Talking Psychometric Assessment | Peter Rhodes

1 - > Welcome to Leadership Bites with myself, your host Guy Bloom. This is a leadership podcast 2 - > where I have conversations with colleagues, I chat with guests and sometimes they'll be 3 - > just me talking. You can connect with me at livingbrave.com and when you enjoy the episode, 4 - > subscribe and please tell everyone.

Peter, lovely to have you on this episode of the Leadership 5 - > Bytes podcast. Welcome. Thanks for inviting me. And I, of course, know who you are because 6 - > we have known each other for some time.

But for those people that don't know who Peter 7 - > is, it would be great just to get a little introduction that kind of just gives a sense of who you 8 - > are and what you focus on. OK, I'm an occupational psychologist. I've been in business since the 9 - > late 80s, although before that I was in academic life working across three universities, working 10 - > my way back down south actually from Edinburgh down to London. So I eight years in academic 11 - > life, which actually was no bad thing.

It stood me in very good stead, it kept me, made me 12 - > immerse myself in the literature and in fact since that gave me a taste for the academic 13 - > life I've carried on writing for Oxford University Press, Weidenfeld. Orion and more currently 14 - > Routledge. So I keep myself informed and ensure I marinate in the literature constantly. But 15 - > my day job is essentially generating reports for key appointments and that ranges across 16 - > sectors, public sector, private sector, industry, pharmacy, retail.

So I think we met initially 17 - > in a kind of quasi retail setting. also I have to confess, I have skin in this game because 18 - > as part of this journey I've been on, I set up a publishing company in the early 90s which 19 - > produces its own psychological tests and distribute them online. So we do a lot of assessment of 20 - > pilots online. what else?

We've branched into, well for many years, assessment centers running 21 - > assessments that involve more than psychological tests. They involve doing simulations, role 22 - > plays. one-to-one interviews, ability tests, and putting all that information together and 23 - > trying to produce a kind of holistic report of an individual and their suitability for 24 - > a key appointment. So our focus is essentially on key appointments.

yeah. Okay. So if we 25 - > talk about my world, which is leadership development and working with executives at that level, 26 - > What is it that somebody who is looking at senior hires, what is it that they might get from 27 - > a psychometric profile that if they don't already know, what might that give them that they think, 28 - > well, I'll interview them, I'll look at their CV, what's a psychometric profile going to 29 - > give me? If they just are on the outside looking in, what would you tell them?

I always think 30 - > that what a psychological test does is it fast tracks an interview. You're starting the interview 31 - > at a very different place, a very different point than you might otherwise done if they 32 - > just walked through the door because they've already told you quite a lot about themselves. 33 - > know, the personality test has asked them a bunch of questions about themselves. which 34 - > they may or may not have answered truthfully, but that's part of what you're interviewing 35 - > them for, is to try and corroborate that data.

So we're starting at a different place, and 36 - > what the test should do, or certainly the report will do, is offer up probe areas, areas where 37 - > you as an employer would need more reassurance. If they've described themselves as deeply insensitive, 38 - > then you might want some... assurance that they are able at times to pick up on other people's 39 - > feelings and factor them into their thinking and decision making. So it's a catalyst, it's 40 - > a catalyst with insight, would that be fair?

It's not doing the work for you. There was 41 - > a famous journalist called John Pilger and he describes how he'd spent hours and hours and 42 - > hours talking to people. and it felt extremely privileged at the end of that process. I always 43 - > feel, when I heard him talking about it, I felt the same.

I feel extremely privileged 44 - > if I have someone's profile in front of me, that they have taken the time and trouble to 45 - > tell themselves quite a lot about themselves and gone into areas that are actually an ordinary 46 - > conversation, quite difficult to question directly. I mean, that's one of the benefits of a personality 47 - > test in particular is that it are sorts of in-person questions that we wouldn't otherwise ask people. 48 - > So for some people, they really might not know the difference between the different versions 49 - > of a psychometric profile.

For some, it might be a catch-all phrase. So if we were going 50 - > to, say, trait and type, if we were going to talk about the big five, for some people, they 51 - > won't know anything about that. They'll have done something that is a... part of a training 52 - > program that would, and they might think it's actually quite a lighter intervention.

So 53 - > I think I'd almost like that sense from you as if to the layman or somebody that didn't 54 - > know the difference, one is preference, one is assessment, just give that depth as to what 55 - > the differences are. I read quite a good description of the Big Five recently that it's like if 56 - > you're in a spaceship, looking down on the planet, you see the big five continents. 57 - > But obviously if you're on earth, you want to know what country you're in. So it's like 58 - > taking the big five and taking a hammer to them.

And you get out these much more interesting, 59 - > more specific traits, which are worth measuring separately because they are to some extent 60 - > independent of each other. But at all time, mean, the thing I must stress, Guy, is that 61 - > I always treat personality data as tentative and problematic and inferential and above all 62 - > in dire need of corroboration. So I think if you adopt that approach a lot of the problems 63 - > about faking go away because you assume that it's all problematic.

