PSYCHOMETRICS: Panacea Or Mumbo-Jumbo?

This article was originally printed in Target magazine, a publication sadly now deceased, but one where Steve was in print alongside Sir John Harvey Jones! Although written some time ago, the points raised in the article are just as relevant today.

Does psychometric testing represent a viable proposition?

Steve Goodwill examines its worthiness in the demanding area of team building.

I was horrified recently, if a little pleased, to hear a psychologist condemn all psychometric tests as a waste of time. His argument was a fair one, although I believe somewhat flawed, more or which later.

Most of us have some experience of psychometric tests; we will probably have completed one even if we haven't administered any. My first exposure to them was during recruitment selection for the forces. I passed . . . well got in anyway! Later I found myself required to administer tests with no training at all, an experience which could have put me off for good, but rather encouraged me to learn more. Even poorly administered the results were too accurate and useful to be ignored. I resolved to continue using them, but to learn how to do it properly.

The psychometric test or instrument is a varied species. Some are cobbled together in a back bedroom for a one-off use, while others are the result of years, even decades of research, validation and evaluation. They claim to measure everything from your sex drive to your suitability as the next company chairman. They have equally mixed viability and reputation, and justifiably so.

The value of any test owes much to the administrator. Tests that are poorly presented or explained are liable to be less accurate, possibly worthless, or at worst false and potentially damaging. Just as the conditions and briefing for an academic examination should be the same for all participants, so it should be for anyone completing a psychometric test. My early concerns were aroused when I heard the different briefings given by fellow trainers from the same organisation administering the same test:

"Write down the first answer that comes to mind."

"Consider each question carefully."

"You have 20 minutes."

"Take as long as you like."

"Answer as quickly as you can."

"You have 40 minutes."

When delegates compare notes and discover such anomalies not only is the reliability of the test called into question, but also the ability and credibility of the trainers.

There are other ethical considerations. How confidential will the results be? Have you told the delegates? Have you told their superiors? Doubts in this area will cause concerns and can affect the results.

Notwithstanding these potential problems the psychometric test does have its uses and I believe the better tests, the well-researched and validated ones, are worth more than the paper they are printed on. They can be a useful aid to the trainer, the consultant, the personnel officer and, most important, the trainee. It can provide data for training needs analysis, particularly using group results, which can be less sensitive. They can be an aid in team building, where I have found they can help delegates to understand differences and how to make use of them.

The psychologist mentioned at the beginning claimed that the test can tell you nothing about someone that you can't find out by talking to them. Sound and admirable sentiments, but not always practical. Some people don't come over well in interviews, others don't conduct them very well! The test can give an alternative viewpoint, identify new facts, or reinforce interview impressions. I have found some delegates grateful for a 'handle' to identify ideas or problems, and appreciative of a framework to help them understand the different ways some colleagues operate.

The interview and the test are both valuable and fallible. They are best used to complement each other, and better still if used in conjunction with other data, such as past performance or assessment exercises. After testing, every participant should have a personal de-briefing of their results and be given the chance to comment.

One of the most sensible comments I have heard about any psychometric instrument was, in fact, about one of the most respected, but holds true for all: "Remember, the instrument does not tell you what you are like; you tell the instrument." Another in similar vein: "Tests are like computers, only as accurate as the information fed to them. 'Rubbish in, rubbish out'."

So, don't condemn testing out of hand, but use it sensibly and professionally. Take care in the selection of tests and ensure you use them properly or find 'a man who can'. It can be expensive to become a qualified practitioner or to hire one, but the cost of misuse is greater.

Use of Tests in Team Building

There are a number of instruments that can be used as an aid to team building. Two such items, which are well known and well researched, are Belbin's Team Role Questionnaire and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a sophisticated instrument, based on Jung's Psychological Types and the result of over 40 years of research, that continues today. You must be qualified to use this instrument and pay for each copy. However it is very effective and will give each participant some careful and useful information about their type. There are sixteen types identified by the MBTI and it is one of the few tests to make an accurate allowance for gender.

Belbin's concept is a relatively simple model that most people seem able and willing to accept quite easily. It is also in the public domain, which means anyone can use it free of charge, although I would not recommend its use without some training in the use of tests and some detailed study of Belbin's work.

