From: Jim Ledbury (jim.ledbury@dsl.pipex.com)
Date: Thu Sep 09 2004 - 18:16:13 BST
ml wrote:
>David,
>
>That is a good question. Not sure how
>to think of those, morally... hmmm.
>
>Morally, it seems that it comes down to the
>intent of the test on the one hand and the
>application-evaluation on the other.
>
>
Can't say fairer than that.
>Is the definition of a personality type a
>social definition or an intellectual one?
>
>Is the operational level of the individual
>social or intellectual?
>
>
Given that "individual" means in essence indivisible and they are trying
to split you into your characteristics, not to mensh the fact that MOQ
would say that you operate at intellectual, social, biological (not to
mention chemical) levels - all often conflicting, maybe we should
discard this concept, except as a convenient jargon to describe this
particular nexus of quality perceptions.
>Is the requiring entity a social entity with
>a purpose of dominating a biological
>individual, or a social individual, or an
>intellectual?
>
>Does the test TRULY measure what is
>needed or is i simply being pulled off
>the shelf as a "close" match?
>
>
Well, yes.
>Does the test truly reflect the possible
>universe of test takers?
>
>
I think that it only answers a theoretical universe invented by social
scientists and one that does not in all probability recognise the
bio/social/intellectual split.
>In evaluation, how are the "corner-cases"
>and "outliers" handled?
>
>
It depends on how many other candidates are available and are willing to
look and sound presentable at an interview - mostly social with a
smattering of intellectual, I would say :-)
>
>================
>For existing tests...
>
>In operation however, those few times
>I've been involved in those exrcises, even
>when it was the same test, I ended up in
>very different quadrants. It seemed that
>the test answers were more a measure
>of my mood on THAT day, than anything
>at base about my personality.
>
>The assumptions of the test creator
>and the variability in personal use of
>language and education, when they
>are sufficiently different make a train
>wreck out of the whole thing. (The
>company or test creator will strongly
>deny such and discuss their validation
>testing, but it is always a "short cut"
>rather than rigorous...they have an
>axe to grind at the testing companie$.)
>
>So, before I even get to Moral, the tests
>generally tend to suck.
>
>Case in point, the best salesman I've
>known failed all the tests as a sales
>candidate given by his department.
>(He had already been working there
>before they started testing.)
>
>The tests said he was an introverted
>intellectual, an "engineer type", and
>not a "people person". What the test
>could not measure was that he had a
>passion for the product and that the
>buyers were largely engineer types,
>who resisted glad handing salesmen.
>
>Of course it may be that the tests I've
>seen were simply Schlock-jobs and
>that is why it looks so bad...
>
>A well designed test might show your
>tendency, but will ever measure the
>reality of perfomance choices in the real
>workplace. The only sure measure of a
>job is doing the job.
>
>thanks--mel
>
>
I would imagine that this is pretty much par for the course. The tests
are designed by theorists, examined in committee with all the
politicking that that involves, and then *sold* to gullible human
resources departments with the suggestion that if you follow this mantra
you will get people devoted to increasing your stock value and will
dodge the screwballs. Queue one recipe for banging the drum re the
"efficacy" of the product in spite of its results.
"And the employees said 'it is a crock of sh*te and it stinketh'..."
ATB
Jim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 09 2004 - 18:16:31 BST