Why would anyone need to correct a correlation? Correlations typically don’t run afoul of the law and certainly no correlation has ever been accused of committing a felony. Now it is true that some correlations are so trivial as to be misdemeanors, but certainly they aren’t deserving of correction either.
The only legitimate reason to correct a correlation might be prior miscalculation, in which case the numbers simply should be run again. But what justification could there possibly be for taking correlations that are at worst misdemeanors and pumping them up to look like relationships on steroids? If the correlation is non-existent or trivial to begin with, why not just admit it?
An unfortunate example of ruthlessly corrected correlations occurs in the Technical Manual for a recently released assessment of “Talent”. The report of the validity correlations for the twelve scales on the Talent measure reveals that only four of these twelve scales reach a correlation of .10 or greater with supervisor ratings of talent behaviors. The table reports that correlations of .10 or greater are significant at or beyond the .05 level of significance. Yet after not one, not two, but three different corrections, nine of the twelve scales exhibit significant correlations with supervisor ratings. Most miraculous of all is the way in which the five insignificant correlations below .10 became significant relationships.
If there really were a Psychometric Department of Corrections, it should be the correlation correctors, not the correlations themselves, that should be targeted for correction! Taking an already significant correlation and pumping it up on steroids should be a misdemeanor, but somehow pulling an insignificant correlation out of the hat and employing three corrections to make it significant clearly should be a psychometric felony.
by Leslie H. Krieger, Ph.D, SPHR, President of ATG
Friday, August 14, 2009
Jargon Jousting - Valid Assessment
VALID ASSESSMENT
Assessments can and should be key elements in such talent management processes as selection, promotion, and development. And choosing the correct assessment is critical for the success and the legality of these processes. A quick internet search or reviews of assessment publisher catalogues yields a bewildering assortment of assessments and equally bewildering claims about their suitability. Perhaps the most problematic of these claims is the pronouncement that a particular assessment is a “valid assessment”. Even more questionable is the claim that a particular assessment has been declared valid by the EEOC or other governmental entity.
Let’s start with the fact that there is no such thing as a “valid assessment”! Validity is not a property of an assessment; validity is a property of the relationship between an assessment and its use in a particular situation with an identified population. Repeated demonstrations of validity do not result in an assessment being valid; each demonstration is unique and must be made in compliance with established professional psychometric and legal guidelines. All that can be said about an assessment that has repeatedly demonstrated validity, is that the assessment has a history of demonstrating validity under certain known conditions.
As for the EEOC or other government entities, none of these organizations are in the business of declaring an assessment “valid” or “invalid”. They know better! What they can and will declare is the finding that a particular assessment has either demonstrated validity or failed to demonstrate validity in a particular situation with an identified population. They also may determine that the use of a particular assessment in a specific situation is not justified by business necessity or that the assessment disadvantages protected classes within the population from which applicants typically are or should be drawn.
So buyer beware. The claim that an assessment is a “valid assessment” is a guarantee that it is not!
by Leslie H. Krieger, Ph. D, SPHR, President of ATG
Assessments can and should be key elements in such talent management processes as selection, promotion, and development. And choosing the correct assessment is critical for the success and the legality of these processes. A quick internet search or reviews of assessment publisher catalogues yields a bewildering assortment of assessments and equally bewildering claims about their suitability. Perhaps the most problematic of these claims is the pronouncement that a particular assessment is a “valid assessment”. Even more questionable is the claim that a particular assessment has been declared valid by the EEOC or other governmental entity.
Let’s start with the fact that there is no such thing as a “valid assessment”! Validity is not a property of an assessment; validity is a property of the relationship between an assessment and its use in a particular situation with an identified population. Repeated demonstrations of validity do not result in an assessment being valid; each demonstration is unique and must be made in compliance with established professional psychometric and legal guidelines. All that can be said about an assessment that has repeatedly demonstrated validity, is that the assessment has a history of demonstrating validity under certain known conditions.
As for the EEOC or other government entities, none of these organizations are in the business of declaring an assessment “valid” or “invalid”. They know better! What they can and will declare is the finding that a particular assessment has either demonstrated validity or failed to demonstrate validity in a particular situation with an identified population. They also may determine that the use of a particular assessment in a specific situation is not justified by business necessity or that the assessment disadvantages protected classes within the population from which applicants typically are or should be drawn.
