DEAR ALL ..... :lol:
DO YOU AGREE THAT PERSONALITY ASSESMENT TOOLS-LIKE THOMPSON PROFILING, DRAKE P3 ETC... WORK ON HUMANS.... HUMAN BEHAVIOUR IS THE MOST UNCERTAIN THING...THAT PEOPLE WOULD COME ACROSS.....DO YOU THINK SUCH TOOLS CAN REALLY FIND WHAT WE REALLY ARE....I FEEL THAT HUMAN PERSONALITY CANNOT BE JUDGED... BY SOME 50 QUESTIONS....IF HUMAN'S WERE SO PREDICTABLE....THEN WORLD WOULD HAVE BECOME.. SUCH A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE...WITH NO...ATTRITION AT ALL...ITZ THEIR PERSONALITY THAT MAKES THEM WHAT THEY ARE......LOT OF COMPANIES INFACT HAVE STOPPED THIS PRACTICE....AS HUMAN BRAINS HAVE FOUND LOOP HOLES TO OVERCOME...THIS TOOL...
WHAT DO YOU THINK ON THE SUBJECT....
REGARDS
VISHAL :lol:
From India, Mumbai
2DO YOU AGREE THAT PERSONALITY ASSESMENT TOOLS-LIKE THOMPSON PROFILING, DRAKE P3 ETC... WORK ON HUMANS.... HUMAN BEHAVIOUR IS THE MOST UNCERTAIN THING...THAT PEOPLE WOULD COME ACROSS.....DO YOU THINK SUCH TOOLS CAN REALLY FIND WHAT WE REALLY ARE....I FEEL THAT HUMAN PERSONALITY CANNOT BE JUDGED... BY SOME 50 QUESTIONS....IF HUMAN'S WERE SO PREDICTABLE....THEN WORLD WOULD HAVE BECOME.. SUCH A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE...WITH NO...ATTRITION AT ALL...ITZ THEIR PERSONALITY THAT MAKES THEM WHAT THEY ARE......LOT OF COMPANIES INFACT HAVE STOPPED THIS PRACTICE....AS HUMAN BRAINS HAVE FOUND LOOP HOLES TO OVERCOME...THIS TOOL...
WHAT DO YOU THINK ON THE SUBJECT....
REGARDS
VISHAL :lol:
From India, Mumbai
These tools try to predict how the person might behave under certain situations and tries to find the persons personality traits....
Now the word might, itself tells that it is not accurate...
Further the persons whom we have known for years, also sometimes behave in such a way that we could not have predicted so how can a questionnaire of 50 questions say anything about the candidate..
But, what i believe is that it does give some indication about the personality, [if the answers are not prepared ahead and / or tampered with]
But I am against the use of these tests to give any kind recruitment / promotion to a candidate as an inaccurate tool should not be used for it may affect the entire career of a candidate.
Better would be to have a senior guy take an indepth interview, and give opinion whether the person would suit in the job...
From India, Ahmadabad
Now the word might, itself tells that it is not accurate...
Further the persons whom we have known for years, also sometimes behave in such a way that we could not have predicted so how can a questionnaire of 50 questions say anything about the candidate..
But, what i believe is that it does give some indication about the personality, [if the answers are not prepared ahead and / or tampered with]
But I am against the use of these tests to give any kind recruitment / promotion to a candidate as an inaccurate tool should not be used for it may affect the entire career of a candidate.
Better would be to have a senior guy take an indepth interview, and give opinion whether the person would suit in the job...
From India, Ahmadabad
Hello Vishal:
Profiling works but we need to assess for more than personality. More over, ipsative assessments are not too useful for selection, see "Ipsative versus type of question" at http://tinyurl.com <link updated to site home> .
We assess for thinking styles, occupational interests and job related behaviors. Here is an example from the software industry.
-------------------------------------------
Sonja is one of our 35,000+ clients and the HR manager of a software development company. She hired for talent for over two years and then stopped for two years because the two owners said they could do a better job of selecting successful Technical Support Analysts (TSA) than Sonja. TSAs go to the customers' work place and identify the programming errors and then reprogram the software. The two owners felt too restricted by the talent selection process we provided to Sonja.
After two years of doing it themselves they went to Sonja's office and told her "Start using your talent idenfication process again since you are much more successful at hiring good TSAs than we are." The owners could not duplicate her success. Sonja took a risk when she first tried the talent idenfication process.
