For some reason my reply button for responding to comments does not work. So I am replying here to comments received from Mark and Tim to a previous blog.

In response to Tim, my powers of prediction were based more on history than on moral hopelessness. For some reason, the courts have consistently drawn a distinction between age and other forms of discrimination. Given the only protected class I fall into is age, this does upset me some, but nevertheless it exists. So I do not believe it has anything to do with laissez-faire doctrine or Reagan, it has do do with the courts consistently drawing a distinction between theories of age discrmination and for example sex and race discrimination. Is this distinction based on any science? Harvey Sterns and I point out in our chapter on the law and age that there does not appear to be any theoretical or scientific basis for this distinction. Of course, we have not really conducted research on the difference in theories in this realm, so perhaps it is we psychologists who are at fault.

I would add that most people do seem to believe that a company should take age into account in making personnel decisions. See for example our emphasis on workforce and succession planning. But that is another issue.

As for Mark’s comments, I would not be the first to point out that the so-called balancing of burdens of proof is more of a legal theory than a courtroom reality. the burden is more of a subtle weighing carried out in the processing of information than a matter of one team being the offense until the punt (to poorly use a football analogy).

Anytime a factory closes, there is a tremendous social cost. The question then becomes one of how, if at all, should we compensate those hard working individuals who suffer as a result of the changing fates associated with capitalism. In the US, our solution has been to let them sue, often arguing that they were terminated as a result of discrimination if they belong to some protected class. I think this is the issue Mark is addressing, is this then the best use of the courts? Is this the best method of determining who should be compensated and how much they should receive?

From the Washington Post, a short article on the issues in writing employment tests. The article does not say anything new nor does it really spell out the issues, but it does highlight the continuing conflict between the demands of public sector testing for merit and security and the pressures for equal outcomes in employment results.

And is relevant because I will be giving a brief talk on related matters to an HR class at John Carroll on Thursday.  Always great to get back to John Carroll.

Before going much further in this discussion, I need to explain my emphasis on “behavior.” OK Tim, you say, “what about attitude?” Frankly, as a manager in the workplace, I didn’t give a tinker’s damn about attitude (except possibly as it might be expressed in behavior). I can’t see it, I can’t measure it, and unless it is expressed in undesirable behaviors in the workplace it is not my business. “Yah but psychologists can assess peoples attitudes!” That’s right and there are appropriate psychological assessments (e.g., as part of selection) that qualified (e.g., licensed psychologists) people may administer. However, the typical workplace manager or executive is not qualified nor has any business assessing attitude or personality, except as they are expressed in workplace behaviors. This is what the typical manager is or at least should be qualified to assess; work performance or other behaviors germane to workplace functions. Behavior can be observed, measured, and documented as appropriate or necessary by those knowledgeable of the work and the organization.

The task of addressing workplace behavior can be daunting, in and of itself. I’ve seen too many in positions of workplace leadership who are either afraid to deal with behavioral and performance issues or haven’t been properly trained to do so. In the US most companies have a “top-down” modus operandi. That is to say that the chain of command and decision making begin within the higher echelons. We shoot our mouths off about democracy (if I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard, “employees are our most valued asset”), but in practice we don’t believe in it. It is the rare organization that empowers employees to be truly self-directed (a discussion for another day). So, in the status quo, the success of subalterns within the organization becomes the responsibility of those that manage/lead them. I believe this responsibility goes beyond an obligation to the organization , but to our fellow humans in general.

The astute manager will counsel employees as to specific behaviors that do not contribute to their success (e.g., performance), and what specific behaviors will in turn support their success. For example, telling an employee that they don’t deal well with or perhaps don’t respect their fellow workers is not sufficient. Beginning with this general critique, but then defining by specific incident/behavior what is meant (e.g. interrupting Mary before she finished expressing her thoughts) and specifically what desired behavior should take its place (listen to others opinions before interrupting with yours). Needless to say, in general, the manager should document a pattern of behavior before addressing it and provide some reward as the desired behavior is expressed (maybe as simple as recognizing the new behavior).

Effectively managing people toward success in the workplace, is hard work, but the greatest reward is helping people develop behaviors that will insure their continued success in the workplace. One caveat, especially in dealing with maladaptive workplace behaviors, is that there exists the latent possibility of personal problems/behaviors that occur outside the workplace but contribute to workplace issues : generally you as a manager should not and are not qualified to address outside issues/behaviors, but without suggesting specific problems (marital, financial, substance abuse, etc.) any available employee assistance program should be discussed and offered when addressing maladaptive workplace behavior.

Coming will be more discussion of reward types and related “laws” relative to the workplace, while beginning to frame this discussion with what psychologists call “operant conditioning.”

The Rorschach has been leaked by Wikipedia.

