When discussing the topic of selection assessment with human resources professionals, it can be rather easy to overwhelm a non-technical audience by carrying on about job analysis, criterion validation, correlations, legal defensibility, etc. A former colleague of mine who worked as a sales representative used to say I was getting “I/O-ish” (as in Industrial/Organizational psychology) when I started using such terminology. Keep in mind that I’m the first person to advocate the merits of assessment validation for ensuring effective talent management solutions. However, my colleague made an important point that sometimes, in an effort to provide the details behind the psychometrics of implementing an assessment for candidate selection, we may inadvertently add complexity to the conversation. 

In order to provide a simple structure to explain the process for implementing a selection assessment, I devised what I’ve coined the “which hunt.” That is not a typo. I’m not referring to a witch hunt as in the Salem witch trials of the late 1600s, nor does what I’m proposing resemble the McCarthyism of the 1950s. My concept of a which hunt is a series of discovery questions that an organization must answer to create a solid foundation for a high-quality assessment strategy that will support the identification of high potential candidates during the pre-employment screening process. An effective which hunt will help a company to identify:
• WHICH characteristics should we measure?
• WHICH assessment(s) should we use?
• WHICH cut-score will increase our hit rate for identifying good candidates?

WHICH characteristics should we measure?
You cannot hope to measure the potential for a candidate to be successful until you define which characteristics lead to success in a specific job. The Occupational Information Network (O*NET) is an online resource sponsored by the Department of Labor that reports profiles for over 800 occupations.  O*NET provides 277 data points for each occupation covering abilities, skills, knowledge, work styles, and other characteristics. Clearly, if O*NET is any indication, the process of defining a job profile of required characteristics can be a daunting proposition to an organization looking to implement an assessment program to measure such characteristics.
 
Rather than immediately getting into the details of job analysis or competency modeling, I find that a simple description of “can-do aptitudes” and “will-do attitudes” helps communicate the likely outcomes of this first step in the which hunt process. Can-do aptitudes refer to the mental horsepower of candidates such as cognitive abilities, demonstrated capability for job-specific skills, and mastery of specific areas of job knowledge. Put simply, having these aptitudes indicates that you can do the job, but we all know that not everyone lives up to their potential.

The will-do attitudes are often those characteristics that allow employees to meet their potential and can even lead an employee with less raw ability to actually succeed beyond those seemingly more talented colleagues. These work styles include conscientiousness, interpersonal savvy, stress tolerance, and achievement orientation, among others. Very smart, very talented employees often fall short of their full potential or fail because they do not work hard, do not play well with others (customers and/or teammates), and do not effectively manage pressures at work. 

Taken all together the required can-do and will-do characteristics form the success profile for that specific job.

WHICH assessment should I use?
The next step is to identify an assessment that measures these characteristics in candidates. As we do with most ventures in life, we might begin the search for an assessment provider by using our good friend Google. When you type “candidate selection assessment” into Google, the result includes over 1.5 million hits! Which one should you choose?

My message to human resource professionals is that the best assessment is one that measures the critical components of the success profile you identified in the first step of the which hunt. Your assessment strategy doesn’t have to measure the entire success profile (that’s why we conduct interviews, administer basic qualification questions, collect resumes, etc.), but there should be significant overlap. This may require the implementation of multiple assessments. For example at Hogan, we offer the Hogan Business Reasoning Inventory to measure can-do characteristics, the Hogan Personality Inventory and Hogan Development Survey to measure will-do characteristics, and the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory to assess “will-fit” characteristics in terms of how a candidate might fit into the organization’s culture.

WHICH cut-score will increase our hit rate for identifying good candidates?
Now for the last leg of the which hunt – interpreting the assessment results. While this task seems easy enough – low scores fail and high scores pass –   the truth is that this can actually be quite challenging for multiple reasons. What do you do with scores in the middle? Is a 40 a good enough score or should I look for 50s and higher? If I have multiple scores for multiple characteristics, how do I know what scores are more important indicators of success? What if the candidate has high scores on some characteristics and low scores on others? It is a delicate process to draw the line in the sand and make appropriate sense of all the good information that assessments provide. 