You know a lot of test 64 - > publishers assume that these pesky test takers try and sabotage the process by lying and faking. 65 - > Well I think If you just assume it's all problematic and it's all likely to be prone to some sort 66 - > of distortion, then that problem goes away because you just assume that all of it needs corroborating. 67 - > And what I mean by that is it needs picking up an interview and pushing and probing and 68 - > exploring and trying to corroborate.

So I always say it's about taking inferences that come 69 - > from people's responses and corroborating them. refining them or indeed of course rejecting 70 - > them. So that means for some people it's not let's get a psychometric profile that will 71 - > do the work for us that will tell us what we need to know because that is a conversation 72 - > I have sometimes with people where they go well right we need to do a psychometric profile 73 - > and my position and I think I'm hearing it in what you say and I'd like you to calibrate 74 - > my thinking is No, it's a start of a conversation.

The individual will offer themselves to you 75 - > through the profile. And there'll be things in there that even if they feel like a connection 76 - > or they feel like a disconnection, that's a start of a conversation. Because if somebody 77 - > says, for example, that their agreeableness, well, they're not using that vocabulary, but 78 - > if there's a score that's high or low, that might be their innate trait. But in truth, 79 - > if they have a coping mechanism for dealing with it, they could actually have a very high 80 - > skill in that area.

Is that fair? Have I said that correctly? That's also, of course, one 81 - > of the limitations is people's self-awareness. know, in reality, we are not always particularly 82 - > self-aware, particularly in terms of where we are relative to other people.

I think that's 83 - > one of the main payoffs. of a psychometric test is that gives you a feel for where people stand 84 - > relative to others. Because I think we don't have a sense often of, know, I might feel 85 - > I'm persuasive, but I have no idea how much more persuasive other people are. And I think 86 - > that's one of the, I mean, because one of great critiques of personality testing is that it's 87 - > an enormous contric.

You know, that I ask you a bunch of questions about yourself. you fill 88 - > in the thing, I then tell you what you told me. And often, more often than not, people 89 - > are amazed that I know all this about you. But you told it.

Even though... What ice cream 90 - > do you like? I extremely able people. mean, I've had the chief fire officer of a huge fire 91 - > service saying, Peter, I don't know how you know all this about me.

And I didn't have the 92 - > heart to say, you told me. Yes. What ice cream do you like? Rum and raisin.

How does it know? 93 - > Well, you told it. But having said that, there is more to it because obviously we take 94 - > that as a start point for having a discussion and relating those traits to the job demands. 95 - > Well, there is a validity question with testing that if we looked at trait type, if we looked 96 - > at what some of the...

And I have my own psychometric profile, but I would never say that it has 97 - > psychometric validity. I would say actually... Well, very few of them do. Right.

And that's 98 - > a huge problem for the industry. Yes. And it hasn't progressed much since the 1920s in being 99 - > able to establish clear... In fact, there's this famous test that was done with the guy 100 - > that bent the spoons.

was his name? Uri Galla. Uri Galla, yeah. If anyone could...

prove that 101 - > he could do it. That's right. Or they could do it. They got a million.

A million. And 102 - > then that was extended to psychometric tests. If anyone could prove that a psychometric test 103 - > could demonstrably improve the predictive validity of selection processes, they got a million. 104 - > I mean, that million still stands.

Right. I mean, the criteria, I have to say, in fairness 105 - > to the publishers, the criteria. for establishing the predictability were quite tough. know, 106 - > there had to be a reasonable sample size.

You couldn't use the test data at selection. So 107 - > the test data had to kept and stored for a later date. And you had to have a clear sense of 108 - > what the base rate was. know, was the proportion of selecting applicants who failed.

Yes. and 109 - > whether you can improve on that. And you had to have clear performance indicators to demonstrate 110 - > there'd been some improvement. And a lot of problems with the whole validity is that the 111 - > irony being that test publishers criticize recruitment processes for resting on subjective processes 112 - > like interviews.

But of course the reality is that a lot of the validity the collection 113 - > of validity data uses subjective outcomes like supervisor ratings, management ratings, which 114 - > are hugely problematic. So that's the irony, that's the paradox. You're looking at objective 115 - > processes to predict subjective outcomes. So when somebody is, when people invest, I think 116 - > there's a difference between the tools that, I mean, you certified me for level AB when 117 - > it came to psychometric testing, what feels like a hundred years ago.

So, and if I look 118 - > at something like your 16 PFs and those kinds of profiles, to me, there's a real sense that 119 - > they are really saying, this is who you are as you tell us who you are, but this is who 120 - > you're offering yourself to be. And in reality, if that is true, and you aren't trying to kind 121 - > of buck the system, you can take this test multiple times and in reality, it would come out the 122 - > same. Is that true? something more like your Myers-Briggs or some of the kind of the preference 123 - > type tools, why would somebody go, those tools you can use for development but not for assessment.