So buyer beware. The claim that an assessment is a “valid assessment” is a guarantee that it is not!
by Leslie H. Krieger, Ph. D, SPHR, President of ATG
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Jargon Jousting - Irregular Ramblings on the Bizareness of Business Buzzwords
Next Generation Leadership
This week members of the local OD (Organization Development) Network are meeting to talk about “Next Generation Leadership”. But does anyone really know what next generation leadership is? The OD Network members may find themselves the members of the Over Dose Network as they try to parse the ambiguity of this phrase.
Does it mean organizations should be led by those who currently are the followers, a situation where the inmates run the asylum? Or could it mean that each generation requires it’s own leadership, a situation in which several age-linked cadres of leaders compete for ultimate control? Hopefully neither of the above absurdities is the real intent of this phrase. A look at some relevant research may be helpful.
In 1996 the founding event of ATG’s Futures Leaders capability was a gathering of educational leaders from all over the United States who were brought together to create a model of “The 21st Century Educational Leader”. This model became the driver for the preparation, selection and development of community college leaders across the country. Now, thirteen years later, these leaders are at the forefront of the reinvention of the community college and the evolution of many of these colleges into four year degree granting institutions. With thirteen years or two thirds of a generation elapsed since the creation of this highly impactful leadership model, is it really time to consider “next generation leadership”?
Is the effectiveness of leadership really determined by generations? Was leadership in the 1960’s actually very different from leadership in the 1980’s? Will leadership in 2020 be different from leadership today. Even if the answer is “Yes”, that answer doesn’t necessarily make leadership generational. It could just as likely be situational or inspirational.
If leadership truly were generational, than each leadership cadre would operate differently from the one before, creating constant chaos and instability in our organizations. Perhaps that’s what’s actually happening in many of today’s organizations, although the bet would be that they suffer from too little leadership rather than from too much. Either way, endless waves of change aren’t necessarily by themselves beneficial.
But defining next generation leadership ultimately may be a fruitless exercise since data from organizations as diverse as the Center for Creative Leadership, the Society of Association Executives, and ATG’s FuturesLeaders suggest that next generation leadership may prove to be a null set. These data point to the paucity of people prepared to take on the leadership roles of the future. And as if to insure this nullness, many of our largest organizations have used the recent economic downturn as an excuse to ditch whatever leadership development resources they might have had.
So when it comes to next generation leadership we have seen the enemy and they are us. Talent management professionals including those in organization development have failed miserably to make the business case even for leadership replacement planning. And forget about getting ahead of the need for leadership curve. The only useful response to the next generation leadership problem can be found in a paraphrase from the Jewish Rabbinic literature: “In a place where there are no leaders, you must strive to become one!”
by Dr. Leslie H. Krieger, Ph.D, SPHR, President of ATG
This week members of the local OD (Organization Development) Network are meeting to talk about “Next Generation Leadership”. But does anyone really know what next generation leadership is? The OD Network members may find themselves the members of the Over Dose Network as they try to parse the ambiguity of this phrase.
Does it mean organizations should be led by those who currently are the followers, a situation where the inmates run the asylum? Or could it mean that each generation requires it’s own leadership, a situation in which several age-linked cadres of leaders compete for ultimate control? Hopefully neither of the above absurdities is the real intent of this phrase. A look at some relevant research may be helpful.
In 1996 the founding event of ATG’s Futures Leaders capability was a gathering of educational leaders from all over the United States who were brought together to create a model of “The 21st Century Educational Leader”. This model became the driver for the preparation, selection and development of community college leaders across the country. Now, thirteen years later, these leaders are at the forefront of the reinvention of the community college and the evolution of many of these colleges into four year degree granting institutions. With thirteen years or two thirds of a generation elapsed since the creation of this highly impactful leadership model, is it really time to consider “next generation leadership”?
Is the effectiveness of leadership really determined by generations? Was leadership in the 1960’s actually very different from leadership in the 1980’s? Will leadership in 2020 be different from leadership today. Even if the answer is “Yes”, that answer doesn’t necessarily make leadership generational. It could just as likely be situational or inspirational.
If leadership truly were generational, than each leadership cadre would operate differently from the one before, creating constant chaos and instability in our organizations. Perhaps that’s what’s actually happening in many of today’s organizations, although the bet would be that they suffer from too little leadership rather than from too much. Either way, endless waves of change aren’t necessarily by themselves beneficial.