--------------------------------------------
Bob
From United States, Chelsea
Profiling works but we need to assess for more than personality. More over, ipsative assessments are not too useful for selection, see "Ipsative versus type of question" at http://tinyurl.com <link updated to site home> .
We assess for thinking styles, occupational interests and job related behaviors. Here is an example from the software industry.
-------------------------------------------
Sonja is one of our 35,000+ clients and the HR manager of a software development company. She hired for talent for over two years and then stopped for two years because the two owners said they could do a better job of selecting successful Technical Support Analysts (TSA) than Sonja. TSAs go to the customers' work place and identify the programming errors and then reprogram the software. The two owners felt too restricted by the talent selection process we provided to Sonja.
After two years of doing it themselves they went to Sonja's office and told her "Start using your talent idenfication process again since you are much more successful at hiring good TSAs than we are." The owners could not duplicate her success. Sonja took a risk when she first tried the talent idenfication process.
--------------------------------------------
Bob
From United States, Chelsea
I don't necessarily like the idea of personality testing being a component in recruitment, though I accept it might be necessary in some roles.
However, I have used various assessment tools as part of training programs and think they are invaluable in helping me to work more effectively with others.
For example I know that I tend to be a very reflective thinker and an effective communicator/influencer. These tools highlighted for me the reasons I sometimes find highly directive, controlling personalities so hard to work with, and why I drive them crazy.
Shortly after my introduction to one of these assessment tools (many years ago) I had an "aha!" moment with regard to my highly motivated and driven boss (I would have said "pushy" or "bullying" previously).
I had tended to come to her wanting to discuss a situation and work together to a conclusion. She hated that, and I hated that she didn't listen properly.
After going through the assessment process, I changed my strategy. I would come to the boss and say "I think we need to do A or B". She would ask why and I'd give my reasons. Because she didn't feel I was asking her to solve the problem, she didn't mind listening and talking about it, and if she disagreed with my assessment, would give a clear indication of what she thought should be done.
This met my needs well, and I suspect met hers much better too. The working relationship certainly became much more productive.
There have been many other examples where I have used insights into my personality and the personalities of others to guide how I have interacted with them more effectively. I have come to realise that no one approach is better than another, but it's how these approaches are accommodated that makes the difference.
Progress Enterprise
<link outdated-removed>
From Australia, Ballarat
However, I have used various assessment tools as part of training programs and think they are invaluable in helping me to work more effectively with others.
For example I know that I tend to be a very reflective thinker and an effective communicator/influencer. These tools highlighted for me the reasons I sometimes find highly directive, controlling personalities so hard to work with, and why I drive them crazy.
Shortly after my introduction to one of these assessment tools (many years ago) I had an "aha!" moment with regard to my highly motivated and driven boss (I would have said "pushy" or "bullying" previously).
I had tended to come to her wanting to discuss a situation and work together to a conclusion. She hated that, and I hated that she didn't listen properly.
After going through the assessment process, I changed my strategy. I would come to the boss and say "I think we need to do A or B". She would ask why and I'd give my reasons. Because she didn't feel I was asking her to solve the problem, she didn't mind listening and talking about it, and if she disagreed with my assessment, would give a clear indication of what she thought should be done.
This met my needs well, and I suspect met hers much better too. The working relationship certainly became much more productive.
There have been many other examples where I have used insights into my personality and the personalities of others to guide how I have interacted with them more effectively. I have come to realise that no one approach is better than another, but it's how these approaches are accommodated that makes the difference.
Progress Enterprise
<link outdated-removed>
From Australia, Ballarat
Dear friends,
Namskar.
Your arguments remind me two stock frequent excuses of doctors.
1. The patient is not responding.
2. The complaint is psychological.
In the first excuse he/she does not want ot admit that he/she or his/her drug can be wrong. In the second excuse he/she deny the suffering as real.
By this I want to say that whether any particular test is usable in a aparticular situation. Second, what is the competency level of the user.
These are two important questions which determine the utility of personalty tests.
Rgards,
Jogeshwar
From India, Delhi
Namskar.
Your arguments remind me two stock frequent excuses of doctors.
1. The patient is not responding.
2. The complaint is psychological.
In the first excuse he/she does not want ot admit that he/she or his/her drug can be wrong. In the second excuse he/she deny the suffering as real.
By this I want to say that whether any particular test is usable in a aparticular situation. Second, what is the competency level of the user.
These are two important questions which determine the utility of personalty tests.