124 - > What makes something valid for assessment rather than you might just say within a development 125 - > program. the multi-trade tests I think are as if not more useful in development settings 126 - > as the things like the Myers-Briggs which are you know they get people talking. mean the 127 - > Myers-Briggs is and similar tests like the colour one, Insights, is permission to talk. So it 128 - > gets people talking about themselves in a safe way because there are guardrails around those 129 - > concepts.

You can't start having to go at each other because there are very clear limits to 130 - > those concepts. I think the key thing is, I'm going back to my point about corroboration, 131 - > is that these things need corroborating. And the problem is that people often lack self-awareness 132 - > in the notion of what is typical of their behaviour. Because personality questionnaires ask you 133 - > about what is typically the case.

Yes. You know. So it requires a robust process to go with 134 - > it. It's not get them to fill out a...

psychometric and then we'll read it and that'll tell us 135 - > everything we need to know. No, it's do the psychometric test and then have a conversation 136 - > with the individual to corroborate or even to get some clarity about the position in relation 137 - > to it and then we will have the evidence to make a decision. when you've been involved 138 - > in, well actually I'd like you to just talk for a few minutes about some of the roles that 139 - > you've been called in to, which have required the level that you're operating at from either 140 - > with the airlines or with racing teams or when there's been disaster management and cultural 141 - > shift.

I'd just like to hear how what it is that you do has been called upon because I 142 - > think that really would give it a sense of context as well. The biggest compliment I ever got 143 - > was from Ofsted where we went into a county council after it had been taken into special 144 - > measures and Ofsted said, and we did some very, very depth assessments of the senior managers 145 - > and which included personal disability tests, some simulations and... scenarios and so on. 146 - > And also said whatever happened at this authority should be bottled because it had made such 147 - > a difference to the performance of the authority.

Similarly, I spent a few years following 148 - > the Grenfell tragedy going through the invitation of the chief exec there. I spent ages. week 149 - > in week out going through the management tiers, the management team from director level right 150 - > down to the people on the front line and then it went beyond housing into other areas of 151 - > the authority and that was all in order to make a very profound change to the culture of the 152 - > authority and make it much more...

There's assessment. Is that assessment centers? Is that the profiling? 153 - > that what is this process?

With Grenfell, it was just purely a personality questionnaire 154 - > followed by an interview. And it's the same with I've been working with an airline and 155 - > they're the same process. do a personality questionnaire, which, as I say, I always take as inferential, 156 - > tentative, problematic and in dire need of corroboration. and I spend an hour and a half pushing, pushing 157 - > those scores and finding out what's real about the way they've described themselves and what's 158 - > patently not real.

So somebody does the assessment, they then sit with you, they have a conversation 159 - > with you, which is to almost do a diagnostic on the report and go, what rings true, what 160 - > under pressure may not stand up to muster or whatever. So you refine, corroborate. or reject 161 - > the hypothesis. And then are you writing a report?

Subsequent. Yes. So there's a do the test, 162 - > have a conversation, here's a report and that becomes something then for the line manager 163 - > or as part of a kind of a cultural shift, it's giving me an image of the individual, but then 164 - > a collective picture. Yeah.

And some more, I mean, I always offer up areas where more reassurance 165 - > is required. And in fact, probably about 90 % of the time, the reality is that I don't 166 - > do the interviewing. So I do with the pilots and in other scenarios. But a lot of the time, 167 - > what I am left with is the fact that I have to give the recruiting managers the questions 168 - > I would have asked if I'd been locked in a room with these people.

I wouldn't have let them 169 - > out until they'd given me evidence on these issues. So I put the onus on the recruiting 170 - > manager to corroborate what's come out of their responses. So if we looked at somebody wants 171 - > to make an executive hire, they want to bring somebody into the C suite. It's a really important 172 - > recruitment process for them.

If they get it wrong, it causes them a lot of problems. So 173 - > that process fits that very nicely. Do the profile. here are the questions that will help you have 174 - > the conversation with the individual.

It could be that you do it, it could be that they do 175 - > it, but then that information is gathered and then that allows you then to do a summary report 176 - > on the individual that will either go into maybe a second interview or a decision making process. 177 - > Would that be right? In those situations you probably also want to add to that mix a cognitive 178 - > test. you know, a critical reasoning test.

So some objective evidence about people's ability 179 - > to make judgments about other people's judgments, and particularly where those judgments are 180 - > clouded by emotion and where they sort of start tapping into their own values and beliefs that 181 - > are designed to cloud their judgment. So you want to know whether people can cut through 182 - > all that and make clear logical, critical judgments. I'm particularly interested when it comes to 183 - > senior hire around or working with senior teams when it's developing those teams around individual, 184 - > the willingness of the individual to connect and work with others and the underlying for 185 - > the want of a better word, grit of an individual.

