04/05/2023
Let's compare two scenarios: an assessment centre with and without psychometrics
If we do not include psychometrics in the assessment procedure, interviews and business cases show us the level of skills: we see the person's strengths - those competencies that make him or her successful at work. We also see competences that are not yet sufficiently developed: either the range of tools within the skill is incomplete, or the person does not in principle exhibit the desired behaviour. As a rule, we call these areas development zones.
In other words, the business case shows a person's performance in a specific work situation. It cannot show aptitudes and potential.
Now let's see what kind of data we add to a person's information if we include psychometrics into the assessment: the participant takes the questionnaire, we get their profile, that is, their level of potential in terms of competency development. Comparing the results between skills and potential gives a broader picture.
There are two more aspects: a limitation and an area of focus which we call 'life has forced'.
If an employee in a competency gets high scores on skills and potential, that competency is his or her strength.
Low scores on skills and potential indicate that this competence is a limitation of the employee. Anyone has them, but it is important to be aware of them in order to share work or ask for help from colleagues. It is important to separate limitations from areas of development, as this allows you to focus effort and investment on those areas that the person can actually develop. Theoretically, limitations can also be worked with, but this requires much more resources and is unlikely to be enjoyed by the individual.
If an employee has demonstrated an interest in something, but their skill in that area has received low marks, we highlight a development zone: there is the inclination to show action, but it has not yet been formed to the skill level. With purposeful work in 1.5-2 years, this competence can turn out to be in strengths.
There are situations where the skill has been developed, but the propensity to act is not. Take for example public speaking. Often people have to learn this skill because of their work and status and they spend a lot of time and effort on it. People around them are unlikely to notice that public speaking is difficult for a person because they are perfectly capable of doing it. Why would such a situation be an area of heightened attention for us: under normal circumstances, the person will exhibit this skill, but we cannot guarantee it in a situation of stress or force majeure. Suppose a factory director regularly gives inspirational speeches to workers, but in the case of a strike, when conditions are stressful, he may not be ready to speak β because of low capacity affects.
In this way, psychometrics gives a more dimensional view of the person. We are often used to thinking of candidates and employees in terms of their strengths and weaknesses, but it is important to understand which skills investments in development will have the maximum effect (i.e. separate development zones from limitations), and to know the risks of already developed competences (i.e. areas of focus).