Imagine this…
You’re a manager in a large corporate, and you’re working on an important project. You assess your current team, and you realise that you’re a little short of some skills, and the team is not quite as balanced as should be. It could also do with a little bit more diversity. So, using your company’s latest web-based staffing software, you go online and enter a request for two additional staff members to provide 20 hours a week of input to your team. You are able to select from a wide variety of fields – either specifying a particular selection, or deciding which criteria are not important.
You may be able to specify some of the following: age, gender, culture, language, country of origin, current country of residence (for multinationals), personality profile (Maybe Meyers-Briggs MBTI, or Enneagram type, for example), leadership style (based on agreed profiles), team style (e.g. Belbin), skills and talent themes (e.g. Markus Buckingham’s ‘Now Discover Your Strengths‘ and Gallup’s StrengthQuest profile), expert knowledge and subject expertise, etc.
Then, from the database emerges a few options, and you’re able to approach them to contact them and interview them for a place on your project team. The software could also go the other way round, showing particular positions that need to be filled, and allowing people to apply for them.
Software like this does exist in many big corporates, but it often does not add all of the fields that indicate who a person is, how they work, and what their drivers are.
Of course, we must beware of putting people into boxes (see previous post on this). These types of tools could easily become blunt instruments with which to bludgeon a workforce into teams. That’s not the intention. The vision I have is of an extremely emotionally intelligent environment, where the people allowed to use such a system have proven their people-leadership abilities, and would simply use the software as a tool in their toolkit, rather than a short cut.
Technorati tags: talent, management, business, teamwork, echnology, innovation
The problem is of course that the database is entirely reliant upon human intervention. At the entry point, who takes the tests? What if the results were not a fair reflection? And then the manager has to ask the right questions. At the end of the day, it will result in people being screened out who are ideal for the position, but for some reason do not fit the category.
For example, in a BEE scenario, we have many South Africans who do not have the right credentials, but in fact do the job well.
If I wereto have taken your qualifications say 7 years ago, would I have put you down as an international speaker?
Msimang, you will notice that in my list of criteria, I put skills and expertise LAST, and did not include experience at all (although I probably should have, and would put it last, too). I might want to add other factors, like creativity, etc.
Your question is the type of question every current HR person asks. Its a good question, but its also the reason companies won’t go forward.
In a company we did work with a while ago, we did an entire day’s Enneagram workshop. Everyone loved the profile tool, and gained great benefit from understanding different personality profiles, themselves, and their interactions with other people. But, when we were asked to go back and do a follow up with a small team of leaders in a department, the HR team stepped in and said that we couldn’t. They cited (UK) labour laws, saying that if we did anything based on a non-approved, non-clinically performed profile tool, that they would open themselves up to legal action by people who might feel unjustifiably discrimnated against.
I understand the fears. Used inappropriately, my suggestion above could easily become discriminatory, and over-simple. This suggestion requires a much higher level of human interaction and self awareness than currently exists in most companies.
But I am suggesting using it to help people become self-aware, to know their own strengths and weaknesses. To work on their strengths, and be recognised for their true potential, not just what they are currently doing.
In that sense, to answer your direct question…
If you had profiled me 7 years ago, you would have discovered that professional speaking was a real possibility:
* a person with a strong desire, and great ability to communicate
* a creative person, with a great strength in the area of taking a lot of data and finding the patterns in that data
* a clear and logical thinker – which is an interesting paradox – to have both right and left brain strengths
* an introvert, but a confident introvert (not shy, just needs to be alone to be energised).
* an English speaker, but with a “global English” accent
* enterpreneur
* not so good in teams
* good traveller (I don’t get jet lag, nor do time zone changes worry me, and I can sleep anywhere in less than 1 minute)
* a 4 on the Ennegram – with a strong 3 wing
* Belbin: Shaper / Plant
* MBTI: INTJ
and so on.
I think someone could have easily seen what was coming. And if I were in a corporate, if they had this info, they should have put me in training, communications, marketing, strategy, or HR as soon as possible.
I work in project management, so I not only recruit people for the projects, but also am recruited by companies to work on projects. I am very aware of the profiling tools, as you mention Graeme, they are useful in creating self awareness and used correctly they do assist with a level of awareness of the people around you or those that you may be recruiting if you know what their profiles are.