I've come to a bit of a conclusion that there 186 - > are a hundred ingredients that might make a cake, but actually if I'm in a team, I have 187 - > to be willing to contribute outside of my own need, but also then I need the grit to work 188 - > through the context of the problems that we've got. within... Can I just say... Yeah, of 189 - > course.

Grit was a concept that got people in the psychrometric world quite excited a 190 - > few years ago. And there were measures of grit. But in fact, what grit seems to be... is a 191 - > combination of conscientiousness and resilience.

So it's quite possible to measure grit with 192 - > the tools that we were historically using. So I'm fascinated by that. I think that's the 193 - > bit that for me, that level of that depth within a profile, even though it isn't giving you 194 - > a definitive statement on the individual. I think you're, I do appreciate and that's why 195 - > I think what you do is valuable in the work is very much indicating and actually it's not 196 - > so much about a justification but if this is true what that might mean.

And I think that's 197 - > interesting. That's context. Exactly. And that's where it becomes more interesting writing a 198 - > report and where you have to know the business to get an understanding of what.

how is this 199 - > likely to play itself out? Given the politics of political acceptability, public acceptability, 200 - > organization, acceptability of stakeholders. And that's where it gets more interesting. 201 - > That's where I enjoy writing reports because I like to put myself in the seat of the decision 202 - > maker and think.

In fact, with psychologists, I always put a sheet in front of their desk 203 - > saying, what? And getting them to focus on what does this actually mean in the context 204 - > of this business? Getting them to actually project that set of scores into this organizational 205 - > culture and this set of job demands. Yes.

And that's where people actually begin to realize 206 - > they're actually getting their money's worth. Yes. So I always start with the job demands. 207 - > I always start with a briefing, a chat with the CEO or one of the directors to really get 208 - > behind the job description.

Yes. Because often the JD doesn't give you the whole picture. 209 - > I love that and I think that's where it gets exciting, which is look, the questionnaire 210 - > is the questionnaire, but that's almost like doing a training program. Look, the training 211 - > program is a training program.

The reality is what's your context and what are these people 212 - > actually dealing with? What is the truth of not the aspiration, not the brochure, but 213 - > what's the truth of the internal dynamic, the human beings that are in play here? the stresses 214 - > of the role, et cetera. And actually this isn't about is this a good human?

Let's presume 215 - > every, you know, within reason, most people are good humans. It's whether or not in the 216 - > context they're going to be operating in that actually they're going to be the right jigsaw 217 - > piece. It's about understanding their business. Yes.

Do you understand our business? Yes. Can 218 - > you help us? Do we like it?

Yeah. And if I did a tool some years ago, I did a tool. of 219 - > all of the MSc's courses in the country and it was entitled A Plea for a Connected Psychology 220 - > because I thought at that level the MSc in Occupational Psychology was going off down the wrong road. 221 - > was all telling people that what was crucial was learning nine times the validity.

You 222 - > know, whatever, it's probably 11 now. and the reality had been lost sight of. It's actually 223 - > about understanding these people's businesses. So I started this talk of writing down all 224 - > of the white papers, the names of the white papers that generated most of our business 225 - > that year and saying to people, does anyone know what any of these are?

And of course, 226 - > a few people did. And the response to that lecture tour I got was quite extraordinary. 227 - > People said, we're not told this. we're not told this, that it's crucial to understand 228 - > the client's business.

And I got letters saying, you all we get told is how important it to 229 - > get chartered. Well, it is, you know, I've never been asked where I'm chartered. I get 230 - > asked, know, do you understand our business? Can you help?

That's it. And not, are you chartered? 231 - > Well, I think there's something there. I should say I am chartered.

Well, of course, of course, 232 - > because without saying a man of your caliber. But also it's like if you're... Picking a 233 - > photographer, I don't really care what the qualifications are. I want to see the photos.

So there is 234 - > something about, I think you're right, the fact that somebody has the qualification. 235 - > Don't get me wrong, I think there's a huge value to that. But in truth, there'll be unqualified 236 - > people and qualified people that are good or bad. There's a reputation, there's a history.

237 - > And I know that you've been doing this now for, are you in your fourth decade? 30 probably. 238 - > A third decade. Maybe.

I don't know. it's some time. there is a... 35, okay.

So there 239 - > is something, there? Because I know I'm 57. I've been doing leadership development for 240 - > some time. And my knowledge has...

Okay, my knowledge has increased. But not exponentially. 241 - > But my ability to operate in context has shifted. Yeah.

You know, I... Yes, of course, every 242 - > day is a school day and I learn a little something here and I'm constantly upskilling. Fine. But 243 - > in truth, the bulk of my knowledge exists.

What deepens is, think, which I really relate 244 - > to with you, is context and being able to apply the knowledge and have the insight to translate 245 - > that either into questions. in this business? Business at schools, here's your job demands. 246 - > How do they relate?

