The Organizational Psychologists who read my blog are always so frustrated with me. That’s why I am asking you to weigh in and address these issues.
Please tell me: Is psychology a science? Does psychology have a role at work? Is it appropriate to use psychological information and data in the office to engineer a more efficient work environment?
You know how I feel, right? Psychology is a ’soft science’ and may have some applications in the real world; however, it’s unfair and unethical to use subjective, pseudo-scientific principles in a decision-making process. Furthermore, it’s total bullshit to apply psychological constructs to the hiring process. Companies use psychology in such a way to make workers feel guilty for getting paid. Like they’re doing you a favor by a) hiring you and b) allowing you to participate in furthering their mission, vision, and values.
It makes me want to vomit.
You have knowledge, skills, and abilities and you are compensated for your efforts and hassles with money. Cash. Dollars. Sometimes you work with a great team of people, and sometimes your co-workers are assholes. If work were meant to be fun, you would be paid in puppy dog kisses and chocolate. Work is work, and you do it for a variety of reasons — none of which are your company’s business.
Keep soft science out of the workforce. I will bring my best to the job, and you can fire me if I don’t.
Now what do you think?
{ 4 trackbacks }
{ 55 comments… read them below or add one }
Yep, HR appears to be looking for cookie-cutter people; personalities need not apply. Notwithstanding a candidate’s attitude or ability to do the job, recruiters and hiring managers will demure at the slightest deviation from a job’s “posted” requirements; should all but one line up, now matter how insignificant the outlier, you don’t make the cut.
Unless someone can be categorized like a plant species, HR doesn’t know what to do with them. Do I sound bitter? Nice topic, Laurie.
*True* industrial and organizational psychology is by no means a soft science. But it’s also much different from what the people who you’re writing about do; it involves actual studies and controlled experiments, not just silly personality quizzes and exercises.
Yes — personality profiling should stay out of the hiring and firing process. However, I don’t believe it should stay out of the workplace entirely.
I’ve facilitated Myers-Briggs Type Indicator workshops for organizations big and small. Like any event where bosses force people to attend, two or three always look entirely uninterested (some even get surly and challenge you).
But overall my experience has been people seem interested and happy to learn about this stuff. In fact, it triggers an almost zombie-like reaction from some people who are so enamored they turn you into their therapist on the spot when class is over.
The value of MBTI and other ’soft-science’ systems in the actual workplace might be debatable, but there are a number of people who go on to use this stuff in their personal lives and are very thankful for it. How else would they be introduced?
@Rick: We did MBTI at my workplace. I’m about 50% convinced of its accuracy – the studies are pretty inconclusive – but it was an interesting exercise and it’s harmless insofar as it’s a way to make you think about how you work and live. I think there’s a difference between helping people understand themselves and their abilities, and mandatory questionnaires that ask intrusive questions and can be held against you at your next performance review, accurate or not.
The thing about pseudoscience is that there’s really no way to argue against it, because it’s not based on reason. The people who believe in that kind of management believe for reasons that aren’t necessarily rational, and the very nature of that sort of thing gives employers another kind of power over their employees. You can dispute the facts about whether or not you came in late last Thursday; you can’t argue with a test that says that you’re a Sycamore and everybody else is a Birch.
The personality profiles tell me I’m an introvert. I’ll show you a F#@%*&g introvert!
Psychology is at best an “evolving” science. We don’t know at least as much as we do know, and the ever changing prevailing wisdom can have a truly horrible impact on people. How long ago did learned people believe in Charcot’s (and subsequently Freud’s) ideas on the origins and treatments of “hysteria”?
Attempting to apply “psychology” to the hiring process, may be no more effective than not, it may be more damaging than not, the true problem is there is no way to tell. For every success story there is a counter horror story. The sun is between 146 million km (91 million miles) and 152 million km
(94.5 million miles) depending on Earth’s position in orbit. That’s science, it is a verified fact. There is no counter argument. It is objective and veriafiable. The same results will be arrived at by others conducting measurements of the distance of the Earth to the Sun.
When you apply something that is not science, that is open to debate and shows disparate results, then you are not a scientist, but quite possibly a dangerous fool.
You got it, Laurie!
I think the prevalence of pop-psychology in the corporate world is an attempt to correct a bigger problem: managers with no ability to manage people and zero leadership skills.
The managerial ranks have been filling up with poor managers who cannot be trusted to make a good hiring decision. There are lots of reasons for this and I will defer to your expertise, Laurie, to dissect the why’s.