This part of the which hunt gets a bit complicated despite my best efforts. The bottom line is that we must clearly understand the relationship between assessment scores and job performance. I find it helpful during this part of the conversation to use an analogy for the way a financial institution uses a credit score. If a bank is going to give someone a loan to purchase a house, they don’t just want to get a high level summary of age, income, salary, credit card debt, etc., and shoot from the hip on how to combine all of those data points into an estimation of investment risk for that person. Such an approach would be inconsistent, inaccurate, and not scalable. To make sound lending decisions over time, the bank leverages a proven, weighted equation to combine these data points into an easily interpretable credit score that is backed by research to increase the hit-rate for making profitable lending decisions (the recent housing market collapse aside). Standards have been set to categorize bad credit scores, good credit scores, and great credit scores. This is essentially how a validation study is used when implementing an assessment for candidate selection. We conduct research to give you overall low, moderate, or high evaluations of candidate potential that if used consistently will increase hit rates for selecting successful employees.

The which hunt guidelines break up the concepts of assessment implementation into concepts that are hopefully simple to grasp:  
• Before we can measure anything we must define a benchmark (i.e., success profile).
• We must use that benchmark to guide us to pick the right tool for the job (i.e., assessment).
• We have to know how to read the measurements the tool is giving us and do regular checkups to make sure the measurements are accurate (i.e., cut-scores).

When discussing the topic of selection assessment with human resources professionals, it can be rather easy to overwhelm a non-technical audience by carrying on about job analysis, criterion validation, correlations, legal defensibility, etc. A former colleague of mine who worked as a sales representative used to say I was getting “I/O-ish” (as in Industrial/Organizational psychology) when I started using such terminology. Keep in mind that I’m the first person to advocate the merits of assessment validation for ensuring effective talent management solutions. However, my colleague made an important point that sometimes, in an effort to provide the details behind the psychometrics of implementing an assessment for candidate selection, we may inadvertently add complexity to the conversation. 

In order to provide a simple structure to explain the process for implementing a selection assessment, I devised what I’ve coined the “which hunt.” That is not a typo. I’m not referring to a witch hunt as in the Salem witch trials of the late 1600s, nor does what I’m proposing resemble the McCarthyism of the 1950s. My concept of a which hunt is a series of discovery questions that an organization must answer to create a solid foundation for a high-quality assessment strategy that will support the identification of high potential candidates during the pre-employment screening process. An effective which hunt will help a company to identify:
• WHICH characteristics should we measure?
• WHICH assessment(s) should we use?
• WHICH cut-score will increase our hit rate for identifying good candidates?

WHICH characteristics should we measure?
You cannot hope to measure the potential for a candidate to be successful until you define which characteristics lead to success in a specific job. The Occupational Information Network (O*NET) is an online resource sponsored by the Department of Labor that reports profiles for over 800 occupations.  O*NET provides 277 data points for each occupation covering abilities, skills, knowledge, work styles, and other characteristics. Clearly, if O*NET is any indication, the process of defining a job profile of required characteristics can be a daunting proposition to an organization looking to implement an assessment program to measure such characteristics.
 
Rather than immediately getting into the details of job analysis or competency modeling, I find that a simple description of “can-do aptitudes” and “will-do attitudes” helps communicate the likely outcomes of this first step in the which hunt process. Can-do aptitudes refer to the mental horsepower of candidates such as cognitive abilities, demonstrated capability for job-specific skills, and mastery of specific areas of job knowledge. Put simply, having these aptitudes indicates that you can do the job, but we all know that not everyone lives up to their potential.

