Well, consider the first salvo fired.
I would argue that 85 years research is a good basis on which to measure whether or not someone is capable of
being better at work than others. To me it seems like somebody is searching for a single list that they can
follow when selecting staff rather than using rational and reasoned argument why one person should be recruited
or promoted over another.
If you are looking for research to confirm a person's potential then consider the following:
1. Scientists proved beyond doubt that Marconi was wrong - voice cannot travel through thin air. They also
proved that anything heavier than a bird wouldn't fly, or nothing lighter than wood would float. Wrong on all
counts because they measured people's potential by a given set of criteria.
2. Galileo and Colombus were told that they didn't know what they were talking about and were stupid to even
think the way they did.
3. The greater majority of successful, and very wealthy, people in this world do not have university
credentials - nor do many of them have college or high school qualifications. They simply got on with the work
while others were saying that to be successful one has to finish high school, college and the university. The
ratio of qualified versus non-qualified people leans heavily towards the qualified person working for the
non-qualified person.
I'm frustrated that I'm currently moving house and all my research in this area is off packed in boxes, but I'm
sure if we asked people to post the examples they have of where those who were supposed to know better had
measured other people, by their own criteria, and were proved wrong, then we would have a list that includes
some very famous - and successful - names.
The bottom line is that if we continually try to measure the potential of others by what we see as important
(ie, someone who is a 'screw off' because he/she sits staring out the window - probably dreaming of wonderful
inventions, but we don't see that because we've already made our mind up about this person) then we are going
to be forever dissapointed. As any researcher will tell you, the results of any research will be governed in
many ways by the way the research was carried out and the hypothesis that it set out to prove or disprove. I'm
sure, if I tried, I could find many reasons why Bill Clinton should be seen as one of the best Presidents ever
- but none of this would ever come to light if we handed over the research to someone by the name of Starr.
For goodness sake, stop trying to define what is a 'good' person and what is a 'bad' person by listing what you
perceive to be their traits. We have an education system that is badly in need of repair because it tries to
make everyone reach a given line despite the fact that many of them can't - because they are physically
incapable of doing this, they are environmentally incapable of doing this, or because they are systematically
incapable of reaching this line. But each person can, and will, reach the line that they need to reach in their
own time and at their own pace, so let us be thankful for that.
If we have a list of 'qualities' that determines a person's potential to be successful, and if we give people a
qualification based on these 'qualities', then we are actually doing them and ourselves a great disservice.
People should be rewarded for what they can achieve, not for what we turn them into or for who they are. They
should be given every opportunity to reach the potential that they are capable of reaching, and should be given
our love and blessings all along the way. To do otherwise is to create a form of cultural and quasi-academic
apartheid where only those of a certain 'mental capacity' (as measured by those who have already achieved this)
are allowed to be members of the club.
Discriminate all you want on the grounds of a person's willingness or unwillingness to do something, but for
heaven's sake don't do so based on whether or not they can meet the requirements of a list of traits. It has
taken us a long time to rid ourselves of this notion that there are under- and over-achievers who can be
identified whilst under education or training instruction. No-one has given us the right to do this, and no-one
should assume that such a right has been given. As an employer I measure capacity and capability by the whole
person, not just the piece of paper they have in their hand. Psychometric profiling is nice for those who need
the paper to base their decisions on - I don't nor will I ever. I like people too much for that.
Whether or not a person is productive is based just as much on the environment in which he/she works as it is
on the person concerned. We have hundreds of sheltered workshops all round the world where people with special
needs and intellectual abilities are employed to produce goods and services within their particular capacity.
We also have a lot of beaches covered in unemployed but highly qualified beach bums whiling away their days
between social security payments. Please, don't tell me that intellectual capacity has anything to do with
productivity. Productive people are a result of their environment and a system that supports and nurtures them,
just as unproductive people are a result of a system that lets them down.
Finally, as an ex-member of the Services and Vietnam Veteran I can state quite categorically that there are
people that I would gladly share a foxhole with and there are those that I wouldn't. On the other hand, there
are those people who can be a downright embarrassment in peace time and there are those that I would happily
share a drink with in the officer's club. None of these are the same people but in the job of defending my
country each and everyone of them has his/her place. There are people I would happily lead up Bunker Hill but
would shy away from when off duty. There are those I would gladly share a coffee with but wouldn't trust them
anywhere behind me on a dark and scary night. But give them their job based on what they can do and they will
always have a place to rest their feet.
The bottom line is that each person was put here on this earth to fill his/her special place. If anyone is
going to try and allocate this place for them, or is going to deny them their God-given right to try to move
upwards between these places simply because they are perceived to have or not have certain qualities, then they
will have to go through my office first. And if this list is going to become a podium for such views then I for
one will be amongst the first to do my utmost to stop it happening.
Phil Rutherford.
Robert Bacal wrote:
> On 14 Oct 98 at 15:20, Mike McDaniel wrote:
>
> > Contrary, to an earlier posting on this list, there is a wealth of
> > research literature showing a variety of traits that distinguish
> > productive workers from less productive workers. Those who claim
> > otherwise are ignoring about 85 years of research. Such predictors
> > include intelligence, job knowledge, and personality traits such as
> > conscientiousness.
> >
> > Is anyone really willing to argue that smart people, who know much
> > about their job and who are dependable are not any better at their
> > jobs than stupid people, with no job knowledge, and who are screw
> > offs?
>
> Yeah, there are, but I'm not one of them. There's a fellow named
> Gately who posts about the "huge success" of his franchised "job fit"
> process which is based on the idea that many smart people fail
> because they aren't "fitted" to the job.\
>
> I'd love to see a debate involving him on this topic.
>
> Join new discussion lists - performance management, workplace conflict, & Communication in the workplace at
>
http://members.xoom.com/workconflict/lists.htm
> Robert Bacal -
rbacal@escape.ca