On 9 Oct 97 at 10:14, Stephen Scicluna wrote:
> . . . or alternatively, "Bob Gately vs. the rest"
>
> Guys, can we call a time out on this, as the discussion seems to be
> degenerating into a debate between Bob (purveyor of selection instruments,
> which, incidentally, I don't hold too much faith in) and those who want to
> question his motives and opinions.
Perhaps we can focus on the larger issues here regarding the
provision of services to managers, be they selection tools,
self-assessment tools for growth, consulting or training. That, to me
is the issue, not Bob.
Bob simply is an exemplar of a problem in the field of management and
management development. It goes something like this:
Someone develops a product, service or tool, and markets it
effectively (regardless of it's value..could be good, maybe not). In
the case of the Prevue tool it was developed by a credible
psychologist in the UK I believe).
The tool or service is sold to middle people who have little
background in the tool or service...the example here is psychological
testing being sold by vendors to companies and managers by people who
have NO background except for what little training they might get
from the parent company. What it DOES take is money to get "in".
Those folks sell direct to companies, and will often make claims out
of ignorance, commitment or intention in order to make a living. For
those that have some knowledge of these things, the claims are
clearly overstated (at best). For those that know less, there is a
danger that they will be sucked in by the marketing hype and promises
(often very vague), and spend huge amounts of money without getting
results.
The reason I respond on the issue of selection is the overstated,
vague, unsupported claims made by someone who is not a professional
in the field. I treat trainers who make the same kinds of claims the
same way...and will continue to do so.
I think (and perhaps I am in the minority here) that each of us
involved in management education, training and HR has a
responsibility to point out what may be unethical or inaccurate
claims. And there is a self-serving reason for doing so. Our fields
(the ones above) are not taken all that seriously by corporate
decision makers because of the hypsters, fad sellers, etc. We need to
send a message to incompetent, unethical vendors that they cannot
make claims without them being examined. We also need to educate
consumers so that legitimate professionals in the field can build
their credibility.
Please don't take this as a comment on Bob's ethics or anything else.
This is a much larger issue regarding our professions(s). It is not,
Bob vs. the rest. It is about whether we as professionals or
academics will tolerate quietly our own reputations being tarnished
by unsupported and impossible claims.
Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication,
rbacal@escape.ca
Visit our Resource Centre for articles on mgmt.,training,communication, and defusing hostility
at
http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal (204) 888-9290
*Site Last Updated On Sept.11, 1997*