually began my career working for 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 co-operative outcome.
Regards
Mark 51
From United Kingdom, Huddersfield
: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
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
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