Organizational psychology does have valuable application. As with any empirical endeavor, the goal is to develop theories that predict outcomes of decisions. Knowing how people behave within the group dynamics of a corporation is extremely valuable information for leading/developing an organization.
Unfortunately, there is little room for science in fear-driven, responsibility-dodging cultures of most large corporations.
Thanks for a good riff.
Ben out!
Let me start by saying that I’m no expert in any of this, but recently I read a book (published a while ago) called “The Character of Organizations” by William Bridges, which had an interesting take on MBTI testing.
His thesis is that like individuals, organizations and teams within organizations have distinct personalities, usually shaped by their leaders. Why is the “culture” that is so enviable at one place not reproducible elsewhere? Perhaps because of the personality types of various leaders or of the org as a whole.
Certain tasks and/or stages in an organization’s lifecycle call for certain personality traits. Getting a startup off the ground requires a great deal of extroversion. Once it’s rolling, more I and S types are needed to develop internal systems and standardize procedures, etc.
Anyway, I thought it was interesting. His point was not to use these tests for screening, but more to use as a tool for figuring out what kind of organization you have, and what its tendencies and blind spots are so that leaders can compensate for its weaknesses and capitalize on its strengths.
@humanresourcespufnstuf, I’d agree it’s all pretty unexact. But I don’t think it will get any more exact without a lot of practice (oh no, we’re all guinea pigs). But it seems like there’s value to be had, but it must be tempered by good judgment and experience.
Hmmm…tricky topic. Sometimes I think it works to have an understanding of the human psyche to understand what motivates people. At the same time though, you shouldn’t need psychology to figure that out! Just talk to your employees!
We’re not here to psycho-analyze people. As far as personality testing goes- it has some merit so long as people answer the questions honestly- but it shouldn’t be the deciding factor for hiring or placement.
Psychology: science.
Org psychology: actually the precursor to much of modern psychology
@humanresourcespufnstuf Let’s not confuse science with math. The former is a process for building new information; the latter is a fixed set of rules that govern the universe.
My degree is in Psychology, and there are certain disciplines of Psychology that are absolutely scientific, particularly Physiological Psychology (best class I took while getting my degree). But there are other disciplines that are mere conjecture with no way to test for or validate their claims. Much of that type of psychology does come in handy when trying to have a conversation about pay, but it would be very unethical to use those disciplines to make decisions that effect people’s pay or employment status.
Laurie- Can I just get an “amen”??!! You are right on.
First and foremost, let me declare an interest. I studied psychology and later went on to lecture in it. Is it a science? Yes without doubt it is a science in the same way that biology is. The two have much in common. Why did I leave the world of psychology? Because there are only some many ways you can gaze at your navel!
The purveyors of psychometric tests are the soothsayers of modern HR. They cannot and will not cure all ills. They can provide some insight, but only in conjunction with other more intuitive information and decision making processes.
That said using any information to help us understand behaviour, motivation and drive can only be positive. The assertion that work is purely a transfer of money for skills is far too simplistic and if I dare say it somewhat naive. If it were as simple as that, people would leave jobs a lot less often.
@Jason Seiden, I’m not confusing the two, math is in fact a science of numbers. I believe you may confusing science with the scientific method, which is an iterative process for assessing information and building a body of knowledge.
Maybe we should use the term “fact”. Facts are irrefutable, psychological assesments are not.
I had an iterative process once, never been the same since……
@Jason – I think you hit the nail on the head. I double-majored in Psychology & Management for my undergrad degree (Psychology was my primary major – business was an afterthought), and what I learned very quickly is that while Psychology is a true science, its practice is often flawed (which leads people to disagree with it). Those with a poor understanding of the field believe you can use psychological assessments and tests to gauge a person’s future success. Sound bogus to anyone else?
In my opinion, psychological assessments in the hiring process are complete fluff. Anyone who has studied Psychology understands the extreme complexity of diagnosing an individual with a specific personality disorder that has set criteria outlined in the DSM IV – yet so many HR people (who, for some reason, tend to think that they
I don’t think a company should ever use these tests to hire, fire, promote or base performance pay. If a company uses these type indicators, it should be for the benefit of the employee. To show them a way to understand their own behaviors and help them find strategies in dealing with others. It should never be mandatory or mandated as an end all be all or even presented seriously. I like people who have KSA’s that will make them successful at a job because that will help my company make money. i could give a shit if you like dogs or cats or what color your underwear is. The only fit I want is someone who does the work we pay them for.
