Warren,
I'll reply to a couple of points you've made and cut the rest. Hope I don't
lose context that way.
Ray
>Ray said:
>>>The employee MAY feel demeaned. This organization is telling the testtaker
> that it can know about who s/he is by his/her responses to their test.
> It's like being hooked up to a lie detector.>>
>Warren said:
>Kind of a cynical view of things. A personality test gives the applicant a
>chance to tell the employer what kind of person s/he is. And does is a more
>accurately than an interview.
Warren, I don't think that I'm being cynical and I don't see how saying
that makes for an argument.
A personality test doesn't give the applicant a chance ... let's be clear
... the applicant is forced. There's no disputing that, is there?
>Ray said:
>The employee MAY buy in and yield to the power of tests -- thus, becomeing
> more other directed or externally located with respect to feelings of
> self-control/mastery. S/he MAY actually believe that the test-maker and
> administrator can know more about him/her than s/he knows. That the rich,
> inner experience that constitutes being human can be broken down into a set
> of numbers and used to place people in jobs, careers, etc.>>
>Warren said:
>I just don't buy that at all. Next thing, you are going to insuinate that
>people in white lab coats are hooking people up to strange machines. An
>employer can't learn anything about a person that the person won't put on a
>test. Only extra-paranoid people would seriously suspect otherwise. There's
>plenty of research published on how people feel about employment tests. As
>long as an employer communicates the nature and purpose of the test and gives
>good feedback people have a generally positive response to them.
Come on Warren, extra-Paranoid? That's no way to argue.
re 'an employer can't learn anything about a person that the person won't
put on a test', then why not just ask the person? Why the test? Why the
test interpreter [you]? Why the report from the third party [you]?
re the research on positive response, okay let's have a look at it. Cite a
few and I have my students examine them critically.
Now, let's think about it a bit. I've been forced to take the test if I
want the job. And, then another researcher, or the same one, asks me how I
feel about taking the test. Even if I believe that the test maker,
researcher aren't the same people or the same kind of people, if i've
diminished by self by yielding for the sake of a job, doesn't the social
psych research suggest that I'm likely to justify that ... and say that it
was okay, that i even liked it? In short, aren't there other plausible
explanations?
>Ray said:
>>On a HR Systems level, and with respect to leadership, I would think that
> an organization that uses these devices is locked into a coercive control
> model. It forces at the screening level, and will probably force again at
> the performance appraisal level, etc. Thus, less directive/coercive
> systems, e.g., participatory decision making, team management, etc., if
> desired, will fail. In MacGregor's terms ... This is a clear Theory X
> practice, isn't it?>>
>Warren said:
>What if you use tests to select people who are likely to practice Theory Y
>management and be team decision makers?
I don't think that Doug McGregor would have advocated the use of tests to
select managers, X or Y. I thought that McGregor was into growth, that most
people could do most things ... and that if the organization used Y
management methods -- which in my view would exclude testing in the ways
you folks are talking about it, most, but not all people would make it in
what they chose to do.
>Ray Said:
I don't want to diminish these tests completely. I think that they could be
> put to good use .. for example, the ones that I've looked at can cause some
> interesting soul searching ... most are based on models of human
> interaction or models of the human psyche that could enhance
> self-awareness. Suppose that instead of using these tests to screen, we
> allowed employees to take them and to use them as food for thought ... to
> try to ask themselves whether there is information contained in them that
> could help them become better problem solvers, better interactors, better
> leaders, etc. Of course, such a practice, would have to be disconnected
> from job screening, promotion screening, performance appraisal. It would
> truly have to be a tool for self awareness.>>
>Warren said:
>I don't think you understand the nature of most tests that are used in
>employment settings. Most of the valid ones are very focused on specific job
>abilities or job related personality characteristics. I doubt very much that
>creating self insight is related to job performance whatsoever. Also, if you
>are selecting people based on a certain set of characteristics, and those
>characteristics are not related to performance expectations, then both are
>doomed to fail. Why wouldn't you want to select people and appraise them
>(and provide training) on the critical competencies of the job?
Okay, I'll focus on one part of this, job competencies. If you need typing
skills of 80 wpm, then you can test for it. But I don't think that you can
test personality or aptitude for that skill. I don't have a problem with
skill testing where those skills are required at the entrance level. But
now I wonder why the employer isn't supplying the competency training on
the job ... sure it woudl be nice if the local college could train the
applicant up, saves money, but few colleges or external agencies train the
specific skills needed by the employer .. But, that isn't what you're
talking about is it? You're talking personality and aptitude tests.
>Ray Said:
>On the subject of correlation and claims of accuracy, I had a PhD student
> in Ed Admin recently ....
>Warren said:
>Just because your student is ignorant of industrial psychology research
>methods is no reason to question the field. If your student was in a field
>where people research employment tests (such as industrial psychology) s/he
>would have no problem identifying a room full of research that documents the
>validity (regression coefficients) of a large variety of pre-employment
>tests. As well as research that demonstrates the return on investment of
>such tests.
>Ray, I would suggest that you take a look at some of that research as well.
Okay, Warren. I realize that this is a diminishing comment, but I'll ignore
it. What research piece is it that produces a high r-square on:
* preemployment tests vs. job success
* preemplopyment tests vs. job satisfaction
* preemplopyment tests vs. return on investment
I'll open my mind up .. I admit that I'm a bit out of date on the research
in this area. You name the studies and I'll get back to you.
Dr. R.V. (Ray) Rasmussen
Chair, Department of Organizational Analysis
http://www.bus.ualberta.ca/rrasmussen/
Director, Environmental Research & Studies Centre
http://www.ualberta.ca/~ersc/