However, my observations have been that few companies in the UK are keen to do psycho metric testing for exactly the reason that you have mentioned. In fact I have worked in a company that did in fact have a testing programme, and it was worth noting that one of their contractors who we rated very highly applied for a permanent position with the company and failed the psycho metric test criteria of the organisation. We got around it by keeping him on as a contractor (very expensive – but we felt he was worth it).
Then there is the choice of which to use. Take Enneagram for example – TmTd’s preferred choice. I am a 3, it says a lot about me as a person emotionally, but not a lot about the way that I work. According to MBTI, I am and INTP borderline J. That says a lot more about the way that I work and therefore the impact that I will have on the team that I am working with in terms of delivery.
The profiles also don’t always account for learnt behaviour. This was clearly brought home to me last week in a conversation I had with some people from IBM. We were commenting on the MBTI profiles, and they were completely floored when they heard what my profile was. I am aware that many people get it wrong. The obvious mistake people make is that I am an Extrovert, which I am far from, they also think that I am very process driven and focused etc etc etc. In honesty I am anything but and yet all of the above. I was never a team player – now I am an excellent team player, I get my kicks out of seeing others succeed and I have finally worked out how to do that. It did not come naturally to me. I had to adapt my behaviour so that I could be better at what I was doing. “Being a Maverick is fine, but it can be bloody painful if you have to work with people, so best you change jobs or adapt your behaviour� is the way I work. I learnt that I could drag people kicking and screaming or I could get them to work with me. The latter is far less painful, but it meant I had to adapt my behaviour. Mavericks don’t really care what people think of them, yet according to my Enneagram profile, I need recognition, when in fact my triggers are anything but personal recognition. As a manager that is an essential piece of information.
At the end of the day, software is only a tool and a tool is only as good as the person that uses it. Where you get too many deviations from a set of “norms� the tool becomes less valuable. Assessing hard skills is easy enough, but the soft skills can make or break the team. At the end of the day, if they have the closest fit of minimum hard skills, and an interesting personal introduction cover on their CV they will get an interview, then I let my intuition make the decision. Besides, I don’t really like fitting into a set of boxes. I think I am unique, and if the company is trying to fit me into a box I’m not sure I want to work with them.
Bronwyn, I agree. Which is why an array of profiling tools should be used, ranging from psychometrics to intuitive, and from self-assessments to externally rated analyses.
AND, the human connection should always be the final deciding factor.
What I am suggesting will take a LOT more time than current approaches. But has the potential to add HUGE additional value to companies.
It’s always interesting what measurement evokes in a conversation. Having an interview with a person or a panel of people is no more accurate a method as using a certain profiling tool. People interviews get it wrong as well. In fact take the above (everything mentioned) and put it all together, add any number of other tests, processes, mechanisms, etc, and you’re still not going to necesarily get what you hoped for.
It’s easy to take a pot shot at a test because it puts it ‘out there’, and we now have something to work with. Interviews, opinions, feelings, experience, skill level, etc is all subjective and difficult to measure and therefore debate.
Personally I think that a company that chooses a specific process, using whatever tests it might like, is as well or badly off as one that chooses not to.
Has anyone got it right yet? Is there a perfect process? I think not. If there was one, they would have hired me.
P.S. Is there a box for those that don’t want to be boxed?
Graeme
Your reply is interesting. But the list of your traits is of course set out in retrospect. The fact is, you have found your niche. Would a company have recognised that through profiling? Or might they have excluded you based on profiling?
For example – you are an introvert. Would INTJ be recognised as a possible speaker? Or would the interviewer assume that an extrovert is needed. Of course, face to face, the interviewer gets a better picture. Use tests to screen, and Graeme does not even get an interview. Or Graeme, being an intelligent human being, delibertately skews the results by answering the questions in a manner favourable to what he perceives the company to require.
Added to this is the ethos or culture of the company and of the department into which a candidate is to fit. My experience is that people are much more productive and creative when they are happy in a work environment. Accordingly, what the interviewer needs to look at is ‘will she fit into the general culture / ethos / vibe’ of the company. And, within every company, one finds different departments or work areas with different people. So the interviewer needs to be well aware of the persons with whom the interviewee must interact and assess on that basis. (Obviously, a skills level is always essential).
I agree with Nuf Said that “a company that chooses a specific process, using whatever tests it might like, is as well or badly off as one that chooses not to”. That is certainly my experience.
The bottom line, for me, is that a succesful company is about people and personalities. The succesful interviewer understands that. Tests tend to undermine this and also become a crutch used by interviewers who lack the necessary skills.
P.S. I am sure there is a box, its just very small. But is it a cube?