That's right. And the profile is saying, we're running a program that is 247 - > challenging you to, with what you've said and the context you're operating in, in reality, 248 - > how much of this, a particular assessment, how much of this is performative and how much 249 - > of this is you offering yourself in a manner that once tested in truth, you run the risk 250 - > of failure. because actually it feels as if there's a disingenuous connection between what 251 - > you've either said and then what you're offering in relation to the context that you're going 252 - > to be operating in.

And I think that's interesting when you can see those gaps, imagine. So 253 - > when you do work with pilots, for example, what is it that you're looking for there? Because 254 - > that's a key role. That's quite an easy question to answer because there are some sets.

Actually, 255 - > it's legal requirements as well. There are some set things that the Civil Aviation Authority 256 - > and the American equivalent look for. Obvious things like resilience. Resilience, the leadership, 257 - > team working, decision making, and working in structured and regulated environment.

So 258 - > ability to follow rules. Ability to make effective decisions on the load. Ability to work effectively 259 - > with others. Demonstrate some leadership.

the ability to maintain a sense of perspective 260 - > and not get frightened. mean, some of stories I hear when I'm interviewing these people, 261 - > mean, just think if that had been me. Which is why we're not pilots. I would have avoided 262 - > my bowels and...

Exactly. So what is it on a profile for a pilot that you're looking for, 263 - > just out of sheer interest? What tells you this person's in the right space? Obviously resilience.

264 - > And I mean, is obviously the problem with that. That's one of the most fakeable scales. So 265 - > if it's too high, you do get a bit worried about it. So you push them on that and try and get 266 - > samples of where they've had to deal with.

So you've got to back that up with some more concrete 267 - > forms of evidence. But obviously self-belief, the ability to, you know, full back on your 268 - > own judgment or have faith in your own judgment, but not to the point where you kind of rule 269 - > out other people's analyses and thinking. One of the key things that I look at is how people 270 - > handle their anxieties because I'm crudely speaking in the literature, we can either externalize 271 - > our anxieties, take them out on others.

So you see fault in everyone else and you see you 272 - > become much more suspicious and wary of others. or you internalise it, you beat yourself up. 273 - > And so one thing I'm interested in is how do people externalise? one thing, in fact, in 274 - > the management literature, the literature of the derailed manager is essentially the literature 275 - > of people who externalise their anxieties.

So take it out on others. Everything's always 276 - > on the people's fault. I'm super interested in that. think that's what I look at.

And it's 277 - > the same with pilots. If you're just assuming you're surrounded by idiots. who can't make 278 - > effective judgments at speed, you're in trouble probably, because you're not going to respect 279 - > other people's judgment. So if you externalize an attack, that's not good.

If you internalize 280 - > and hold it in, that's not good. Yeah, if you externalize too much, then you're bad to be 281 - > around. You're to be difficult to have So if you emote in a negative way. And if you beat 282 - > yourself up all the time and sit there sobbing, that's no use either.

But externalizing, I 283 - > think, is one of real problems, because you become a nasty piece of work, and you're not 284 - > good to help around. So being able to be forthright, but not aggressive. Yeah. Being able to...

285 - > So different between yourself, Sorry, I shouldn't point. No, no. The difference between assertion 286 - > and dominance. Yes.

And persuasiveness, dominance. Yeah. That there's a kind of underlying unpleasant 287 - > edge when you get the kind of the externalizing that... that comes with the self-assertion.

288 - > And I'm very interested in that kind of capacity to verbalize the context that you're observing 289 - > or the emotion that you're feeling in a manner that explains to the other person where you 290 - > are. You can make demands of them, but actually getting that balance between motivating the 291 - > individual, engaging them in conversation. then having that maintenance of, I call it 292 - > preservation of the personality, that being able to preserve your personality when you 293 - > are under stress.

And I think that's a, can imagine for an airplane pilot, it's not a 294 - > problem until it's a problem. And you can do all the virtual training that you like, but 295 - > it might be a never in a career or a once in a career, rather like that sully gentleman 296 - > that, landed the plane in the Hudson. It might never happen in his life. there was another 297 - > one where it was a British pilot, worked for Air New Zealand, went through the volcanic 298 - > cloud and all four of his engines packed up.

he sat there reading the manuals and they 299 - > sat there for 28 minutes, going through the checklist, going through the manuals, there 300 - > was nothing in the manuals that enabled them to figure out how they would start this thing 301 - > up. So he put it into it, took a judgment, put it into a dive and it cleared the engines of 302 - > the Volcanic Ash and he restarted and extraordinary. 28 minutes sitting there figuring out what 303 - > to do. So that's the ability to hold your own council to not have an emotional overload.

304 - > Exactly. The capacity to... Extraordinary. It's partly trained, know, initially comes 305 - > from having a stable personality.