The will-do attitudes are often those characteristics that allow employees to meet their potential and can even lead an employee with less raw ability to actually succeed beyond those seemingly more talented colleagues. These work styles include conscientiousness, interpersonal savvy, stress tolerance, and achievement orientation, among others. Very smart, very talented employees often fall short of their full potential or fail because they do not work hard, do not play well with others (customers and/or teammates), and do not effectively manage pressures at work. 

Taken all together the required can-do and will-do characteristics form the success profile for that specific job.

WHICH assessment should I use?
The next step is to identify an assessment that measures these characteristics in candidates. As we do with most ventures in life, we might begin the search for an assessment provider by using our good friend Google. When you type “candidate selection assessment” into Google, the result includes over 1.5 million hits! Which one should you choose?

My message to human resource professionals is that the best assessment is one that measures the critical components of the success profile you identified in the first step of the which hunt. Your assessment strategy doesn’t have to measure the entire success profile (that’s why we conduct interviews, administer basic qualification questions, collect resumes, etc.), but there should be significant overlap. This may require the implementation of multiple assessments. For example at Hogan, we offer the Hogan Business Reasoning Inventory to measure can-do characteristics, the Hogan Personality Inventory and Hogan Development Survey to measure will-do characteristics, and the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory to assess “will-fit” characteristics in terms of how a candidate might fit into the organization’s culture.

WHICH cut-score will increase our hit rate for identifying good candidates?
Now for the last leg of the which hunt – interpreting the assessment results. While this task seems easy enough – low scores fail and high scores pass –   the truth is that this can actually be quite challenging for multiple reasons. What do you do with scores in the middle? Is a 40 a good enough score or should I look for 50s and higher? If I have multiple scores for multiple characteristics, how do I know what scores are more important indicators of success? What if the candidate has high scores on some characteristics and low scores on others? It is a delicate process to draw the line in the sand and make appropriate sense of all the good information that assessments provide. 

This part of the which hunt gets a bit complicated despite my best efforts. The bottom line is that we must clearly understand the relationship between assessment scores and job performance. I find it helpful during this part of the conversation to use an analogy for the way a financial institution uses a credit score. If a bank is going to give someone a loan to purchase a house, they don’t just want to get a high level summary of age, income, salary, credit card debt, etc., and shoot from the hip on how to combine all of those data points into an estimation of investment risk for that person. Such an approach would be inconsistent, inaccurate, and not scalable. To make sound lending decisions over time, the bank leverages a proven, weighted equation to combine these data points into an easily interpretable credit score that is backed by research to increase the hit-rate for making profitable lending decisions (the recent housing market collapse aside). Standards have been set to categorize bad credit scores, good credit scores, and great credit scores. This is essentially how a validation study is used when implementing an assessment for candidate selection. We conduct research to give you overall low, moderate, or high evaluations of candidate potential that if used consistently will increase hit rates for selecting successful employees.

The which hunt guidelines break up the concepts of assessment implementation into concepts that are hopefully simple to grasp:  
• Before we can measure anything we must define a benchmark (i.e., success profile).
• We must use that benchmark to guide us to pick the right tool for the job (i.e., assessment).
• We have to know how to read the measurements the tool is giving us and do regular checkups to make sure the measurements are accurate (i.e., cut-scores).

The US economy is dragging and unemployment rates are at historically high levels, but this too shall pass. Carnevale, et al. suggest that the so-called Baby Boomers are rapidly leaving the labor market, and that by 2018, the US will face a serious shortage of people having the necessary expertise for the economy. This raises a couple of interesting questions. One concerns what the employers of 2018 will regard at the necessary expertise. A second question concerns what the high demand jobs will be in 2018.

