On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Colin M. Strickland <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 18 Dec 2008, at 13:07, Paul Makepeace wrote: > >> For one employer I was put through a battery of psychometric tests and >> some definitely do not come out flattering. Typically this is in the >> form of maxing out in one particular direction (which isn't wholly >> positive, think "OCD") at the expense of another. Assessments present >> in the form of "maybe too heavily involved in aspect X, and lack of >> development in area Y may hinder dealing with situations W and V" or >> "over development in aspect X may cause friction with others owing to >> lack of Y" etc. >>> >> >> If it's formalised and metrics are recorded that's a basis for >> determining whether it's effective, at least. Assuming the company has >> the sense to actually do that assessment :) >> >> ** >> >> I was once a mentor on a post-grad programme and we worked as a group >> on various tasks, puzzles, and games. Amongst those we did various >> psychometric tests, some of which were aimed at groups (Belbin's one >> of them, IIRC). Our particular group for whatever reason worked >> really, really well - people fell effortlessly into roles, discussions >> were quick and productive, there was almost no disagreement amongst >> anyone over anything. It was pretty much a perfect team. In the >> day-long in the end-of-week challenge, we scored very highly. >> >> Now what was really interesting was that after the challenge the >> results of our Belbin (I think) tests were revealed and the >> combination of our various team members almost exactly matched with >> complementary and equally balanced skills and traits across the board. >> >> I realise this is anecdotal but it was quite a "Wow" moment seeing how >> we meshed as a group in practice and how the theory correlated so >> well. > > > Flattery may have not have been the best term to use, as it's somewhat > leading, but I wouldn't say that it automatically needed to equate to > praise. I think there's common aspect of human nature that finds a > kind of flattery in the 'status' conferred by being formally inspected > in this manner, being raised from the crowd. A sense in which these > tests can inherently play up to that, in as much as they draw a > picture of you as a significantly individual case, because of course, > you always knew you were different.
I am having trouble with this line: a) most of these tests bucket you into one of 'n' where 'n' is not a particularly large number (MBTI is 16; Enneagrams are 9; etc); b) if this test is adminstered to all employees that hardly makes anyone special. All the times I've been involved with psychometric tests, and I also share your view on they can be dependent on mood, amount of sleep, etc, it's always been pointed out that they simply provide an idea of _preference_ not what people _are_. > > I could offer up examples of my own where I've taken part in such > processes, in detail, and been impressed by the effect but > underwhelmed by the data, but as you say, they would just been > anecdotes, so I won't bother. > > It's the suspicion that it's pseudo-science that mostly bothers me. > And I don't see that it necessarily follows that it's improved with a > formal framework around it and a history of metrics, because at the > heart of it, not only the judgements, but most of the tests scored to > calculate them are subjective decisions, and difficult, if not > impossible, to fix to an objective base. > > It opens the door to a systemic labelling of people, which is > something I'm discouraged by, especially within a corporate structure, > where it may be informing hidden decisions that could affect you quite > significantly. It's bad enough when great weight is given to short I think until you can find some hard examples of companies or organisations actually doing this it's coming across as scaremongery. I'm not aware in my contracting experience in three dozen + companies of this ever happening. The most intense psychometric scrutiny I've been under has only happened as an adjunct. P > factual tests or examinations, but at least they are usually based > around empirical results. These 'personality' focused tests strike me > as something that might be perhaps influenced by how many cups of > coffee an individual had, or what the weather was like, and it's a bit > galling to ponder that that sort of event could significantly effect > your subsequent job offer or career path. > > The usual joke to insert at this point from fans of these systems is > to suggest that I would think that about the whole affair because I'm > $PERSONALITY_TYPE. Myself I prefer to try and use a mental model in > which people are mostly vastly more similar than they probably think > that they are, and tend to be most predictable as crowds :-) > > -- > Regards, > Colin M. Strickland > > > _______________________________________________ > BristolBathPM mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.bristolbath.org/mailman/listinfo/bristolbathpm > _______________________________________________ BristolBathPM mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.bristolbath.org/mailman/listinfo/bristolbathpm