I debated posting this news item, because it adds to the publicity for what would appear to be at least a borderline ethical act. However, as reported by the New York Times and other media outlets, the online encyclopedia Wikipedia has been engulfed in a furious debate involving psychologists who are angry that the 10 original Rorschach plates are reproduced online, along with common responses for each. For them, the Wikipedia page is the equivalent of posting an answer sheet to next year’s SAT. They are pitted against the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia’s users, who share the site’s “free culture” ethos, which opposes the suppression of information that it is legal to publish. (Because the Rorschach plates were created nearly 90 years ago, they have lost their copyright protection in the United States.)

I am not sure how to respond to the news item. The availability is nothing new. Back when I gave the Rorschach, I often wondered about the availability in the library of books that contained the Rorschach cards and responses. Sure those were not as easily available and cost money to purchase, but were in most University libraries. So, people having access to images of the cards is not new. If this only occurred with non-copyright protected documents it would be easier to deal with and accept.

So is there a lesson. If there is it is that for those human resource professionals involved in testing, the security of tests will remain a huge problem and will probably become a more significant issue in the future.  

As many of us watch the baseball trades, a big trade impacting human resources occurred today. Many of us make use of SPSS software for statistical analysis. Thus, this announcement may have long term significance.

From the Wall Street Journal:

International Business Machines Corp. agreed to buy software developer SPSS Inc. for $1.2 billion, expanding Big Blue’s software portfolio and adding another deal to the growing list of recent acquisitions in the software industry.

Chicago-based SPSS develops software that analyzes statistical data to make predictions. The software, known as predictive analytics, is used for survey and scientific research along with marketing, government and educational purposes. The companies said they expected to close the deal by year’s end.

The $50-a-share all-cash offer represents a 42% premium to SPSS’s Monday closing price. SPSS shares rose to an all-time high of $49.49 a share on Nasdaq Stock Market following the deal’s announcement, and were recently up 41% at $49.30. IBM shares fell 0.7% to $116.81 on the New York Stock Exchange.

SIOP will be sponsoring another leading edge consortium. This one is on the “Leading Edge of Selection and Assessment in a Global Setting.”

The SIOP sponsored consortium will be held in Denver, CO, at the Hyatt Regency Tech Center, October 16-17, 2009. Registration is $425 on or before the early registration deadline of August 28 and $495 thereafter. Consortium includes breaks, lunch on Friday and Saturday and receptions on Thursday and Friday evenings.

Highlights for this consortium include the opening address, “I-O and Clinical Assessment Methodologies: Leveraging the Power of Both at Cisco,” where SIOP Member and Cisco Systems, Inc. Director of Talent Planning & Executive Assessment Kristie Wright will discuss Cisco’s approach to using both I-O and clinical assessment methodologies, the lessons learned, and the benefits of a blended approach from the point of view of an I-O practitioner.

SIOP member and closing keynote speaker Todd Carlisle was the first of now a 25 member People Analytics team at Google. During his “Microtrends in Global Staffing: Finding Signals in Noisy Recruiting Data,” Carlisle will discuss what a dozen statisticians, armed with millions of data points, might predict about the future of staffing. Using data recently collected from Google’s global staffing efforts, several micro trends will be discussed including better candidate sourcing, how algorithms can help make hiring decisions, and what the long tail means to recruiters.

Searching for unpublished tests or measures can be very frustrating. So the following represents a very exciting future development. The American Psychological Association (APA) is planning a PsycTESTS database.  This exciting new product is being designed to provide access to the full text of many unpublished tests and measures and to provide information to help the researcher determine whether a given test or measure is potentially right for their research. This product should be a valuable addition in terms of an APA membership.

The New Haven decision is in. I guess you never want to say a predictable decision, but it probably was:

Assessment Systems Corporation offers a number of very useful tools for the employment test developer. They have introduced a new program for establishing equivalent forms based on IRT theory. ASC released its new IRT Form Building Tool this week. The Form Building Tool is a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet designed to aid in the assembly of test with IRT. It handles up to four forms simultaneously, and produces IRT figures and tables including the response functions and information functions for items, test forms, and the entire bank. To learn more or download the manual for evaluation, visit the website at http://www.assess.com/xcart/product.php?productid=519.

In a recent article, the Wall Street Journal questions the value of test preparation programs for standardized educational tests.

I am a common sense kind of guy, who likes to nutshell. I believe you can reduce the literature on coaching programs for standardized educational test taking to the following:

Coaching does have an effect on test performance but not much different than schooling itself, which of course could be seen as a type of ultimate test coaching.

So if you want your child to do well on the SAT:

1. Have them pay attention and learn a lot in school.
2. Have them read a lot outside of school.
3. Have them write a lot outside of school.
4. Give them a good breakfast (guess I watch too many commercials).

Having said that, the problem I have with a lot of commercial coaching programs is that they teach the student that doing well on a test is all about tricks and learning the tricks. That is the worst message you can give. Doing well on a test is all about studying hard, being prepared, and putting in a lot of effort. It is not about learning tricks.