Some people think that training in science, math, engineering and technology is critical for future employment. But it turns out that graduates of prestigious liberal arts schools like Amherst and Pomona have little trouble finding good jobs. Moreover, high tech companies place relatively little value on content knowledge, they are more interested in a candidate's career potential (employability). Wagner reports that relatively few jobs actually require using mathematics, and that American executives mostly complain that new applicants are unable to grasp new situations and express themselves clearly - if applicants have "good attitudes" (employability), companies like General Electric can teach them what they need to know. Finally, salaries for well-trained engineers top out at around $130,000; thus, when ambitious engineers approach age 40, they try to move into sales or management. So much for technical skills training.

The first large scale study of what employers want was conducted by the US Department of Labor; the Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) surveyed business owners, union officials, public employees, managers, and private sector workers to determine the performance demands of modern employment. The SCANS' survey identified five broad categories of critical competencies as follows:

1. Being able to identify and allocate resources
2. Being able to work with others
3. Being able to acquire and use information
4. Being able to understand complex inter-relationships
5. Being able to work with a variety of technologies

The Department of Labor has always focused on cognitive ability as the key to employment, so identifying the ability to work with others as important is noteworthy.

Organizations used to recruit job applicants primarily through newspaper want ads, which reflected what employers want in new hires. Hogan and Brinkmeyer subscribed to newspapers from each demographic region of the US for six months, and clipped every major employment ad (N=6326). They then content analyzed the ads. Among their key findings: Interpersonal skills were considered essential for 71% of the jobs involving client contact, 83% of the jobs involving subordinate interaction, 84% of the jobs requiring management interactions, and 78% of the jobs requiring coworker interaction. Clearly, from the employers' perspective, the most important single characteristic impacting employability is interpersonal skill. We doubt that these findings will change very much over time - the content of jobs may change, but a good employee is a good employee.

Boudreau, Boswell, and Judge report that ratings for "employability" during the hiring process predict compensation levels after people are on the job. This suggests that hiring and operational managers respond to the same aspects of an employee's behavior, which is obviously something other than pure job performance. Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden show that the essence of employability is socially desirable behavior on the job - and by extension during the hiring process. Scores on their measure of social desirability predicted promotions, income, and time spent unemployed. This points to an important link between employability and career success - the link concerns the ability to put on a socially desirable performance during both hiring interviews and subsequent social interaction at work. Hogan & Shelton describe socially desirable behavior as a role performance designed to allow people to fit in and get along with those with whom they must interact. The evidence clearly indicates that the ability to put on a socailly desirable performance is associated with  a wide range of positive career outcomes, although academic psychology chooses to ignore this finding.

Employability and Career Success depend on behaving in socially desirable ways. To do this requires specific competencies:

1. Seeming smart
2. Seeming compliant and conforming
3. Seeming sensitive (interpersonal skill)

Job performance is largely defined in terms of supervisors' ratings; in very general terms, supervisors like employees who seem smart - and this explains the consistent correlations between cognitive ability and job performance. Supervisors also like employees who are compliant, obedient, and conforming - and this explains the consistent correlations between measures of Conscientiousness and job performance. Finally, supervisors like employees with interpersonal skill - because they are rewarding to deal with.

This model also explains why so many high IQ people are unemployable. Some, despite their high IQs, don't seem very smart based on the kinds of choices they make. Others are independent, non-conforming, and insubordinate. And still others are irritable, challenging, and disputatious - not rewarding to deal with.

As for the workforce future, consider the table presented below and its consequences:

Ten Occupations with the Greatest Growth Increase 2008 - 2018
(US total projected job growth = 10.0%)
US Bureau of Labor Statistics

We see three major consequences of these trends. First, selection will continue to be an important line of business, and the table contains the selection categtories of the future. Second, a key component of employability is flexibility, and that concerns being willing to consider employment in jobs other than those for which one has been trained. And third, interpersonal skill will be important for retention in any of these jobs.

References available

The US economy is dragging and unemployment rates are at historically high levels, but this too shall pass. Carnevale, et al. suggest that the so-called Baby Boomers are rapidly leaving the labor market, and that by 2018, the US will face a serious shortage of people having the necessary expertise for the economy. This raises a couple of interesting questions. One concerns what the employers of 2018 will regard at the necessary expertise. A second question concerns what the high demand jobs will be in 2018.

