Thomas Friedman, well-known author and columnist, recently wrote about the workers he labels the “untouchables.” He argues that those individuals who have the imagination and drive to “invent smarter ways to do old jobs, energy-saving ways to provide new services, new ways to attract old customers or new ways to combine existing technologies” are the people who are critical to organizations that want to be successful in today’s economic environment. As a result, these employees will always be of great value. In contrast, average workers who can only carry out routine work are becoming increasingly endangered because many of these tasks can be automated or outsourced. Friedman further points out how our educational system needs to find ways to increase the number of students with high level problem solving and analytic skills and have a spirit of creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship. However, until that day (and if it ever comes), it is incumbent upon employers to carefully select and build a workforce comprised of individuals who can truly create value for their organization. Reid Klion
The program for the Association of Test Publisher’s Innovations in Testing Conference (to be held February 7-10, 2010 in Orlando) is now available. As usual, there appear to be a large number of interesting presentations on the docket. Some that initially caught my eye focused on topics including a survey about the future of testing, detecting cheating, and ATP’s new revised guidelines on pre-employment integrity testing. Also, registration is open with a $75 discount to folks who do so before November 16. Reid Klion
I receive regular updates from ATA which is the largest testing company in China (and also happens to trade on the NASDAQ as ATAI). Last month, they administered the National Judicial Examination in China to more than 350,00 candidates. An individual must pass this exam to work in Chinese legal system and is a requirement for lawyers, prosecutors, and judges. Due to the high stakes nature of this exam, there were major concerns about cheating. (Cheating on exams in China has been an issue for over 2000 years with reports dating back to at least the Han Dynasty. There are a number of cultural factors which contribute to this which I hope to find the time to blog about fairly soon.) In addition to taking candidates’ temperatures to make sure no one was ill, many test centers were also outfitted with handheld devices to detect the presence of wireless earphones well as equipment to block mobile phone signals. Additionally, 8 fixed monitoring stations and 2 mobile signal detection vehicles (labeled “Signal Detection”) were used to identify “suspicious” signals in the proximity of testing centers in Beijing. In at least one instance, a test taker was discovered to have a wrist watch which could send and receive data. Reid Klion
Back in August, Charles Handler of Rocket-Hire released his annual Online Assessment Usage Survey. Surveying almost 150 persons who work in the areas of recruitment and hiring, he found that approximately 2/3 of respondents use assessments. Of those using assessments, almost a third report using online processes exclusively. The types of assessments that are most broadly used are personality measures, tests of skills and knowledge, and cognitive tools. He has yet to release the full report but will forward a copy when it is complete. Charles is about the only the only independent source of information on online assessment and is certainly one of the foremost experts in the area. Reid Klion
A few months ago, I took on the role of mentor in one of the organizations that I participate in outside of work. When I enrolled in the program, I hadn’t served in a mentor role before and sought the guidance of others to make sure my mentee had a positive experience. Fortunately, the program had information and suggestions for both me in my role as the mentor as well as for my mentee. Checklist in hand, I set up the “get to know you” meeting. We met and learned the basic facts about each other (jobs, families, hobbies, etc.) and then I spent some finding out what she wanted to know, learn, or walk away with from the experience. Since this mentoring experience was through our golf organization, I assumed that her goal was to improve her score. But I was wrong; she wanted to learn some basic rules, how to set up a tee time, how to keep score, and other etiquette so she would be comfortable playing with friends and colleagues. We spent some time on those goals the first night and I could tell she really wanted to learn and grow, based on the types of questions she asked and the enthusiasm she showed. Our next meeting happened to be during one of our league nights where we were paired with two others from the organization. I could tell she was nervous, but as the round progressed she put into action the items she learned and saw that she was not out-of-place at all. In our other meetings since then, her confidence has only continued to grow as she becomes more and more comfortable on the course. I was able to see what my mentee learned from the experience, but I’m not sure she realizes the impact she had on me. I already knew the skills she wanted to learn, but realized that I took them for granted. I found myself stopping and explaining my automatic movements such as where to park the cart or where on the green to lay the flagstick. I would see her excitement when she hit a good shot or made a long putt and realized the simple joy the game can bring for people at different levels of experience. As a single mother of three (all under 5), I realized the sacrifices she made in order to achieve her goals. Outside of our time together, I found myself playing with a slightly different perspective; not as concerned about my score and instead appreciating the good moments in the round and trying to help others as they needed it. Reflecting back, mentoring was definitely a positive experience for me. I am certainly interested in doing it again, especially now that I better understand the impact it can have on others. Jenni Ginsburg