Yes. But then it's overlaid with training. Yeah. So I noticed 306 - > that in the fire brigade, which is somebody said to me, competence outweighs fear.

You 307 - > know, we train out the fear. fall back on it. Yeah, because it's trained to an almost autonomic 308 - > response. Yeah.

Which I find very interesting. But then there is something about trusting 309 - > your own counsel. I think I'm very interested in people that internally validate versus externally 310 - > validate. Either look to others to understand if they are performing well.

And for me, I 311 - > want leaders to internally validate but externally calibrate, not the other way around. If they 312 - > do it the other way around, they normally have a very negative self-talk. You be too smug, 313 - > I think. You can be too smug, think.

Yes. Because that means you... you have no real interest 314 - > in other people's points of view or judgement. Or you rely too heavily on other people's judgement 315 - > and perspective to tell you that you're doing a good job.

So I'm very interested in that 316 - > balance between I need to have that internal motivation and personal clarity, but I also 317 - > need to take counsel and calibrate myself because otherwise, you know, I could just be a maniac. 318 - > So we're back to the value of completing the questionnaire is that it raises these questions. 319 - > Yes. You know, these questions come out of the way people describe themselves in the, in context 320 - > they're, they're hoping to operate in or currently operating in.

So in terms of when we're doing 321 - > profiles, there's something about somebody's actual performance capability and their potential. 322 - > And I'm just kind of interested in within profiling. Is it really the conversation after the fact 323 - > that picks up on whether or not this is telling us about somebody's potential rather than just 324 - > their capability now? Because for a lot of roles, we have a role now, but we want it to grow 325 - > and develop.

is this person able to? So what would I be looking for in a profile that OK, 326 - > well, the classic psychological response to that would be what's called factor G. which 327 - > is the general intelligence of somebody. In other words, do they have any kind of more 328 - > headroom intellectually to, you know, to cope with novel learning, novel processes, and 329 - > respond to more complexity in their jobs.

There is also another G in personality, which is 330 - > conscientiousness. On the 16PF, the Cattell profile. which is about how much graft and 331 - > hard work they're prepared to put in. But one things I found in my years doing the assessments 332 - > is I found that the level of self-assertion, which is quite a complex thing, because it 333 - > actually includes things like ambitiousness, and you're concerned to kind of get on and...

334 - > increase your profile and increase your sphere of influence. That I think is really central 335 - > to that discussion. The motivational driver? Yes, yeah.

Whether it's motivational or 336 - > whether it's a trait, dispositional trait, I don't think terribly matters, but I found 337 - > just discussing with senior managers who don't want to go... I I did one building society, 338 - > just one below board level. And that's when it really came home to me that there was a 339 - > bunch of 32 people under board level and quite a lot of them were not desperately ambitious 340 - > and they weren't terribly bothered about whether they got up to being on the board.

And that 341 - > seemed to be the main kind of discriminator between people who were still pushing to get 342 - > on and increase their profile, rightly or wrongly. And people were quite happy where they were. 343 - > So there's a marriage here, isn't there, that if that ambition element is high but my conscientiousness 344 - > is low, I might be an absolute nightmare. Yes, rule breaker.

Yeah, that's right. So wanting 345 - > to get on is one thing, but wanting to get on with no conscientiousness or low consciousness 346 - > would indicate that actually you could be very self-focused and it's about your journey. And 347 - > that's when the skill of the report writer is important because looking to those connections. 348 - > Yeah.

mean, one of the, the, the only tests that we use from a machine, uh, from a bit 349 - > of software is one that looks for those patterns. So it will, and it will make up to five connections 350 - > before it makes a statement. So it simulates what a psychologist would do. So you have 351 - > to, you have to be conscious that, you know, okay, self assertion is over there, but where 352 - > is conscientiousness and also where is something like sensitivity.

you know, are they going 353 - > to try and influence others without any kind of appreciation of other people's perspectives 354 - > or other people's opinions or values or feelings or whether that's going to be too important 355 - > to them. They're almost, you know, unwilling to tread on other people's sensitivities. You 356 - > see, I find that very interesting where I think there are a lot of people who, depending on 357 - > where you're going, up the food chain, so to speak.

or into different sized organizations 358 - > where, for example, I notice a lot of mid-level organizations who are on a fast trajectory 359 - > often go after senior individuals from much larger organizations. But when those individuals 360 - > join that company, they're used to pulling a lever and 10 other people go and do it for 361 - > them. And then they intellectually know that it's not gonna be like that. But then they 362 - > get in there, they pull that lever, and that lever doesn't go anywhere because it's not 363 - > large.

But they may be being paid even more because actually we need that skill set in. 364 - > And then they join and when they pull that lever, they realize that it's connected to them. 365 - > And it might be because it might be two decades since they've really been doing the graft. 366 - > And so I'm really interested in.