Some people think that training in science, math, engineering and technology is critical for future employment. But it turns out that graduates of prestigious liberal arts schools like Amherst and Pomona have little trouble finding good jobs. Moreover, high tech companies place relatively little value on content knowledge, they are more interested in a candidate’s career potential (employability). Wagner reports that relatively few jobs actually require using mathematics, and that American executives mostly complain that new applicants are unable to grasp new situations and express themselves clearly – if applicants have “good attitudes” (employability), companies like General Electric can teach them what they need to know. Finally, salaries for well-trained engineers top out at around $130,000; thus, when ambitious engineers approach age 40, they try to move into sales or management. So much for technical skills training.

The first large scale study of what employers want was conducted by the US Department of Labor; the Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) surveyed business owners, union officials, public employees, managers, and private sector workers to determine the performance demands of modern employment. The SCANS’ survey identified five broad categories of critical competencies as follows:

1. Being able to identify and allocate resources
2. Being able to work with others
3. Being able to acquire and use information
4. Being able to understand complex inter-relationships
5. Being able to work with a variety of technologies

The Department of Labor has always focused on cognitive ability as the key to employment, so identifying the ability to work with others as important is noteworthy.

Organizations used to recruit job applicants primarily through newspaper want ads, which reflected what employers want in new hires. Hogan and Brinkmeyer subscribed to newspapers from each demographic region of the US for six months, and clipped every major employment ad (N=6326). They then content analyzed the ads. Among their key findings: Interpersonal skills were considered essential for 71% of the jobs involving client contact, 83% of the jobs involving subordinate interaction, 84% of the jobs requiring management interactions, and 78% of the jobs requiring coworker interaction. Clearly, from the employers’ perspective, the most important single characteristic impacting employability is interpersonal skill. We doubt that these findings will change very much over time – the content of jobs may change, but a good employee is a good employee.

Boudreau, Boswell, and Judge report that ratings for “employability” during the hiring process predict compensation levels after people are on the job. This suggests that hiring and operational managers respond to the same aspects of an employee’s behavior, which is obviously something other than pure job performance. Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden show that the essence of employability is socially desirable behavior on the job – and by extension during the hiring process. Scores on their measure of social desirability predicted promotions, income, and time spent unemployed. This points to an important link between employability and career success – the link concerns the ability to put on a socially desirable performance during both hiring interviews and subsequent social interaction at work. Hogan & Shelton describe socially desirable behavior as a role performance designed to allow people to fit in and get along with those with whom they must interact. The evidence clearly indicates that the ability to put on a socailly desirable performance is associated with  a wide range of positive career outcomes, although academic psychology chooses to ignore this finding.

Employability and Career Success depend on behaving in socially desirable ways. To do this requires specific competencies:

1. Seeming smart
2. Seeming compliant and conforming
3. Seeming sensitive (interpersonal skill)

Job performance is largely defined in terms of supervisors’ ratings; in very general terms, supervisors like employees who seem smart – and this explains the consistent correlations between cognitive ability and job performance. Supervisors also like employees who are compliant, obedient, and conforming – and this explains the consistent correlations between measures of Conscientiousness and job performance. Finally, supervisors like employees with interpersonal skill – because they are rewarding to deal with.

This model also explains why so many high IQ people are unemployable. Some, despite their high IQs, don’t seem very smart based on the kinds of choices they make. Others are independent, non-conforming, and insubordinate. And still others are irritable, challenging, and disputatious – not rewarding to deal with.

As for the workforce future, consider the table presented below and its consequences:

Ten Occupations with the Greatest Growth Increase 2008 – 2018
(US total projected job growth = 10.0%)
US Bureau of Labor Statistics

We see three major consequences of these trends. First, selection will continue to be an important line of business, and the table contains the selection categtories of the future. Second, a key component of employability is flexibility, and that concerns being willing to consider employment in jobs other than those for which one has been trained. And third, interpersonal skill will be important for retention in any of these jobs.

