In a recent article on ABC News, Alan Farnham highlights the ranking of the fastest-growing occupations provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). I was pleasantly, while not completely, surprised to see that Industrial-Organizational Psychologists made the top of the list. The article highlights two important facts about the small size of the field: a) with the field only including around 1,600 psychologists, a 53% increase doesn’t result in as many jobs as other fields and b) not many people know much about the field.

It was refreshing to read an accurate and positive description of the field in the media for once. I recently read an article describing us as occupational therapists, which is very inaccurate, but a step past my peers thinking I read minds in the work place for a living. Beyond being a mouthful to say, I am often given a blank stare and a “What the heck is that?” when I mention that I am an Industrial-Organizational Psychologist.

Farnham describes I-O Psychologists as consultants that can be hired to improve the efficiency of an organization and that their contribution can be directly linked to improved business performance. This is a very important distinction because one of the most difficult jobs an I-O Psychologist faces is explaining what we do to non-I-O psychologists. Our job is very important in that we are not only seeking to improve the efficiency in an organization, but we must also remain agents of the court (keep companies from violating employment law). For the most part, this involves conducting rigorous research to find validation evidence to support our methods.

All of our R&D staff, as well as several of our consultants and coaches are I-O psychologists. As a Consultant on the R&D team at Hogan, I spend most of my time conducting selection research for domestic clients and multinational corporations. As Farnham mentioned, we are able to demonstrate causality between our contribution and business performance. Our assessments predict performance and we have the numbers to back it up. The hard part is putting this in a business language that can be used and understood by stakeholders in an organization. Companies that have dealt with I-O psychologists get it quickly. Companies new to the idea take longer to convince. Other scientists are often the most skeptical of psychologists calling themselves scientists. In the end, the numbers speak for themselves and our ability to provide return on investment (ROI) is valuable.  

People are complicated, and predicting performance takes a holistic view at their strengths, weaknesses, and core values. In our second installment of Drinks with Hogan, Global Alliances Consultant Dr. Darin Nei explains the problem with type indicators and the reason we recommend using three assessments.

In a recent article on ABC News, Alan Farnham highlights the ranking of the fastest-growing occupations provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). I was pleasantly, while not completely, surprised to see that Industrial-Organizational Psychologists made the top of the list. The article highlights two important facts about the small size of the field: a) with the field only including around 1,600 psychologists, a 53% increase doesn’t result in as many jobs as other fields and b) not many people know much about the field.

It was refreshing to read an accurate and positive description of the field in the media for once. I recently read an article describing us as occupational therapists, which is very inaccurate, but a step past my peers thinking I read minds in the work place for a living. Beyond being a mouthful to say, I am often given a blank stare and a “What the heck is that?” when I mention that I am an Industrial-Organizational Psychologist.

Farnham describes I-O Psychologists as consultants that can be hired to improve the efficiency of an organization and that their contribution can be directly linked to improved business performance. This is a very important distinction because one of the most difficult jobs an I-O Psychologist faces is explaining what we do to non-I-O psychologists. Our job is very important in that we are not only seeking to improve the efficiency in an organization, but we must also remain agents of the court (keep companies from violating employment law). For the most part, this involves conducting rigorous research to find validation evidence to support our methods.

All of our R&D staff, as well as several of our consultants and coaches are I-O psychologists. As a Consultant on the R&D team at Hogan, I spend most of my time conducting selection research for domestic clients and multinational corporations. As Farnham mentioned, we are able to demonstrate causality between our contribution and business performance. Our assessments predict performance and we have the numbers to back it up. The hard part is putting this in a business language that can be used and understood by stakeholders in an organization. Companies that have dealt with I-O psychologists get it quickly. Companies new to the idea take longer to convince. Other scientists are often the most skeptical of psychologists calling themselves scientists. In the end, the numbers speak for themselves and our ability to provide return on investment (ROI) is valuable.  

After a rigorous selection process designed to gauge student’s leadership potential that began last October, Odgers Berndston, a leading global executive search firm, has identified 11 Canadian students to spend a day shadowing some of the country’s top senior executives in the company’s launch of CEO X 1 Day. Students in their third and fourth year of university study were selected after a three stage application process of academic record review, Hogan leadership and personality assessment results, and phone interviews.