I’m the type who is totally bugged out by people who write effect when they mean affect.
Just wanted to give the academics a voice and share a highly cited, top-tier academic journal article that discusses the history of organization science, along with its failures and successes over the past half-century: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4035/is_n2_v41/ai_18555960/pg_3/?tag=content;col1 [Porter, L. (1996). Forty years of organization studies: Reflections from a micro perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 262-269.]
Laurie, Thanks for beginning this discussion. You know my position on this. Organizational Science IS a science and CAN contribute to organizational effectiveness. I put up a more detailed response here:
http://jungleblog.foresightint.com/2009/04/14/is-psychology-a-science-yes/
Looking over some of these comments, I am glad to see some disagreement. It looks like a fair number of your readers have some background with psychology and science.
I have also read a few people mention that psychological assessments should not be used for selection decisions. I think that would depend on the assessment. Some personality tests have a mathematical relationship with employee performance; I don’t know about the MBTI. Cognitive ability measures also can be used for personnel selection. In fact, both of these approaches are better predictors of performance than interviews. Sorry guys, the science is in on that point.
By the way, Laurie: We may not agree on this, but I am still a big fan!
I’m currently an HR administrator, but my education and background are in psychology, and I completely agree with you Laurie. It doesn’t belong at work; partly because it’s a soft science, and partly because it’s so wildly misused by most people (in the workplace setting, anyway).
I don’t like the use of things like the MBTI even as a strictly “helpful” tool. Even if it isn’t used for hiring and promotion decisions, you end up with people stereotyping each other (I know, MBTI folks, that’s not how it’s meant to be used – but people do it anyway).
Psychology at work only works if you’re in the interview and have the mindset to go into the worforce. The more app term for work is sociology, where can a person make a difference, can the person coming to a group deter it, or is it the same?
It can be science if everything comes to plan, but the mind does change every day, every hour, every minute. Why you think we need supervisors?
My go-to-guy for guidance in this arena has ALWAYS been Professor Ludwig Von Drake (“People ist people und Kidz ist kidz!”). Thank you, Walt Disney, for putting this all in its proper perspective.
I doubt that much of these tests can be proven to be much more valid than the most recent Cosmo quiz. And don’t we all thend to judge worthiness of these ‘evaluative tools’ on whether they nail OUR personality or not? Talk about subjective….
Even if we assume some objective value of assessment, don’t get me started on whether past behavior is a predictor for future potential! That debate is right in there with whether it’s better to drive to the carwash (since they use recycled water) or wash it on your lawn. (Answers: don’t wash your car or start taking the bus).
SO – unless there’s a REAL answer to all this, let’s all go back to the basic rules of work: show up; do your best; try to get along with others. Ok – try for 2 out of 3…. Don’t spend too much of everyone’s time (and your company’s $$$) in a questionable endeavor. Unless you want to give an attorney some sorely needed cash for advising you on all the ancillary legalities…
@Ken Yes, you sound bitter. You are in the right place.
@Tim it involves actual studies and controlled experiments, not just silly personality quizzes and exercises. But how do you apply your findings in the real world? I think there’s a disconnect at that point.
@Rick I’m happy to kill time and read my horoscope online, but I don’t know if it’s reliable or valid. That’s how I feel about MBTI.
@Renee I think you can argue about the appropriateness of psychology in the workforce as a means to flush out pseudo-science. Is it worthwhile to discover your personality type — even if it’s valid? I say no. Shut up and let’s get back to work.
@Sarah LOL
@HRPuf I like your idea of replacing science with facts. That’s the right way to go.
@Ben Knowing how people behave within the group dynamics of a corporation is extremely valuable information for leading/developing an organization. Is it? I dunno. Maybe. Or is it important to know about markets, economies, products, services? Or all of the above?
@Mike His point was not to use these tests for screening, but more to use as a tool for figuring out what kind of organization you have, and what its tendencies and blind spots are so that leaders can compensate for its weaknesses and capitalize on its strengths. I think a better gauge is your bottom line, your P&L statement, the cost of doing business, etc. Although I don’t know — I’ve never run a company. (Neither have most Industrial/OD psychologists.)
@Karen You know what motivates me? Money. My family. My cats. I’m also not motivated to figure out what motivates my coworkers. Can’t we just do our jobs and go home?
