Sounds like something reasonable for a boss to direct a subordinate to do.  Probably, some phrase like this is asked by bosses throughout the world every day.

Effective communication requires clarity, and the above example seems to satisfy that aspect.  Of course, the communication might be further improved if the boss communicates with a tone that implies a request rather than an order.  Many consultants would say that’s it – clarity and respect.

However, I would like to point out that what’s being developed is far more complex, far more committing than what a boss might realize.  In my mind, directives from a boss are implicit contracts.  They demand that the boss reciprocate with attention, action or reaction when the requested work is delivered.  To ignore this reciprocity is to flirt with destroying the motivation of your subordinates.

Here’s what typically happens:

The memo is written, the spreadsheet created and both are delivered to the boss.

BUT NO FEEDBACK IS GIVEN.

The boss either moves on to new directives or the issue is forgotten.  When this becomes a pattern, the quality of the subordinate’s work falls and motivation is lost.

In graduate school, I was lucky to have a thesis director, Dr Richard Steffy, who was not only a great clinician but also a great teacher. When I presented a draft for a thesis or paper, within days he would have comments and revisions. There was an implicit contract- I worked, he reviewed and the productive cycle continued.

Regrettably, many bosses that I coach are too solidly embedded in their own hierarchy.

I direct, others do!

Their mental scheme reflects a linear and non-reciprocal processes.

To maintain a committed subordinate, assigning work means making a commitment to review or at least comment on that work. Failure to provide feedback drains subordinates of motivation and desire.

In the interview, emphasized the important transformation of raw materials to a higher sense of completion that is the essence of work.  Whether, as an accountant who takes numbers to produce a final budget or a craftsman taking raw timber to a finished sculpture, we need to achieve. The process not only brings a sense of completion, but as described in the recently published, Rush: Why you Need and Love the Rat Race by Todd Buchholz an emotional rush as well.

In my previous post I argued that psychologists were not very good predictors.  Now I continue my criticism by suggesting that psychological testing has many underlying assumptions that need scrutiny before testing can be applied to selecting job applicants.

Besides a conceptual orientation, the assessing psychologist needs to decide upon what domains to assess.  Does he or she examine basic underlying cognitive abilities such as the ability to conceptualize, combining for example many seemingly disparate work elements into a common corporate theme.  However, there are multiple so-called formative cognitive abilities beside conceptualization. Again, which ones should be selected?  Furthermore, cognitive abilities cluster into higher level skills such as strategic thinking, therefore some job assessments focus on these more macro abilities or competencies.

Perhaps assuming that all applicants for executive posts are bright, other assessment reports eschew cognitive assessment to focus on personality. Although more academically oriented psychologists have distilled personality into five underlying variables of which conscientiousness is probably the most valuable for job assessment, industrial psychologists display extreme heterogeneity in how they define personality.  Thus, one still sees abundance use of rather antiquated measures of personality such as the Jungian-based Myer Briggs.  Carl Jung was creative, but the relevance of Jungian theorizing for success in a modern corporate environment is debatable.

Psychologists more impacted by modern corporate scandals might argue that the only personality factors that matter relate to moral values, others with a more targeted-approach might restrict their hunt for those personality factors that could derail a career or a company. But again, I wonder how good out profession is at predicting what male C-level executives are likely to develop ill-advised sexual relationships with junior interns.

Moving on from personality, what about interpersonal skills especially leadership skills, should this variable not be thrown into the mix as well?

As you can see the potential domains for assessment are vast, the relevance of each for any particular job is unclear.

Even if a domain is highlighted, what tools or assessment instruments does a psychologist use? Again, there are no hard and fast answers. Some assessors prefer to review an applicant’s past work behaviour to seek examples of leadership or conflict resolution. Others use psychological tests, and still others present hypothetical situations in either paper/pencil or behavioural format as in an assessment center. The validity of any of the methods is rarely substantiated.

As you can see, the area seems to have more questions than clear answers. For that reason, I am uncomfortable writing a report with a definite answer about whether to hire or not.

However, I am bullish about the information that an unbiased and well-trained psychologist can provide as an adjunct to the existing information that a hiring manager or owner might have.  In fact, I strongly endorse the recommendation by a well-respected I/O psychologist Dr Rodney Lowman that the assessment practice is not to recommend or to hire a candidate but simply to provide supplemental information to help those doing the hiring make a decision. The information can be valuable, but in my opinion, it should never be crucial.

The assessment role was never a role I felt comfortable assuming. By nature I like to help people, not pick and choose. However in this case, the company wanted a definitive judgment “yea or nay ” about each applicant’s suitability. Besides my personal concerns, more psychologists are writing about the problems associated with the use of psychological assessment in predicting what candidates will make good employees.

As highlighted by the psychologists Kuncel and Highhouse in a recent issue of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, experts from a variety of sampled fields are generally poor predictors. In one review that examined over 27,000 expert predictions in fields as diverse as politics to economics, the so-called experts were little better in their predictions than dilettantes.

Why might this be the case, more specifically what are some inherent difficulties in the psychological assessment of job applicants?

Let’s consider the essence of the task that involves matching candidate attributes with the job requirements. The problem arises when the psychologist assessor does not know that much about the specific job, or more likely, the organization in which the job is embedded.

Even when a psychologist meets with representatives of the organization prior to candidate assessment, crucial job demands or organizational climate variables such as the importance of strategic thinking or company teamwork might not be elucidated.

However, even if crucial job and organizational requirements are clear, they often change after the candidate is hired. Long gone are the days when jobs remain static. Today, flexibility to meet unpredicted demands is the mantra, whatever those future demands might be.

There are also conceptual problems associated with psychological assessment of job applicants. Fundamentally, what values or standards does the assessing psychologist bring to the assessment table?

I have read some assessment reports where those values clearly derived from the consulting room with patients seeking help in therapy. These I/O reports focus upon how the applicants resolved or not their ambivalence feelings towards authority figures or how the applicants have accepted or not, their own needs for dependency.  These issues, even if accurately measured, might have little relevance for the world of work.  In reality, many of our most successful leaders displayed strong personal quirks.   A recent book, the author, psychiatrist Nassir Chaemi, argues that mental illness is the common thread in many successful leaders of the last 100 years including Gandhi, Martin Luther King, JFK. I am not sure that I endorse this extreme position, but in my career, I have seen many successful leaders and managers with less than ideal mental health.

This article continues in an upcoming post.

Read the story here