I wouldn’t consider myself a techie, but on occasion I have been known to dabble in the social media space—posting the occasional observational wisdom, a vacation picture every so often, and dare I admit it, a complaint here and there. But this blog entry isn’t about my world wide intertube surfing trends, or any highfalutin comments on the varying notions of privacy. Rather, I would like to take this opportunity to express my secret delight with the outputs of the latest pedantic personality pandemic. Surprisingly I’m not talking about the terrible alliteration of which that last sentence was so incredibly guilty. I am referring to the hokey but lovable evaluations that have become the most recent cross-generational fad.

Let me first say that I commend all those who are not only interested in self improvement but are also motivated to complete an inventory to gain perspective. So in a way, I am excited to see individuals spend time reporting their preferences to determine which Hobbit, Game of Thrones Character, News Anchor, OTC constipation pill or rare bacterial disease best captures their essence. But I think it’s important we lay down a few best practices before this branch of the industry really takes off.

Stay current: I understand if early 90s snap-bracelets or funky hair-trolls are still your thing. But I cannot for the life of me remember the names of the My Little Pony characters. And thus it’s hard for me to comment and relate to your results. (Ok that’s a lie, but I’ll never admit it online). Best to stay current so you can maximize audience appeal.

Do your due diligence: Was the sample against which the instrument constructed a stratified representation of the Muppet population? Should Fraggles have their own local norm? Was the test brought to you by a suspicious combination of letters that form an enigmatic acronym? These are questions that really should be asked before committing to an assessment.

Keep it neutral: I don’t care which political scandal or religious dogma says the most about your interpersonal style. I want to read about fun loving results like which Miley Cyrus phase best represents you. Or which Justin Beiber crime is emblematic of your management approach. However, I shouldn’t have to visualize the likes of brassy over exposed governors or congressional private parts to know how you prefer to be seen.

Not a standalone: When considering what kind of, say, vegetable or cookie you would be, perhaps it’s best to not use such evaluations as a standalone assessment. I recommend pairing them with the appropriate assessment center modules. In this example perhaps an In-Supermarket-Basket exercise would augment the results.

Don’t overdo it: I get it that you want to see yourself from varying angles. But must you take seven of these quizzes a day? Furthermore, I think you lose credibility when you’re equally excited about each one. I know it’s hard to contain yourself when you find out that you would be a poppy seed bagel. But honestly, after reading which waste management vehicle, computer antivirus software and CBS network television character you would relate to most, I’m on the verge of losing interest. Let’s cap it to 16 a week, shall we?

By choosing your social media assessments wisely you can not only ensure more valid results, you can also help me resist the temptation block you from my timeline forever. Thanks for considering these best practices going forward and for doing your part in making the internet, and my timeline a better place.

I wouldn’t consider myself a techie, but on occasion I have been known to dabble in the social media space—posting the occasional observational wisdom, a vacation picture every so often, and dare I admit it, a complaint here and there. But this blog entry isn’t about my world wide intertube surfing trends, or any highfalutin comments on the varying notions of privacy. Rather, I would like to take this opportunity to express my secret delight with the outputs of the latest pedantic personality pandemic. Surprisingly I’m not talking about the terrible alliteration of which that last sentence was so incredibly guilty. I am referring to the hokey but lovable evaluations that have become the most recent cross-generational fad.

Let me first say that I commend all those who are not only interested in self improvement but are also motivated to complete an inventory to gain perspective. So in a way, I am excited to see individuals spend time reporting their preferences to determine which Hobbit, Game of Thrones Character, News Anchor, OTC constipation pill or rare bacterial disease best captures their essence. But I think it’s important we lay down a few best practices before this branch of the industry really takes off.

Stay current: I understand if early 90s snap-bracelets or funky hair-trolls are still your thing. But I cannot for the life of me remember the names of the My Little Pony characters. And thus it’s hard for me to comment and relate to your results. (Ok that’s a lie, but I’ll never admit it online). Best to stay current so you can maximize audience appeal.

Do your due diligence: Was the sample against which the instrument constructed a stratified representation of the Muppet population? Should Fraggles have their own local norm? Was the test brought to you by a suspicious combination of letters that form an enigmatic acronym? These are questions that really should be asked before committing to an assessment.

Keep it neutral: I don’t care which political scandal or religious dogma says the most about your interpersonal style. I want to read about fun loving results like which Miley Cyrus phase best represents you. Or which Justin Beiber crime is emblematic of your management approach. However, I shouldn’t have to visualize the likes of brassy over exposed governors or congressional private parts to know how you prefer to be seen.