Jack Jones, Ph.D., respected colleague and Vice President of Human Capital Sciences at Vangent (a long-time pan content partner) has a recent article in Talent Management on how poor economic conditions may increase the prevalence of problematic behavior at work. While some of the factors cited include the fairly obvious such as increased general stress and financial needs, he also outlines how more subtle dynamics such as decreased levels of supervision due to staffing cuts or even poor maintenance of a facility’s physical plant can also contribute. The latter may be related to the “ broken window” concept in urban sociology which argues that if vandalized windows are quickly repaired, it tends to dissuade further acts of minor anti-social behavior in the neighborhood. Similarly, if there is an increased sense of disorder at work, it may influence the increased expression of deviant behavior. The article goes on to describe the extent to which candidates will admit to specific counterproductive behaviors as assessed by the Reid Report with the most common being fired from prior jobs, having multiple unexcused absences from work, and giving unauthorized discounts. A brief case example of ROI is provided citing a retailer that estimated an annual savings of $6 million by screening out high risk candidates. Reid Klion
Martin Seligman is a well-known psychologist whose early work focused on the concept of learned helplessness, the finding that when some people suffer uncontrollable negative events, they tend to become passive, depressed, and simply stop making any effort to alter their situation. However, in reaction to his concerns that mental health researchers (including himself) are almost exclusively concerned with problems in living, Seligman has focused his research over the past several years on the concept of positive psychology which studies as he puts it, “positive emotion (the pleasant life), engagement, (the engaged life), and purpose (the meaningful life).” Stated simply, his area of study is positive health, not pathology. Given that much of clinical psychology has been problem-oriented, his work has been groundbreaking. Seligman recently won a major award from the British Academy for this work. To honor him, his publisher has made a number of his papers available free of charge until the end of 2009 including a key paper on positive psychology. If you have a free moment, it is probably worth a look. One of the major findings he discusses is how positive affect has a direct impact upon physical health. Reid Klion
There was a recent NYT Op-Ed by a guy who is authoring a book on the standardized testing industry and his exploits as a “test grader.” For those not familiar with this aspect of the testing industry (or who don’t have school-aged kids), the standardized tests administered by schools often include “open ended” questions where students need to provide a written response. In order to scoring, armies of temporary workers are hired to do the work. The author recounts some of the goings-on as well as his less-than-conscientious behavior in this work. His conclusion is that “scoring should be done only by professionals who have made a commitment to education—rather than people like me.” This brings a couple of thoughts to mind. The first is that one wonders if a work attitude assessment should be part of the hiring criteria for the essay graders. In this, as in all jobs, we want people who will carry out their work in a responsible and conscientiousness manner. Additionally, it also highlights why there is significant interest in the use of automated essay scoring systems where computers grade the written responses. There are now several years of research on these systems, and they tend to work well. The obvious benefits are that compared to human raters, they are not susceptible to either fatigue or poor work ethic. And unlike humans, they are 100% reliable because they will grade the same essay the same way every time. Reid Klion
One of the services that pan provides is a network of over 600 proctored testing centers. We offer these to clients who require the supervised delivery of high-stakes assessments. However, outside of our Operations Team, most of us have little regular contact with the candidates who use our testing centers. I was jolted from this earlier today when I had to make quick stop at my local bank branch. When I pulled up to the office building where it is located, I saw several people anxiously smoking and pacing in front of the building. I quickly realized that across the lobby from the bank was a proctored testing center operated by another assessment company. When I understood the situation and that these folks were about to take a test, I was brought back to the recognition that taking a high stakes test can be very stressful given the potential outcome—perhaps not qualifying for a coveted job or obtaining the license required to enter a profession. While testing is something that we do every day, we can sometimes become a bit detached from the actual experience of the candidate. As such, when we ask someone to take a test, we need to be aware of the anxiety that this can create and the importance of using good test administration practices such as providing appropriate information about the test beforehand and maintaining a quiet, comfortable, and professional environment. This is especially important to bear in mind when assessments are not administered by trained staff in a formal proctored testing center but are supervised by individuals who have other duties and are carried out done in a location where other activities are also conducted. Reid Klion
I recently finished Richard Nisbett’s fascinating book, Intelligence and How to Get It. Subtitled, Why School and Cultures Count, Nisbett (a prominent cognitive psychologist at the University of Michigan) argues that intelligence is quite malleable and that it has a more limited genetic component than many believe. Arguing against a strong hereditarian model of intelligence (and contrary to Herrnstein and Murray’s controversial 1994 book, The Bell Curve), his stance is that while there are some genetic components to intelligence, environmental and cultural factors have the greatest influence (as well as being the domains that can be influenced and shaped). Overall, he provides a good review of the nature vs. nurture debate on intelligence (and rather clearly comes down on the nurture side). As one who stresses environmental factors in the development of intelligence, Nisbett also makes some research-based suggestions about how to raise a child’s IQ. Included are: • Exercise during pregnancy • Talk to children using complex vocabulary and include them in adult conversations. • Teach kids to categorize and compare objects in their environment • Foster curiosity • Encourage regular exercise and activity • Limit family stress and instability • Teach and reward self-control and delaying gratification • Praise children for hard work and efforts which are under their control. • Have high expectations and model the behaviors you would like to see in your kids Reid Klion
|