References available

Fun fact - I’m recently engaged.

And so far, wedding planning has been fast and furious. In two short months, I already have a venue, photographer, date, color palate, and budget. What can I say? I scored in the high range on the HPI Prudence Scale; details are kind of my thing.

But when it comes to choosing my bridal party, I’m dragging my feet. What’s holding me back? I’m worried about the drama.

Although it’s what makes pop culture hits like 27 Dresses, Bridesmaids, and Say Yes to the Dress so fun to watch, it’s a nightmare to live through, and I really don’t want any drama with the girls.

As a four-time bridesmaid, I’ve witnessed, and maybe caused, some reality show-worthy episodes. I may or may not have accidentally rolled my eyes, contributed to a power struggle, and/or complained about the dress “I’ll be able to wear again someday.” Guilty as charged.

As hard as I may try to avoid drama, it almost never fails. The bridesmaids’ individual motivators and drivers create a volatile mix. Something happens to one or more of the bridesmaids at some point in the process. Somebody yells, cries, or oversteps her bounds.

We run into the same dynamics in the office. The wrong mix of personalities can result in power struggles, a tense workplace and low morale, which is why screening for similar values and drivers can be so important.

Unfortunately, when it comes to my bridesmaids, at least a little drama may be unavoidable. While personality assessment would certainly help me screen for the differences between my lovely friends, it would also officially make me a Bravo-worthy Bridezilla.

Fun fact – I’m recently engaged.

And so far, wedding planning has been fast and furious. In two short months, I already have a venue, photographer, date, color palate, and budget. What can I say? I scored in the high range on the HPI Prudence Scale; details are kind of my thing.

But when it comes to choosing my bridal party, I’m dragging my feet. What’s holding me back? I’m worried about the drama.

Although it’s what makes pop culture hits like 27 Dresses, Bridesmaids, and Say Yes to the Dress so fun to watch, it’s a nightmare to live through, and I really don’t want any drama with the girls.

As a four-time bridesmaid, I’ve witnessed, and maybe caused, some reality show-worthy episodes. I may or may not have accidentally rolled my eyes, contributed to a power struggle, and/or complained about the dress “I’ll be able to wear again someday.” Guilty as charged.

As hard as I may try to avoid drama, it almost never fails. The bridesmaids’ individual motivators and drivers create a volatile mix. Something happens to one or more of the bridesmaids at some point in the process. Somebody yells, cries, or oversteps her bounds.

We run into the same dynamics in the office. The wrong mix of personalities can result in power struggles, a tense workplace and low morale, which is why screening for similar values and drivers can be so important.

Unfortunately, when it comes to my bridesmaids, at least a little drama may be unavoidable. While personality assessment would certainly help me screen for the differences between my lovely friends, it would also officially make me a Bravo-worthy Bridezilla.

It’s well established that personality differences predict performance in the workplace, but do personality differences matter in the real world? Does it matter that some people are calm and sanguine in the face of negative life events, while others are at the opposite end of the pole? Recent evidence suggests it does. Several recent studies demonstrate personality predicts several life outcomes, including mortality, as well as, or better, than other factors – educational attainment, socio-economic status, and cognitive ability.

That humans vary on dimensions of personality is unsurprising. But the advent of the Big Five taxonomy of traits has enabled investigation into the impact of personality across a wide range of life outcomes.

Obviously we are familiar with the impact of personality at work: personality correlates strongly with work performance. Individuals with high scores on interpersonal sensitivity and adjustment are more likely to be seen as good team members. People who score high on sociability, adjustment, and ambition are more likely to be judged as leader-like.

But an individual’s score on a personality variable significantly influences their chances of experiencing certain life outcomes, too.