Spotlight: Katerina Fragos, one of the 11 students chosen to participate in the program, will spend a day shadowing Manon Brouillette, the president and COO of Videotron. Even the selection process was rewarding for Fragos:

“Even though the final round was a competition, the Odgers Berndston team treated it more like a training workshop,” says Fragos. “I knew that even if I wasn’t selected, I would leave with a new understanding of my strengths and weaknesses as a leader.”

Pairing different generations together in a work setting has a twofold purpose, Odgers Bernsten stated in a recent press release: students will have the opportunity to ask, learn, and understand the complexities of leading a top company while participating CEOs will gain valuable insights into what drives the next generation of leaders.

See the press release with a partial list of winners. 

After a rigorous selection process designed to gauge student’s leadership potential that began last October, Odgers Berndston, a leading global executive search firm, has identified 11 Canadian students to spend a day shadowing some of the country’s top senior executives in the company’s launch of CEO X 1 Day. Students in their third and fourth year of university study were selected after a three stage application process of academic record review, Hogan leadership and personality assessment results, and phone interviews.

Spotlight: Katerina Fragos, one of the 11 students chosen to participate in the program, will spend a day shadowing Manon Brouillette, the president and COO of Videotron. Even the selection process was rewarding for Fragos:

“Even though the final round was a competition, the Odgers Berndston team treated it more like a training workshop,” says Fragos. “I knew that even if I wasn’t selected, I would leave with a new understanding of my strengths and weaknesses as a leader.”

Pairing different generations together in a work setting has a twofold purpose, Odgers Bernsten stated in a recent press release: students will have the opportunity to ask, learn, and understand the complexities of leading a top company while participating CEOs will gain valuable insights into what drives the next generation of leaders.

See the press release with a partial list of winners.

Hogan announced a strategic partnership with THUOPER S.A.S (Tools for Human and Organizational Performance), a provider of assessment and consulting solutions in Colombia and Peru, to support the global reach of its clients. Thuoper joins an industry-leading network of international partners operating in more than 56 countries across six continents.

"Thuoper plans to use Hogan to enhance performance and add value to organizations," said Liliana Lopez, President at Thuoper. "Having Hogan’s portfolio of assessments will be a significant improvement for customers in our market."

Founded in 1999, Thuoper has headquarters in Bogota, as well as offices in Medellin and Lima, and employs 19 individuals. They have been using Hogan assessments since 2012.

"Hogan is rapidly becoming one of the top recognized brands across all of Latin America, thanks to the hard work & efforts of our in-country distributors," said Dustin Hunter, consultant on the global alliances team at Hogan. "We are very excited to include Thuoper as a business partner to meet rising demand for talent management services. Our partnership is particularly timely as many multi-national corporations are funneling out of traditional South American markets (for political and economic reasons) for more favorable business conditions in Colombia. These same MNC’s are now heavily investing resources and relying on best-in-class human capital initiatives to ensure the right people are in leadership positions. Thuoper’s strategic market position and geographic dispersion will allow them to capitalize on the region’s explosive growth and we are privileged to count them as our new partner."

In an article on Forbes.com, HR analyst Josh Bersin extolled the benefits of talent analytics using a case study from a large financial services company:

“One of our clients… operates under the belief system that employees with good grades who come from highly ranked colleges will make good performers,” Bersin wrote. “So their recruitment, selection, and promotion process is based on these academic drivers.”

The firm conducted a statistical analysis of sales productivity and turnover, correlating performance and retention over the first two years against several demographic factors. They found that, of the six factors that corresponded with success, what did not matter was where candidates went to school, what grades they received, or the quality of their references. Within six months of implementing a new screening process, the firm increased revenues by $4 million.

However, for every one company that effectively harnesses their data, there are dozens that get it wrong by:

1. Overestimating performance as a predictor of potential. Research shows that only 30 percent of current high performers have management potential, and that most employees (more than 90 percent) would have trouble at the next organizational level.

2. Using subjective data. Too many companies dirty up their data sets with things like supervisor performance appraisals. Unfortunately, typical performance appraisals are a function of how much supervisors like their employees so, “high performers” are often those who successfully navigate office politics, not necessarily those who perform better.

3. Relying on incomplete data. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, recently wrote in The Guardian that “most organizations lack reliable systems for measuring employees' performance … The result is … the equivalent of investing a great deal of money in weather forecasts without subsequently paying attention to the actual weather.”