@Jason LOL, I love the decisive nature of this comment! I’m frustrated with broader applications of soft or pseudo-scientific principles, too.
@Darcy I just had to google Physiological Psychology. I knew nothing about it. That is interesting.
@HR Chick You can get a non-religious AMEN from me.
@TheHRD That said using any information to help us understand behaviour, motivation and drive can only be positive. I’m not sure I agree. Maybe it’s just a distraction from actually getting work done? The assertion that work is purely a transfer of money for skills is far too simplistic and if I dare say it somewhat naive. If it were as simple as that, people would leave jobs a lot less often. Maybe we don’t pay enough. Strike the maybe. We don’t. Wages have fallen over the past 25 years. I’d quit, too, if I’m not paid enough AND my boss is a dick.
@Joe Don
I just HAVE to disagree with this. Regardless, thanks for starting this discussion, it’s an important one!
Your post is based on ignorance and a gross misinterpretation of organizational psychology. The fact that you tagged it with Freud and Jung (as opposed to Munsterberg or Lewin or Frederick Taylor) speaks volumes about your knowledge (or lack thereof) on the subject.
While I think your thought process behind the post has merit (it’s clear from some of the follow-up comments), your statements have nothing to do with what *genuine and competent* psychologists do in the workplace.
To the commenters who mentioned it, the MBTI (and related BS) should not be a part of this discussion as most I-O psychologists do not use it in their work and it is not used as an assessment by anyone with any decent training in psychometrics.
Pop psychology and consultants who think they’re qualified to speak on behalf of human behavior incorrectly is the issue at hand. Ugh I could go on and on about this. I’ll save it for my blog, visit me there.
Worth pointing out: Center for Applied Psychological Type (CAPT), the governing body of MBTI qualification, clearly states the Indicator should never be used for personnel decisions of any kind.
@Eva I know a little about this subject because it’s covered in some of my exams to certify for the SPHR. So let me tell you this much: I tagged this blog post with Freud and Jung because of the cartoon. Jung’s work, which derives and evolves from Freud, is what triggered the founders of MBTI. There are no cute cartoons for Deming or other boring psychologists in this field. Now what were you saying? Genuine and competent psychologists in the workplace? I’m still not sure you made a case.
My point was simply that Freud, Jung, and the MBTI have nothing to with psychology at work.
You say… “Keep soft science out of the workforce. I will bring my best to the job, and you can fire me if I don
Okay, I’m gonna take a stab at this, laugh if you will, I have a shrink (hardy har har, no, seriously).
I’m gonna have to say yes and no, with a caveat, because to me what we call psychology seems like common sense.
NO – applying psychology to the decision making process when we’re talking about hiring and firing people isn’t appropriate. From my perspective, arguing psychology when making the case to hire or fire isn’t legally sound and can leave your butt hanging in the wind.
@Eva – I would say that in a case of hiring and firing the bias towards people we like, people like us, or people we know can easily be remedied by taking “the person” (i.e. Fred from my former employer, Jill who went to the same college as me, Herbert who agrees with everything I say) out of it. Can they do the job? Did they violate a policy? Is there a record of discipline or kudos? True – behavior is less tangible than skill, but do we really need to analyze each employee using psychology when we talk about their ability to do their job and play well with others? I realize HR operates in a world of gray, but are those two questions all that mystical? Are they not the measurable statistics we can actually use?
And yes, applying psychology – or common sense as it were – is appropriate when we’re talking about the work environment. Set up the wrong conditions and you’ve got a bunch of pissed off employees handling your product, your customers, your profits. Set up the right conditions and those employees are happy, or at least willing, to handle your product, your customers, and make you profit. But that’s the part that seems like common sense to me.
MBTI and other behavioral exercises can be useful tools, but I don’t believe my job performance and ability should be determined by my proclivity towards becoming a recluse who only exists on Cheetos and beer in my off hours. If I’m on and ready to go when the first employee strolls through the door ready to yell at the first HR person they see about their dental benefits, then why can’t I be a recluse when I’m not at work?
I’m just trying to figure this out y’all…
Jackbuilt
@Eva I blacked out at those psychologists’ names (except for Taylor). You’re right, though. I didn’t study psychology and I have no idea what I am talking about when it comes to organizational theory and management that is rooted in psychology. That’s totally true. I still don’t like it, though. You’re right that MBTI is different than organizational theory and design, but I wonder if math and profit and expense are more accurate ways to measure organizational & employee success?