Increasing evidence shows that personality is a powerful predictor of health outcomes. A combination of low intelligence and neuroticism, for example, was a more significant predictor of mortality in Vietnam veterans than age, ethnicity, or marital status. Other studies reveal that high prudence scores protect against mortality. The well-organized and well-balanced live longer. And if you are smarter than most, then you may as well start to plan your 100th birthday!

There are several factors to which these outcomes can be attributed. First, personality affects people’s attraction to health promoting or health harming behavior, in other words, we vary in our propensity to engage in riskier types of activities. Second, we vary in our assessment of outcomes – consider the young man who recently jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge on a dare. Finally, personality plays a role in the way we organize our lives. Low adjustment types who are also low prudence are less likely to follow exercise regimes and also engage in activities that self-soothe, like abusing alcohol, for example.

Screening people for personality variables is a powerful tool for understanding someone’s approach to life and relationships. A full understanding of someone’s individual psychology is essential to help them realize their potential through managing, coaching, and counseling.

And for some of us, it’s good to know about your risk factors too.

by Dave Winsborough

Managing Director, Winsborough Limited & Guest Blogger

A person completes a personality assessment. He or she then receives individual feedback on his or her personality profile. If the assessment is worth its salt, the person probably agreed with much of the interpretation and was challenged or surprised by the rest. For the feedback that resonated with him or her, the likely response was, “Yep, I knew that about myself. Now I have a test that validates it.” For the surprising feedback, the likely response was, “Interesting. I didn’t know I was being perceived in that way.” Now what? What does this person do with that information? The way I see it, the person now has an excuse for that behavior or an opportunity to improve it.

Purely for academic purposes, let’s say that I scored low on the Prudence scale from the Hogan Personality Inventory. This means that people tend to perceive me as someone who is flexible and open to change but also someone who is not always detail-oriented and can be impulsive at times. What do I do with that information? One approach would be to use it as an excuse or a crutch. When I overlook a detail and it affects the outcome of a project, I can simply say, “Yep, that’s my low Prudence coming out!” and laugh it off. People will come to expect that Kevin is not a details guy and may expect me to focus on bigger picture issues instead. However, what will also happen is that people may begin to not trust in my ability to deliver a high-quality, well-proofed work product, and I will miss out on opportunities for challenge or advancement. This would ultimately affect my career success.

Continuing with this hypothetical example, a second approach to using this information about my lack of conscientiousness (not to be read as conscience) is as an opportunity. If I am serious about having a successful career, I should use the results of my personality assessment to leverage my strengths and develop my shortcomings. If I am working on a project with a tight timeline and I notice my natural propensity to cut corners or fudge over details starting to rear its head, I can seize the opportunity to take extra care and create the highest quality product I can. By intentionally changing my behaviors to do what may not come naturally and what others would not expect me to, I am effecting change on my reputation, which will ultimately have an effect on my success.

All of this being said, the irony is that the choice between Excuse Avenue and Opportunity Road is largely based on personality. People who are naturally open to feedback and change and driven to be successful are those who are more likely to take a right on Opportunity Road, while those who are resistant to feedback and change and not particularly motivated will take a left on Excuse Avenue (which runs parallel to Easy Street). The good news is that the same high-quality personality assessment will identify the likely path the person is to take. From that assessment, we can identify those individuals who may need a bit more help steering toward Opportunity Road if we are serious about investing in their success.

At the end of the day, there is always a choice. We can ultimately decide whether we want to be who we are now with all of our warts, caveats, and excuses, or if we want to be the more successful versions of ourselves with fewer warts and more opportunities…however you define that success.

A person completes a personality assessment. He or she then receives individual feedback on his or her personality profile. If the assessment is worth its salt, the person probably agreed with much of the interpretation and was challenged or surprised by the rest. For the feedback that resonated with him or her, the likely response was, “Yep, I knew that about myself. Now I have a test that validates it.” For the surprising feedback, the likely response was, “Interesting. I didn’t know I was being perceived in that way.” Now what? What does this person do with that information? The way I see it, the person now has an excuse for that behavior or an opportunity to improve it.

