The Industrial/Organizational Psychology literature is full of studies that
demonstrate the increases in productivity possible through the use of
selection devices. These tools predict a myriad of criteria (e.g.,
performance in initial training, job performance, promotion rate). General
mental ability is THE ubiquitous predictor of performance in jobs ranging
from tank crew effectiveness (see Tziner & Eden, Journal of Applied Psych,
1985 for a wonderful example) to supervisor. Ree and his colleagues have
demonstrated, quite convincingly, the dominating influence of "g" on job
performance. Relative to the issue of looking backward at what was versus
looking forward at what could be, one broad definition of general mental
ability is the ability to solve problems. Perhaps that is why mental
ability is so effective in predicting how well individuals perform when
faced with new problems. Conscientiousness from the "Big Five" is the
second widely recognized ubiquitous job performance predictor. These
findings are not surprising given lay knowledge that performance = ability
+ motivation. Further, the "bell curve" of these characteristics is very
effective and, unfortunately in some respects, relatively unforgiving. For
example, as much as we might desire otherwise, "g" is extremely difficult
to influence and best development efforts are probably better measured in
years versus the typical day or week of most development programs.
In the US Air Force, for example, the AF Officer's Qualifying Test predicts
performance in our officers training schools. It also predicts pilot
performance during "check rides," the number of flying training hours
required to complete training, flying training graduation class rank, the
likelihood an individual will complete pilot training. Because initial
flight training for one pilot costs several hundred thousand dollars, tools
that predict attrition and performance are extremely useful for our bottom
line.
One of the dangers with the proliferation of devices such as DISC, MBTI,
et.al. is that the the effort required to sufficiently develop and validate
these tools is frequently (and I use that term purposefully) not expended.
The entire "business" would be well served to pay more attention to the
fundamental science and ethics of using psychological tools.
EARL R. NASON, Maj, USAF
Air Force Testing and Survey Policy
HQ USAF/DPXPT
1040 Air Force Pentagon
Washington, DC 20330-1040
DSN 224-4018 COMM (703) 614-4018
FAX-DSN 225-8011 COMM (703) 695-8011
-------------
Original Text
From: Phillip Rutherford <
robnphil@OZEMAIL.COM.AU>, on 4/1/98 10:11 AM:
Just a generaly query:
I read Bob Gately's response to the above request with great interest.
However, on the surface it appeared to me that what he was describing was a
single tool (albeit with some variations) aimed at measuring everybody
against a standard mean. That, afte
r all, is what Bell Curves are all about which is why comments such as "16%
of respondents will fall into ...." can be made with such conviction and
accuracy.
My question is this: Has the use of such an instrument ever resulted in an
actual increase in workplace productivity (except for the 'General
Electric' or 'Hawthorne' syndrome), individual skills and knowledge, or
achievement of organisational goals and
objectives? (Sorry, just thought of another question)Has the use of such
an instrument ever moved the organisation ahead through, for example,
increased entrepreneurship/intrapreneurship of staff at all levels (from
manager to new entrant)?
I have been reading with great interest, as I'm sure have others, the many
messages regarding the pros and cons of a wide range of instruments
designed to measure, for example, a person's preparedness for work. But are
these designed more to measure 'wh
at is' rather than provide a road map and directions for 'what could be'?
Before moving into our current area of work several years ago we used many
instruments: LEAD, 360 degrees, DiSC, HMBT etc. While they kept us and the
social psychologists busy we found that many of them only allowed us to
look backwards, and not forward
s. In fact most (although I'm not describing the above specifically)
allowed us to measure the past in terms of what we wished it had been
rather than provide the tools to influence the future as we knew it could
be. I'm wondering if anyone else can com
ment on this.
Phil Rutherford
P D Rutherford & Associates Pty Ltd
Competency-based systems specialists
0011 61 2 6230 4823
robnphil@ozemail.com.au