@Jackbuilt Whoa! You just busted out a blog post on skepticism!
@Rick When I worked at Baskin-Robbins, the whipped cream canisters expressly discouraged using the gas in the canisters for whip-its. I’m just saying that some of my co-workers probably have brain damage.
OK I’m totally bookmarking this post because there are enough misconceptions here to spin off a couple dozen posts on my blog.
The concerns voiced both in the post and comments are fair, but my beef is they are quite inaccurate about what the use of psychological research at work really seeks to accomplish.
@Jackbuilt – if you really get into it, yes it can be quite mystical. The brain is complex, does funny things sometimes, and we can’t just take the person out of the equation and pretend emotion, reasoning, cognition don’t exist and that they don’t exert influence on our behavior and decision-making. That’s how you get in trouble. Legally and otherwise. Psychology is not common sense, and what you’ve defined is considered social skills. (And unfortunately social skills are not common sense either, heh.)
@Laurie – The appropriate metric to use is the one that accurately answers the correct question. Simple, but not easy. And yea, objectivity is the goal and quantitative data is preferable.
Do I really need to weigh in here? I think you know my position. To be fair, though, even as an I/O psychologist I understand where you’re coming from.
Psychology is a soft science in terms of the fact that there is no “blood test” for personality, competence, responsibility, etc. But when constructed correctly, using assessments in the selection/training/development process in combination with good, consistent coaching, there are positive benefits to be had by all.
Considering that so many recruiters only use interviews, which are highly unpredictive of future job performance, then a little soft science can’t hurt anyone. These are not
pop-psychology tests.” Assessments like the CPI 434 have shown strong validity and reliability and are used by some of the most well-respected companies in the US. The assessment must be well-researched and validated for the job itself. When that is done, it is NOT soft science.
The problem is that a lot of good assessments get a bad name because of all of the junk ones out there. There are over 12,000 assessments published in US each year…there are good ones and bad ones.
As far as the MBTI, you have to remember it’s a tool. It’s like buying a gym membership. If you go there once and don’t have someone show you how to use the equipment, then you will get nothing out of it. If you invest time and energy into understanding what it means, and how to better connect with others, then you will see a benefit. It’s only effective when you take the information and DO something about it. Otherwise it’s like a fortune cookie…good to know, but not life-changing.
If you’re someone who has been through a 2 hour MBTI debrief for every employer you’ve had then I totally understand your frustration. No one develops from a one time 2 hour debrief.
I definitely have to take issue with two sentences from your post: “Furthermore, it
PS- I wrote a quick rebuttal…you know I had to!
http://www.thembtiblog.com/2009/04/rebuttal-to-punk-rock-hrs-psychology-of.html
Psychology is the science
Hello Laurie:
“Is psychology a science?”
Yes.
“Does psychology have a role at work?”
Yes.
“Is it appropriate to use psychological information and data in the office to engineer a more efficient work environment?”
Yes, and managers who do not use all the tools available to them are at a huge competitive disadvantage.
The last time I checked the MBTI publisher’s web site the publisher advises that the MBTI should not be used for hiring / selecting employees. If readers are using the MBTI for selection, perhaps they should call the publisher and ask them if they will spend their money to help defend you in court if you are sued by a disgruntled rejected candidate.
The following guide should be read by everyone who uses assessments or is considering using assessments “Testing and Assessment: an Employer’s Guide to Good Practices”, Employment and Training Administration U.S. Department of Labor, 1999. The guide is an excellent resource for assessment users especially in the US. The Guide is designed to provide accurate and important information regarding testing as part of a personnel assessment program.
@Laurie – There seem to be some worrying dark conclusions between what come across as light hearted remarks. “You know what motivates me? Money. My family. My cats. I
Can’t we all just recognize the genius of Dr. Phil, and get along?
I realize that people get very passionate about their chosen fields and their education relating to those fields, but in all honesty there is no 100% right answer or 100% wrong answer when it comes to selection. That being said the most “right” answer is the one that shows the money. Period.
If you have a great assessment out there, show me a dollar to dollar ROI that has been replicated and sustained in at least 10 different organizations and then we’ll talk. Don’t bring bullshit, don’t bring passion, bring money.