But defining next generation leadership ultimately may be a fruitless exercise since data from organizations as diverse as the Center for Creative Leadership, the Society of Association Executives, and ATG’s FuturesLeaders suggest that next generation leadership may prove to be a null set. These data point to the paucity of people prepared to take on the leadership roles of the future. And as if to insure this nullness, many of our largest organizations have used the recent economic downturn as an excuse to ditch whatever leadership development resources they might have had.
So when it comes to next generation leadership we have seen the enemy and they are us. Talent management professionals including those in organization development have failed miserably to make the business case even for leadership replacement planning. And forget about getting ahead of the need for leadership curve. The only useful response to the next generation leadership problem can be found in a paraphrase from the Jewish Rabbinic literature: “In a place where there are no leaders, you must strive to become one!”
by Dr. Leslie H. Krieger, Ph.D, SPHR, President of ATG
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Developing Candidates Before They Apply
Have you ever said to yourself (or to anyone else, for that matter), “These fresh-out-of-school grads understand collections, but they just don’t have what it takes to do it”? Organizations across the board have complained for years that recent graduates have basic job skills and specialized knowledge, but they are lacking “soft skills,” i.e., the ability to get along with others, to handle stress, to keep themselves organized, etc. Wouldn’t it be great if you knew ahead of time that your collectors were trained in both aspects of the job? Through a partnership between your agency, ATG’s FuturesLeaders division, and your local community college, you can do just that.
Candidate Development
Many community colleges offer courses in collections to train students in the technical skills they need to be successful collectors; others would be willing to offer such courses if employers (i.e., your agency) expressed enough demand. This college preparation takes away some of the training time and headaches you undoubtedly experience with brand new collectors. But that’s only half of it…colleges don’t usually teach their students how to be socially assertive, outgoing, or confident.
To remedy this problem, some colleges are offering to their students the opportunity to compare themselves to the job models of their desired positions. For instance, students in enrolling in collection courses can be compared to the job model of a successful collector (i.e., ATG’s “Collector Selector”). This initial comparison allows students to identify where they are currently the strongest and where they still need some work…before they ever set foot in your agency! Once they have this information, they can work with instructors, supervisors, and/or mentors to help them develop the “soft skills” they need to be successful collectors.
Benefits
Agency. Your agency’s candidate pool becomes much deeper and richer with people who have prepared themselves for the collector position. You now have a group of people at your fingertips with the degrees, collector training, and people skills necessary to be successful in the collector position. All you have to do is decide who is the “best of the best”…not a bad place to be!
Students/Candidates. Students who wish to enter the collection business can also benefit from the development and training process. Essentially, they have a sneak peak into what agencies are looking for in their collectors and can work to meet those needs! By understanding what agencies want, the uncertainty and anxiety around whether they may be a good fit is eliminated.
The gap between classroom training and agency needs does not need to exist. By allowing students to understand what agencies need, they can eliminate these gaps to be successful collectors.
by Christina Adkins, Ph.D, ATG Organizational Consultant
Candidate Development
Many community colleges offer courses in collections to train students in the technical skills they need to be successful collectors; others would be willing to offer such courses if employers (i.e., your agency) expressed enough demand. This college preparation takes away some of the training time and headaches you undoubtedly experience with brand new collectors. But that’s only half of it…colleges don’t usually teach their students how to be socially assertive, outgoing, or confident.
To remedy this problem, some colleges are offering to their students the opportunity to compare themselves to the job models of their desired positions. For instance, students in enrolling in collection courses can be compared to the job model of a successful collector (i.e., ATG’s “Collector Selector”). This initial comparison allows students to identify where they are currently the strongest and where they still need some work…before they ever set foot in your agency! Once they have this information, they can work with instructors, supervisors, and/or mentors to help them develop the “soft skills” they need to be successful collectors.
Benefits
Agency. Your agency’s candidate pool becomes much deeper and richer with people who have prepared themselves for the collector position. You now have a group of people at your fingertips with the degrees, collector training, and people skills necessary to be successful in the collector position. All you have to do is decide who is the “best of the best”…not a bad place to be!
Students/Candidates. Students who wish to enter the collection business can also benefit from the development and training process. Essentially, they have a sneak peak into what agencies are looking for in their collectors and can work to meet those needs! By understanding what agencies want, the uncertainty and anxiety around whether they may be a good fit is eliminated.
The gap between classroom training and agency needs does not need to exist. By allowing students to understand what agencies need, they can eliminate these gaps to be successful collectors.
by Christina Adkins, Ph.D, ATG Organizational Consultant
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