Not a standalone: When considering what kind of, say, vegetable or cookie you would be, perhaps it’s best to not use such evaluations as a standalone assessment. I recommend pairing them with the appropriate assessment center modules. In this example perhaps an In-Supermarket-Basket exercise would augment the results.

Don’t overdo it: I get it that you want to see yourself from varying angles. But must you take seven of these quizzes a day? Furthermore, I think you lose credibility when you’re equally excited about each one. I know it’s hard to contain yourself when you find out that you would be a poppy seed bagel. But honestly, after reading which waste management vehicle, computer antivirus software and CBS network television character you would relate to most, I’m on the verge of losing interest. Let’s cap it to 16 a week, shall we?

By choosing your social media assessments wisely you can not only ensure more valid results, you can also help me resist the temptation block you from my timeline forever. Thanks for considering these best practices going forward and for doing your part in making the internet, and my timeline a better place.

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.

SEE THE FIRST INSTALLMENT OF DRINKS WITH HOGAN

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 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.

What if you had been the head of a company your junior or senior year of college? Do you think it would have changed your career trajectory or given you more insight into leadership? That’s the idea behind Odgers Berndtson’s CEO X 1 Day. This month, the leading global executive Canadian search firm launched its program that places third and fourth year university students in the shoes of CEOs at leading Canadian organizations for one day.

By shadowing some of the biggest decision makers in Canada, CEO X 1 Day gives students “a tremendous opportunity to observe a talented CEO in action - providing them with inspiration, role modeling and a road map for their careers," said Carl Lovas, Canadian Chair at Odgers Berndtson, in a recent press release. It is “designed to uncover Canada's most promising future talent, while giving CEOs an opportunity to connect and better understand what drives this next generation of leaders,” he continued.

As part of the application process, applicants are given the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) and the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) to assess their leadership aptitude. Characteristics factored into this aptitude include confidence, ambition, effective stress management, political savvy, values and the ability to develop new skills – all characteristics of a successful senior leader.

Throughout their one day, finalists will spend valuable one-on-one time with CEOs learning about their background, career path, and how they create value in their organization. The objective is to create a meaningful experience for both students – who will learn what it takes to be the leader – and CEOs – who will benefit from the students’ nubile and fresh perspectives as well as get a glimpse of Canada’s next generation’s up and comers.

Participating Canadian CEOs include: Elyse Allan, GE; Nitin Kawale, Cisco; Jim Gabel, adidas; Patrick Nangle, Purolator; Ellis Jacob, Cineplex; Ian Troop, Toronto 2015 Pan Am; Kirstine Stewart, Twitter; Marc Bertrand, MEGA Brands; Manon Brouillette, Videotron; Yannis Mallat, Ubisoft; and Thierry Vandal, Hydro Quebec. Performance Programs Inc., a Hogan partner, is working in conjunction with Odgers Berndtson during the applicants’ selection process.

What if you had been the head of a company your junior or senior year of college? Do you think it would have changed your career trajectory or given you more insight into leadership? That’s the idea behind Odgers Berndtson’s CEO X 1 Day. This month, the leading global executive Canadian search firm launched its program that places third and fourth year university students in the shoes of CEOs at leading Canadian organizations for one day.

By shadowing some of the biggest decision makers in Canada, CEO X 1 Day gives students “a tremendous opportunity to observe a talented CEO in action – providing them with inspiration, role modeling and a road map for their careers,” said Carl Lovas, Canadian Chair at Odgers Berndtson, in a recent press release. It is “designed to uncover Canada’s most promising future talent, while giving CEOs an opportunity to connect and better understand what drives this next generation of leaders,” he continued.

As part of the application process, applicants are given the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) and the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) to assess their leadership aptitude. Characteristics factored into this aptitude include confidence, ambition, effective stress management, political savvy, values and the ability to develop new skills – all characteristics of a successful senior leader.

Throughout their one day, finalists will spend valuable one-on-one time with CEOs learning about their background, career path, and how they create value in their organization. The objective is to create a meaningful experience for both students – who will learn what it takes to be the leader – and CEOs – who will benefit from the students’ nubile and fresh perspectives as well as get a glimpse of Canada’s next generation’s up and comers.

Participating Canadian CEOs include: Elyse Allan, GE; Nitin Kawale, Cisco; Jim Gabel, adidas; Patrick Nangle, Purolator; Ellis Jacob, Cineplex; Ian Troop, Toronto 2015 Pan Am; Kirstine Stewart, Twitter; Marc Bertrand, MEGA Brands; Manon Brouillette, Videotron; Yannis Mallat, Ubisoft; and Thierry Vandal, Hydro Quebec. Performance Programs Inc., a Hogan partner, is working in conjunction with Odgers Berndtson during the applicants’ selection process.