@ TheHRD, not to make this already-sprawling thread now political, but calling Thatcher a tyrant is a bit much. And your quote of her is highly misleading. If you read the rest of what she said, you’d be surprised to find she echoed some of the sentiment in the rest of your post:
“I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand”I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!” or”I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation…
…There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.”
“If you have a great assessment out there, show me a dollar to dollar ROI that has been replicated and sustained in at least 10 different organizations and then we
@Eva I’m still not sure psychology is the answer to the question, but I’ll read your blog and look forward to learning more.
@Breanne Awesome. I like to inspire. I also hate the gym. Hate it. I’m not chubby. I’m fine. Quit making me feel a way that I don’t feel to earn money, yo!
(I’m talking about the gym, not MBTI. Or am I?)
@Breanne2 Cool — I’ll go stumble it right now and get you some traffic!
@Psychologyschoolsu Just because you can study it and apply it doesn’t mean it’s a science.
@Bob I love how you get down to brass tacks. Thank you!
@TheHRD Well yes & no re: my lighthearted comments. I think we have an inherent duty to fight mistreatment and nonsense. Is that the role of the company & psychology (which are often linked) or is it a matter of morality and common sense? I think we blow things out of proportion, and make them less accessible, when we create god-like or academic-like attributes to them. Common sense and morality are attainable. Action in the name of justice doesn’t require examination. Human behavior is complex but not indecipherable, right is right, and I work to attain more important things in life — safety, stability, and opportunities to experience art, love, and humanity.
@humanresourcespufnstuf Also bring chocolate and rum.
@Bob I never met an ROI in the human capital space that I could trust. I think those ROIs are obfuscated and meant to deceive.
“… I never met an ROI in the human capital space that I could trust.”
Do you just write these things so you don’t have to respond?
“I think those ROIs are obfuscated and meant to deceive.”
The 1000% ROI came from the end user not the provider. Are you saying that the Executive VP who made the comment does not know how to do an ROI or that he just doesn’t know his business as well as you know his business? Perhaps he is more knowledgeable than you on the ROI of assessments for his business?
@Bob
Do you just write these things so you don
@Bob x2 I forgot to mention that we can’t be informed on every subject matter. That’s why I chose to run this blog like a community forum instead of a newspaper column.
I know I’m going to get some flack for this- but going to school- when the teacher put you sit next to a kid – they didn’t care if you liked them or not and you better not complain: you sat there, did what was asked of you and if you were lucky- you got along with the person working next to you.
What I’m saying is- Laurie may be right- it’s not about being self-centered or not caring- it’s just that we’re all here to do a job and we should do it to the best of our ability because it’s what we signed up for.
I am speaking as someone who is in a totally different field and pretty much just likes to hear myself talk… but I have always mentally lumped psychology together with sciences like toxicology. Certainly you can design a study well and find a result in either field, but there are so many variables that it seems really difficult to turn around and apply that result to any real-life situation (maybe a workplace that varies from the one where the study was done in the first case, or extrapolating the effects of a certain chemical on humans from how many rats out of 100 that it killed at a certain concentration, especially if the chemical occurs in mixtures in real life).
Of course, this is not unique to psychology. I did my graduate work in environmental engineering and was studying the effects of plants and microorganisms (so, all biological systems) on concentrations of hydrocarbons in soil and water. This is messy and hard to tease out (I was also fairly bad at research, which didn’t help… ahem, moving on)–much moreso than the people who were studying, say, a UV water treatment process and whether it would remove a single specified chemical. Just having a biological system makes things way more complicated, and when that system is the human brain, and not even its physiology but the behaviors it governs… well, I’m glad you guys do this work and not me, because I can’t imagine the degree of complexity involved. This doesn’t mean you can’t successfully study psychological phenomena and apply them to the workplace in theory, but it does mean IMO that there is a hugely increased probability that time- and cash-strapped employers looking for shortcuts will use assessment tools improperly, select tools based on gut feelings and a desire to believe that they work rather than on the science, choose assessments that have not really been properly researched, get taken in by commercially developed tools with overly rosy, biased studies associated with them, not understand the difference between an increased probability one way or the other and predicting the behavior of a single individual… and on and on. To the point where as an employee (which is pretty much the standpoint I am making this comment from) I would be extremely leery of an employer who used any type of psychological assessment (other than the interview, I guess… and I probably only look favorably on that because it has worked to my advantage in the past
in the hiring process. I mean, I guess I have to do what they ask, but I am so thankful that no employer so far has given me a personality assessment or other psychological screening that would bear on my getting hired or promoted or a raise or whatever.