Purely for academic purposes, let’s say that I scored low on the Prudence scale from the Hogan Personality Inventory. This means that people tend to perceive me as someone who is flexible and open to change but also someone who is not always detail-oriented and can be impulsive at times. What do I do with that information? One approach would be to use it as an excuse or a crutch. When I overlook a detail and it affects the outcome of a project, I can simply say, “Yep, that’s my low Prudence coming out!” and laugh it off. People will come to expect that Kevin is not a details guy and may expect me to focus on bigger picture issues instead. However, what will also happen is that people may begin to not trust in my ability to deliver a high-quality, well-proofed work product, and I will miss out on opportunities for challenge or advancement. This would ultimately affect my career success.

Continuing with this hypothetical example, a second approach to using this information about my lack of conscientiousness (not to be read as conscience) is as an opportunity. If I am serious about having a successful career, I should use the results of my personality assessment to leverage my strengths and develop my shortcomings. If I am working on a project with a tight timeline and I notice my natural propensity to cut corners or fudge over details starting to rear its head, I can seize the opportunity to take extra care and create the highest quality product I can. By intentionally changing my behaviors to do what may not come naturally and what others would not expect me to, I am effecting change on my reputation, which will ultimately have an effect on my success.

All of this being said, the irony is that the choice between Excuse Avenue and Opportunity Road is largely based on personality. People who are naturally open to feedback and change and driven to be successful are those who are more likely to take a right on Opportunity Road, while those who are resistant to feedback and change and not particularly motivated will take a left on Excuse Avenue (which runs parallel to Easy Street). The good news is that the same high-quality personality assessment will identify the likely path the person is to take. From that assessment, we can identify those individuals who may need a bit more help steering toward Opportunity Road if we are serious about investing in their success.

At the end of the day, there is always a choice. We can ultimately decide whether we want to be who we are now with all of our warts, caveats, and excuses, or if we want to be the more successful versions of ourselves with fewer warts and more opportunities…however you define that success.

With approximately 2.3 million Americans working as customer service representatives, it is one of the fastest growing and largest occupations in the U.S.

My brother is one of those customer service representatives. He has worked at a well-known television provider for the past year and a half, and in that time he acquired not only an “employee of the month” award, but several interesting stories to share over dinner.

Like the time a man called in because he was having difficulty with his television service. My brother instructed him to look behind the receiver box to make sure a cable on the left-hand side was connected tightly.

“My left or your left?” the customer asked, “I’m right handed.”

My brother was confused by the question because he was talking to the man on the phone; however, without missing a beat he replied, “Your left.” And with that the man fixed the problem and hung up, satisfied with his service.

Or another time when a woman called in because her remote control kept making a loud beeping noise. My brother explained to her that the remote was not capable of beeping so the noise must be coming from somewhere else.

“It’s definitely coming from the remote!” the woman claimed.

My brother instructed her to remove the remote batteries. Although the beeping continued after she removed the batteries, the woman still insisted the remote was the culprit. Finally, my brother convinced her to put the remote on her front porch to see if the beeping continued in the house. It’s at that time she discovered the noise was coming from her smoke detector.

I think my brother’s success in handling situations like these is due mostly to his personality - the way he relates to customers, remains calm, and acts in a dependable manner. Even when asked ridiculous questions, my brother remains friendly and polite, and leaves customers satisfied with their service. Also, he doesn’t lose his cool. Although he encounters angry customers on a daily basis, he stays calm and collected and doesn’t take it personally. Finally, he’s dependable. He shows up to work on time and works hard while there.

As the demand for customer service representatives grows, so does the need for companies to staff people like my brother who display the personality characteristics related to successful performance.