4. Paying attention to irrelevant data. I recently read a Harvard Business Review article in which the author was describing the challenge of filling new positions for which data does not exist: “This poses different challenges, such as identifying patterns of your most successful hires, like the schools they come from, where they live...” Just because some of your best employees happen to be from the same school or town doesn’t have anything to do with whether they will be good programmers. 

5. Believing that data eliminates uncertainty. On his ragan.com blog post, Jonathan Lewis wrote: “You can use data to reduce uncertainty, but don't count on the data to eliminate it. The belief that uncertainty can ever be eliminated leads to unrealistic expectations, company paralysis, letdown, and frustration… We live in a complex and imperfect world, so no matter how big or little the data in our grasp, we will always have to make decisions with a certain level of uncertainty.”

Adding Context

Don’t get us wrong, we love data – Hogan’s research database has millions of data points, which we use to create, test and hone our assessments. The key to analyzing your company’s big data is to start with a valid, scientifically developed, objective tool like 360-degree feedback or personality assessment. These measures provide a picture of employees’ strengths, weaknesses, values, and work preferences. Using that information as a starting point, you can add in sales and performance data, demographics, and myriad other information to form a complete picture of how your organization, and your people, operates.

In an article on Forbes.com, HR analyst Josh Bersin extolled the benefits of talent analytics using a case study from a large financial services company:

“One of our clients… operates under the belief system that employees with good grades who come from highly ranked colleges will make good performers,” Bersin wrote. “So their recruitment, selection, and promotion process is based on these academic drivers.”

The firm conducted a statistical analysis of sales productivity and turnover, correlating performance and retention over the first two years against several demographic factors. They found that, of the six factors that corresponded with success, what did not matter was where candidates went to school, what grades they received, or the quality of their references. Within six months of implementing a new screening process, the firm increased revenues by $4 million.

However, for every one company that effectively harnesses their data, there are dozens that get it wrong by:

1. Overestimating performance as a predictor of potential. Research shows that only 30 percent of current high performers have management potential, and that most employees (more than 90 percent) would have trouble at the next organizational level.

2. Using subjective data. Too many companies dirty up their data sets with things like supervisor performance appraisals. Unfortunately, typical performance appraisals are a function of how much supervisors like their employees so, “high performers” are often those who successfully navigate office politics, not necessarily those who perform better.

3. Relying on incomplete data. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, recently wrote in The Guardian that “most organizations lack reliable systems for measuring employees’ performance … The result is … the equivalent of investing a great deal of money in weather forecasts without subsequently paying attention to the actual weather.”

4. Paying attention to irrelevant data. I recently read a Harvard Business Review article in which the author was describing the challenge of filling new positions for which data does not exist: “This poses different challenges, such as identifying patterns of your most successful hires, like the schools they come from, where they live…” Just because some of your best employees happen to be from the same school or town doesn’t have anything to do with whether they will be good programmers.

5. Believing that data eliminates uncertainty. On his ragan.com blog post, Jonathan Lewis wrote: “You can use data to reduce uncertainty, but don’t count on the data to eliminate it. The belief that uncertainty can ever be eliminated leads to unrealistic expectations, company paralysis, letdown, and frustration… We live in a complex and imperfect world, so no matter how big or little the data in our grasp, we will always have to make decisions with a certain level of uncertainty.”

Adding Context

Don’t get us wrong, we love data – Hogan’s research database has millions of data points, which we use to create, test and hone our assessments. The key to analyzing your company’s big data is to start with a valid, scientifically developed, objective tool like 360-degree feedback or personality assessment. These measures provide a picture of employees’ strengths, weaknesses, values, and work preferences. Using that information as a starting point, you can add in sales and performance data, demographics, and myriad other information to form a complete picture of how your organization, and your people, operates.

With technology and organizations more advanced and complex than they’ve ever been, HR is struggling to keep up the good fight. “Unfortunately, what we see is HR systems developed ad-hoc; one set of tools for selection, another for middle managers, and another for high-level leadership development, and none of those systems communicate,” said Ryan Ross, vice president of Global Alliances at Hogan.

The problem is that this information often comes from divergent systems, and therefore lacks context or common language. If HR wants to act strategically, it needs to consolidate those systems so that data can be viewed in context. The key to getting quality people in all levels of an organization is to “put a system in place that stays relevant throughout the entire employee lifecycle,” said Ross.

Check out the 4 other issues HR is running up against in our ebook How to Conquer the 5 Things Keeping HR up at Night.