I also totally agree with the claim that employers use psychology to motivate their employees to feel guilty and obligated to the company. Not because I’ve ever been privy to any kind of back room meeting where someone has admitted this, but because as an employee I’ve felt like this and I’m sure my employer doesn’t exactly mind having a stable of workers who feel guilty unless they’re working excessive overtime, or feel fortunate that they’re getting paid at all, never mind benefits or a decent wage. In fact, this attitude seems to be epidemic among the American worker. And it may not all be employers/corporations doing the “brainwashing,” but whatever it is, it can’t be coincidental and is certainly more in the interests of management and shareholders than employees.
It is interesting to read the claims of predictiveness of certain assessments, etc. in this comment thread, though. (Surprise, surprise, experts in the field know more about this than I do
. I have learned a lot reading this.
Whew! 45 responses! That’s like 5000 in dog responses, right?
I am glad to see so many different perspectives, even from people that don’t agree with me (how dare you?).
@Laurie You are right, you can not be an expert in everything. None of us can. At some point we have to trust that others may know something that we don’t. When my IT buddies tell me that blocking icanhascheeseburger.com is in my best interest, I have to trust them (though I suspect they simply don’t appreciate English challenged kittens as much as I do). When HR tells me that Peeing in a little cup is for my own good, I again must trust that they know something I don’t. Perhaps when an I/O psychologist tells you that denying your workforce an opportunity to discuss an upcoming rule change is a bad idea, maybe we can trust they know something you don’t. But don’t ever, ever buy anything from an I/O psychologist that can’t be bothered to educate you when you want it… even if they are as charming as I am!
Let’s get back to the LOLs!
What?! Sorry to derail the conversation, but how can it be a good idea to block icanhascheezburger.com? I am very distraught at this news!
Hello spacedcowgirl:
I studied environmental engineering during my Masters program.
“I also totally agree with the claim that employers use psychology to motivate their employees to feel guilty and obligated to the company.”
One of the attitudes that drove me into an MBA program was a comment from older engineers who would say “You’re lucky to have a job so work harder.”
You are correct than many managers use the wrong assessments for the wrong reasons. Look how many times the MBTI is mentioned when preemployment assessments are discussed even though the MBTI is not a preemployment assessment. Perhaps too few people know what a atate-of-the-art preemployment assessment looks like.
“And it may not all be employers/corporations doing the
Hi Laurie:
“Since I set the agenda on Punk Rock HR, I respond accordingly and with an eye to a greater point: ROI or not, assessment tools (and psychology at work) strike me as disingenuous and irresponsible.”
And to those of use that do not share your bias against assessments the tools are ingenuous and very responsible.
“There are a tremendous number of reasons why employers make investment decisions, and many of those reasons have nothing to do with the bottom line, profitability, or facts.”
Therefore no one can make a decision based on the ROI of an assessment process? That will come as surprise to managers who make those decisions.
“Sometimes decisions are made to use tools
I don’t disagree with anything you said, but I still think that the widespread attitude among workers that they are lucky to have a job and should be almost proud of not fighting for decent wages or benefits–regardless of the actual cause of this attitude–is probably not something that is exactly upsetting to management or shareholders. The less they have to deal with unions or workers who think they deserve better than what they have, the fewer the headaches and the higher the profits. (In theory.)
And I agree, the mindset of many engineers sucks. Probably me included.
@Karen No flack. You are right.
@spacedcowgirl Let me predict this: you are awesome. Oh wait, that’s already confirmed. No assessment needed.
@guajardoforesight Your IT rep is a liar and a fool. Cheezburgers shouldn’t be blocked.
@BobG I’m a Human Resources Generalist. Have you read anything else on this blog? I have opinions and I’m an expert in just about everything.
@spacedcowgirl Shush now, your insights are excellent and your engineering skills are mad-crazy-great. That was a really great comment about assessments and employment. If I were in HR, I’d recruit you for a rotational assignment in my department!
Thank you. I am seriously really, really flattered by your (way too kind) statements about me. Made my day.
Actually, based on Bob’s most recent comment, I’m going to change my vote and come down in favor of assessments, because I am far from a good talker and the less face-to-face interviewing I have to do, the better!
I totally agree! And I love your blog 8-).
I don’t disagree with anything you said, but I still think that the widespread attitude among workers that they are lucky to have a job and should be almost proud of your thoughts.