The ability to assess somebody's, and I do like what you 367 - > said there, their mental capacity to take on new growth, their conscientiousness around, 368 - > actually this sits with me, their, what is it that would get somebody through that recalibration 369 - > of, oh, I'm not in Kansas anymore, you know, and recognizing that they intellectually knew 370 - > what they were getting into. But in truth, they didn't know what they were getting into. And 371 - > now they've got to adapt.

They've got to take on that ownership. They cannot rely on others. 372 - > They're going to have to engage others. Whereas before, they were very senior and everybody 373 - > engaged with them.

I think that's where the, back to your, the knowing the context, the 374 - > profile might tell us, but your context is shifting. And I think that's quite interesting. One 375 - > of the things that can be very important there is the appreciation of stakeholders, other 376 - > people's and being able to anticipate stakeholder reactions, and being aware that there are other... 377 - > I mean, one of the things I find in, say, the police force is you get to a point where you're 378 - > a hard-nosed, practical, realistic, task-focused deliverer of results.

And that gets you to 379 - > a certain point. then beyond that point, it's a whole different set of schools. It's actually, 380 - > you your ability to work with social services and the probation services and the local authority 381 - > and the health service and being aware of all these different perspectives and how they might 382 - > actually feed in and constrain your own decision making. And that's where things like the measurement 383 - > of sensitivity becomes really, really important.

And then picking up on that and having a discussion. 384 - > And that doesn't mean being sensitive, which would be a different thing. it's being aware 385 - > of being willing to appreciate other people's perspectives. And I find that quite interesting 386 - > that some people I think, particularly people that may have been over-trained, go, well, 387 - > you you've got to have an emotional intelligence, which I think they think means being emotional, 388 - > but actually it means, no, I have to have a radar.

that can read the room and pick up on 389 - > how I might be feeling and how others might be feeling. It doesn't mean that I inherently 390 - > care about people, but it means that I can see it, act on it, and engage you in a way where 391 - > you feel that I've heard you listen to you. That doesn't mean that I necessarily care about 392 - > you. And I'm quite interested in that difference.

Yeah, I mean, that's the difference between... 393 - > I mean, these things you can differentiate and discriminate. with on something like the PF, 394 - > because you have one factor that is very specifically about your willingness to be involved with 395 - > others. the extent to which you actually understand other people's perspectives.

So it's that kind 396 - > of wanting to be socially involved or personally involved, and also wanting to be emotionally 397 - > involved. And that doesn't mean like, does it? In fact, one of the problems I found with 398 - > the PF is that it... It marries up two quite different things.

It's sociability and affiliativeness. 399 - > So one of the tests we use actually splits that up. So I had a manager, for example, who 400 - > was a classic. He was very high on the sociability one.

Really, really good working with others, 401 - > but actually quite detached. Yes. I had no genuine interest in others. But he was sociable.

402 - > Well, I think that's okay. It is okay, particularly, and he was the chief exec, so it was quite 403 - > important for him to maintain a detachment, but he was actually, observably, quite a friendly 404 - > guy. Well, I look at somebody who I know works in ANA, or somebody I know who works for the 405 - > fire brigade, and if they intrinsically cared about every single person they came into contact 406 - > with, they'd lose their marbles, they You don't know if it's breakdown, yeah.

You couldn't 407 - > do it. So they have a duty of care. I mean, occasionally they may take a particular care 408 - > with somebody, but in truth, it's not about, oh, you've got to care for people. No, you've 409 - > got to have a care for people.

You've got to, and so I'm not really looking for people that 410 - > are emotional. I'm looking for people that have an understanding of emotions. And actually 411 - > that means very often, particularly at a senior level, that means that I can meet people that 412 - > affiliative wise may be incredibly low scoring. However, the people are really engaged by them 413 - > because their social ability is high.

They're very good at reading what's going on. They're 414 - > very good at giving you the experience you need to engage with them. And that's okay. And I 415 - > think that does away with the stereotype of what necessarily sometimes.

And that combination 416 - > comes out quite a lot in the, that you get people who are actually in effect quite detached, 417 - > but actually quite sensitive. So you've got no desire to get involved with this person, 418 - > but actually you can put yourself into their shoes. and understand the world from their 419 - > perspective. And you might argue from an emotional robustness perspective, that's a much more 420 - > survivable way of being.

If you're going to be at a senior level for a decade, two decades 421 - > or whatever it is, dealing with a host of emotions in truth, how do you safeguard yourself? Well, 422 - > it's not by being detached, but it's about having a care without necessarily over caring. And 423 - > I think that's the stuff that comes out in conversation and in interview. So I find that fascinating.

424 - > So Peter, you know, with a good meal and a bottle of wine, there's a conversation I could have 425 - > with you all weekend. It did once happen to me actually. I had a guy, he was applying 426 - > to be a chief exec. And this is not the way I normally work, I should say.

