"The Predictive Index Behavioral Assessment is quick (it takes less than 6 minutes to complete) and easy to analyze. Administer assessments, review results, conduct behavioral job analysis, fit-gap analysis, and look at the collective behavioral patterns for groups or teams on any device"
As
I have concerns about anything "predictive" used in the employment (legal) world. The use of predictive analysis as a selection/evaluation tool can open up a can of worms. Discrimination lawsuits are not far behind and the need to reveal and dissect the blackbox will be inevitable.
Predictive analytics has it's values and uses within the company. Customer behaviour is a different animal from employee (prospective/current) behaviour. It is not adequate/perfect enough that you can get sued.
2
Hi Emerson,
If you're able to tie the prediction to job results you're fine. Would be happy to hear some examples of discrimination cases that support your claim.
As for predictive analytics, is predicting customer behavior different from predicting employee behavior? In both cases, aren't they both people?
In terms of "revealing and dissecting the black box," in my opinion that's completely silly. Do you ask Google to reveal their algorithms? How about the credit scoring companies - call them up and ask how they got your credit score? Point is, that's absurd. No one is going to force a company to show its proprietary algorithms.
It's important to be well informed and not be scared about predictive analytics. Unless you have hard evidence the company you're considering has been sued for discrimination, keep an open mind.
Mike,
I just did a cursory google search and I found this... http://www.wsj.com/articles/are-workplace-personality-tests-fair-1412044257 Take it as you will but I do not think I am alone with the apprehension and line of thinking.
"If you're able to tie the prediction to job results you're fine."... what if predictions are not? Say, you hired an employee (from several applicants) based on the analytics and the hire did NOT turn out so well. What happens to the employees the were evaluated with the algorithm at time of hiring? Heck, even a nuisance lawsuit claiming say "racial" discrimination will force the company to disclose the algorithm. Also, how are scores assigned? are there racial or disability aspects to the assignment? These are questions that open up the company/algorithm to scrutiny. And in the above article, it seems that the EEOC is also concerned.
"As for predictive analytics, is predicting customer behavior different from predicting employee behavior? ".... YES they are different. the existence of labor and discrimination laws will attest to that.
Your argument about Google is not even relevant as google results searches are not subject to employment and discrimination laws. Credit score? Are you even aware of the pressure on scoring companies to reveal their algorithms? Much less existing lawsuits? http://www.lieffcabraser.com/Case-Center/Inaccurate-Credit-Reporting-Class-Action-Lawsuit.shtml You would be intellectually dishonest if you are not even intrigued or want to know how the heck credit scoring companies arrived at your credit score.
Even eHarmony has experienced this... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/science/skepticism-as-eharmony-defends-its-matchmaking-algorithm.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Let me be clear. I am NOT closed minded on "predictive" analytics. I do question it's application to certain aspects of the business that existing laws affects. Once it is applied to hiring decisions, evaluation, promotion, payroll increases, etc. you will bump into existing laws. And transparency is key. And even if (for the sake of argument) there are NO laws affecting it, it should be
I understand you are an evangelist for "analytics" but I do NOT think my concerns are as you say..."silly". I just think that predictive analytics is not mature or proven enough to be applied in certain aspects of the business.
In these cases, there are liability and compliance risks.
Here's my personal experience.
PI assessments have been in existence for decades. I went thru them in 1987 when I was interviewed by multinational company, and I found them very helpful to myself as a candidate. But in the USA people seem phobic about aspects of an interview that aim to evaluate their interpersonal skills and style of communication etc.
Handled well, these assessments help both employer and candidate find the right fit, that's all.
Many people think they are a pass/fail test. They are not. Example: if your PI score shows you are an introvert who dislikes unstructured conversation and is more a back office worker than a gregarious extrovert, you may be a bad fit for a job in sales but a great fit in engineering design.
What do folk feel about the Myers Briggs assessment? It's another tool like PI and it can help in much the same way.
4
I find them all hocus pocus, pop psychology; even if they've been around for a long time.
They like statistics can be interpreted anyway they wish. In the final analysis they are a waste of time. They are profiling and as a society for good or bad we have said its bad, and in some respects like employment "tests" they have no value.
I go so far as a) refusing to take them and b) disassociating myself from the companies that give them, either as a potential candidate or a customer.
Personality assessments are one thing. But once you tack on the word "predictive" in the nomenclature/process, it becomes a different animal. And that is my main issue with it.
I still have to find a job description that says....."ENTJs only" or "80% or higher PI score".
In our current environment where candidates and employees clamor for more transparency on how they are evaluated, a blackbox/algorithm is counterproductive.
As you said PI has been around for decades. Neither PI nor MB tie to job performance. You're able to learn about personality - but so what if you have to replace the candidate in 3 months? It doesn't serve the business.
Secondly, it's a misnomer that it's called "predictive" as it's not. What does it predict? It does what thousands of other assessments do, tell you a bit about a candidate's personality. Then it collects dust in a manager's drawer. Useless.
Look for something that is actually based on predictive analytics and ties directly to job performance - stay away from Predictive Index.
At the multi-national where I first encountered it, 100% of all hires did the assessment... CEO, secretary/admin assistant, sales person,
We knew how to incorporate the tool in our interview assessment.
It's worth a try to experience it...it won't bite, but it may well inform:)
We use Predictive Index as a tool to help understand staff's inherent work motivations, that enables managers to better manage their departments. It is not a key component of hiring, just one of the components of the decision.
We have found it extremely valuable in understanding why someone gets work done the way they do, and what situations allow them to be most productive.
Len Green described it accurately in his post - it helps a manager to understand why that employee who dislikes unstructured conversation is less productive in a sales role, and more productive in an engineering role.
For example, it provides information about how much detail an employee is comfortable with, and how much multi-tasking/interruptions an employee is comfortable with - you might adjust your delegation methods to best fit your direct report if you are aware of these things.
1
And you make these decisions based on a 6-10 minute test? Do you give this test to everyone including the CEO?
I have taken the PI in the past, as well as used it for hiring. As stated above, it assists in determining how a candidate will fit within a team. It should not be uses as a hire/fire decision, however, it does identify strengths and weaknesses, and can supplement the interview process. I had used it to mentor an analyst, when I brought him on board, and he excelled in his position.