Rgards,
Jogeshwar
From India, Delhi
just finished a meeting with a recruitment manager of a large organisation in cambridge a few days back.
their problem was the selection process in recruitment. for 3 vacancies they had more than 20000 job requests through media partner, their website and internally. There is only one recruitment manager.
They wanted a software which would allow candidates to do psychometric tests online and sieve the results as a decision making factor.
However they did state that they only looked at this as a validator rather than a decision making device.
Personality tests are designed to group individuals into sets of types with common traits. Though it is often used to identify the trait of an individual - it is where it is misused and not effective.
From India, Bangalore
their problem was the selection process in recruitment. for 3 vacancies they had more than 20000 job requests through media partner, their website and internally. There is only one recruitment manager.
They wanted a software which would allow candidates to do psychometric tests online and sieve the results as a decision making factor.
However they did state that they only looked at this as a validator rather than a decision making device.
Personality tests are designed to group individuals into sets of types with common traits. Though it is often used to identify the trait of an individual - it is where it is misused and not effective.
From India, Bangalore
Dear friends,
Namaskar.
I am thinking why mr. Surjeet kumar is silent so far.
Utility of Personalty profiling depends upon competency, situation and purpose. To illustrate let me narrate some of my experience.
1. A colleague of mine, an anthropologist, made a casual remark-I was thinking that psychologists can tell one's personalty"
I instantly replied-"Then who said no?"
He reacted- "Can you tell my personalty?"
I replied-"Why not?"
He became curious-"Tell then."
I suggested-"Not that way. I am bringing a personality questionnaire. Filling it for you. Then after scoring I am putting it under paper weight on my table. Then I am giving another copy to you. Fill it up and I shall give you the scoring key and score yourself"
It was done. He found his score 23 out of 30. Then I told him- " Go to my table and see the score that I have given to you" He went to my table and found that it was exactly 23. He was amazed. This was a questionnaire on machiavellianism.
2. A couple had come for matrimonial counselling. The husband was a gum specialis. The wife was M.A., M.Ed. They filled up E.P.Q. separately.
After preparing their profile I started counselling. During counselling I obseved that behaviour of one of them is inconsistent with the profile. Without letting them know my feeling I asked them to repeat the test and this time infront of me. They did it and as expected the suspected partner showed discrepancy and not the other.
Then I told them my intention of retesting and told that my doubt was not unfounded. Then I asked "who had erred? Can you say?" The husband said"It must be she." Then I assked the wife"What do you think?" She also said "it may be mine". I told them that it is not you but your personalty is sayng so . The husband was in error.
i can multiply many such experiences,that is to say, experience will tell you where to relie the tests and to what extent.
Regards,
Jogeshwar
From India, Delhi
Namaskar.
I am thinking why mr. Surjeet kumar is silent so far.
Utility of Personalty profiling depends upon competency, situation and purpose. To illustrate let me narrate some of my experience.
1. A colleague of mine, an anthropologist, made a casual remark-I was thinking that psychologists can tell one's personalty"
I instantly replied-"Then who said no?"
He reacted- "Can you tell my personalty?"
I replied-"Why not?"
He became curious-"Tell then."
I suggested-"Not that way. I am bringing a personality questionnaire. Filling it for you. Then after scoring I am putting it under paper weight on my table. Then I am giving another copy to you. Fill it up and I shall give you the scoring key and score yourself"
It was done. He found his score 23 out of 30. Then I told him- " Go to my table and see the score that I have given to you" He went to my table and found that it was exactly 23. He was amazed. This was a questionnaire on machiavellianism.
2. A couple had come for matrimonial counselling. The husband was a gum specialis. The wife was M.A., M.Ed. They filled up E.P.Q. separately.
After preparing their profile I started counselling. During counselling I obseved that behaviour of one of them is inconsistent with the profile. Without letting them know my feeling I asked them to repeat the test and this time infront of me. They did it and as expected the suspected partner showed discrepancy and not the other.
Then I told them my intention of retesting and told that my doubt was not unfounded. Then I asked "who had erred? Can you say?" The husband said"It must be she." Then I assked the wife"What do you think?" She also said "it may be mine". I told them that it is not you but your personalty is sayng so . The husband was in error.
i can multiply many such experiences,that is to say, experience will tell you where to relie the tests and to what extent.
Regards,
Jogeshwar
From India, Delhi
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Personality Development.pps
WORK PLACE STANDARDS - Blank.doc
06b-Form VI-B (Notice of Commencement of Contract Work).pdf