I caveat this 427 - > story with. This is not the way I normally work. However. Big American.

corporation 428 - > with multiple different products. So we just can't get to the point where he seems to do 429 - > really well and then leave places. And I said, can you get to the bottom of this? And then 430 - > when I assessed him, he kind of maxed out on the scale that is about projecting your anxieties 431 - > and being rude and critical.

the derailed manager. And so I said to him, I said, the way you 432 - > describe yourself seems to say you can be quite critical of those around you. And he said, 433 - > no, no, it's not me, not me. He I'm never critical of anyone.

so I said, all right, so we're 434 - > carrying on chatting about other bits of the way he described himself. Then came back to 435 - > about sort of half an hour later. And I said, let's just talk about this. I said, I'm still 436 - > confused.

He says, yeah, I'm surrounded by idiots. I rest my case, my lord. And then it was just 437 - > this kind of avalanche of bile and venom about all the team that he worked with. And of course 438 - > it all became clear that he got to, and then he was just so unpleasant that he had to be 439 - > removed, you know.

And his relationships just broke down. But the only way I got at that, 440 - > which is why I brought this up, I got a bottle of claret. opened it up and said, have a glass. 441 - > And I was stressed, I would never normally do that.

I thought- Not standard operating 442 - > practice. understand. I've got to get behind this school. So he loosened up hugely.

And 443 - > I think that's, I mean, that's a very particular context. But with executives, you're often 444 - > having dinner or you are in a social context and it's not always, you know, in an assessment 445 - > center. But whether or not we're having a cup of coffee and you're relaxed or you know, put 446 - > you, you know, the skill of being able to work with people. I've seen the lab.

who are probably 447 - > very good at managing conversations and to find the mechanism to have an honest conversation 448 - > without them trying to manage the conversation. Or without filling them up with claret. Which 449 - > may not be the process that I necessarily put in the invoice plus a bottle of claret. they 450 - > are, yes, we know what that is.

But in truth, there is a skill. There is the skill of the 451 - > testing, there's the skill of the writing the report. There's the skill of the interview 452 - > questions and the conversation. And there is the skill of putting somebody at ease to have 453 - > an honest conversation that comes down to the dynamic of the person doing it.

And that's 454 - > not in the test. That's in the gravitas, the weight, the trust they have in the person that's 455 - > doing it. And I have that with executive coaching, with executive development, with teams. The 456 - > knowledge is the knowledge.

And I think I can put a tick in the box there. But it's the ability 457 - > to do the work and to create an environment where you can have those conversations. there 458 - > is jest in the port, but also it's no small thing when it comes to working with somebody 459 - > like you, that it's not just what you're doing, they're also investing in who's doing it, which 460 - > is somebody that can hold space with senior people and have conversations that you will 461 - > get to the nub of the situation.

And I think that's important. Good. Well, on that note, 462 - > I noticed two minutes that we have on the clock. So not wishing to overrun.

It's not so much 463 - > a time, it's more a people's attention span clock, I think I have. Here's one little thing 464 - > for me. If somebody said, ooh, I've got to fill out a psychometric profile as part of... my 465 - > interview or this program, leadership development program that I'm on with Guy Bloom or whatever 466 - > it is, how would you say, what's the mindset to go into it with so they can actually give 467 - > a version of themselves that won't catch them out, that will be on, what's the advice that 468 - > you give?

Does people get quite intimidated sometimes by the idea of it? That is a tough 469 - > one because it depends on whether you're going to do what I do, which is try and corroborate. 470 - > you know, treat that data as problematic and inferential and in dire need of corroboration. 471 - > Because if that's the case, then it kind of doesn't really matter.

You know, can fake to 472 - > your heart's content, but you're gonna get found out. So actually don't bother. So don't bother. 473 - > However, if it's just part of a screening process, you know, the joke is always, you know, 474 - > you always have to remember at the back of your mind, then.

I love my mother, I love my father, 475 - > I love my father slightly more than I love my mother. I like reading. I never get upset. 476 - > those things are the ones that get faked a lot, know, neuroticism.

well, yeah, largely 477 - > neuroticism, actually. I always think other bits of the profile tend to be more resistant. 478 - > So in truth, enter into it with a... an understanding that in reality, if you're going to be part 479 - > of a process, then all you can do is dig yourself a hole that you can't get out of.

So just answer 480 - > it with an open. Just try to be. a genuine self. Well, listen, Peter, I'm going to draw 481 - > us to an end.

You've been an absolute rock star. I've enjoyed this conversation. I appreciate 482 - > you. And when I'm talking to clients and I want you to work with me, with senior teams.

and 483 - > we do that work, I hope that this goes some way to people having a line of sight on you. 484 - > Thank you very And we'll wrap it up from there. So thank you, sir. Thank you.

Thank you very, 485 - > much. OK, that's it. I hope you have enjoyed listening or watching the podcast. If you have, 486 - > please subscribe and tell people you spreading the word makes a massive difference.

And if 487 - > you'd like to consider working with us, then make your way over to livingbrave.com.