A Case Study

In designing a team building programme for a major public company all training methods were considered. The company had provided little or no development training for its staff up to this point. However, it was successful and expanding, although increasing competition, order books and customer demands were beginning to test its strengths. Some new personnel had been appointed from outside in influential positions and there was a need to integrate the new acquisitions. As a response to these considerable changes, it was decided to embark on a major training and development programme, with a strong early emphasis on team building.

The programme was designed to be flexible, realistic and enjoyable, using a variety of training media. Over a period of ten months, some 120 management and supervisory personnel - from the group chairman to senior machine minders - participated in classroom seminars, film shows and outdoor development courses.

At the end of a two-day programme in the Yorkshire Dales, delegates were invited to complete a questionnaire which would identify their preferred team role, as defined by Belbin and were introduced to the theory. All delegates were de-briefed individually and, with their agreement, the results published on a subsequent course. On this second course delegates tested Belbin's concepts, by tackling a series of problem solving exercises in teams. The composition of the teams and balance of types was changed at intervals by the training staff. This gave the delegates the opportunity to recognise the problems of imbalance and to better understand how different types work.

The consequence was improved teamwork back at the factory and more careful selection of project teams in the future. As one notoriously uncompromising salesman put it later, commenting on a colleague from production "I still don't like him, but I now know why and can work with him."

Both Belbin and MBTI can be used in this way depending on the level of complexity desired and the specific aims of the programme. The secret to success is careful design, and thorough integration of the training media to complement each other and appeal to different learning styles, which of course can also be identified by tests!

Top

Team Roles, Strengths and Style

Chair/Coordinator: able to get others working to a shared aim; confident, mature.

Shaper: motivated, energetic, achievement-driven, assertive, competitive.

Innovator/Plant: innovative, inventive, creative, original, imaginative, unorthodox.

Monitor-Evaluator: serious, prudent, critical thinker, analytical.

Implementer/Company Worker: systematic, common sense, loyal, structured, reliable, dependable, practical.

Resource Investigator: good communicator, networker, outgoing, affable, seeks and finds options, negotiator.

Team Worker: supportive, sociable, flexible, adaptable, perceptive, listener, calming influence, mediator.

Completer-Finisher: attention to detail, accurate, high standards, quality orientated, delivers to schedule and specification.

Specialist: technical expert, highly focussed capability and knowledge, driven by professional standards and dedication to personal subject area.

The Co-ordinator clarifies group objectives, sets the agenda, establishes priorities, selects problems, sums up and is decisive, but does not dominate discussions.

The Shaper gives shape and energy to the team effort. Can steamroller the team, but gets results.

The Plant is the source of original ideas, suggestions and proposals.

The Monitor-Evaluator contributes a measured and dispassionate analysis and, through objectivity, stops the team committing itself to a misguided task.

The Implementer turns decisions and strategies into defined and manageable tasks, sorting out objectives and pursuing them logically.

The Resource Investigator goes outside the team to bring back ideas, information and developments. The team's sales-person, diplomat, liaison officer and explorer.

The Team Worker operates against division and disruption in the team, maintaining harmony, particularly in times of stress and pressure.

The Finisher maintains a permanent sense of urgency with relentless follow-through and attention to detail.

All of these roles have value and are missed when not in a team; there are no stars or extras. It is not essential that teams comprise eight people each fulfilling one of the roles above, but that people who are aware and capable of carrying out these roles should be present. In small teams, people can, and do, assume more than one role. In addition, analysing existing teams and their performance or behaviour, using these team role concepts, can lead to improvements, for example:

Under-achievement demands a good Coordinator or Finisher

Conflict requires a team worker or strong Coordinator

Mediocre performance needs a Resource Investigator, Innovator or Shaper

Error prone teams need an Evaluator

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

This is credited as being the world’s most popular personality measure, and is almost certainly the most widely used. It is a powerful and versatile indicator of the personality types identified by eminent Swiss psychologist Carl Jung. It was written by Isabel Myers and Katharine C Briggs, hence the rather clumsy name and is widely used for individual, group and organisational development. 

What it measures:
The MBTI instrument describes an individual’s preferences on four dimensions. The person is either:

The various combinations of these preferences result in 16 personality 'types', each associated with a unique set of behavioural characteristics and values, which provide a useful starting point for individual feedback, self-exploration or group discussion.

Some other sites with more information are listed below, the first has a short questionnaire which can give an initial indication of your preferences and type, but is inevitably nowhere as reliable as completing the complete indicator.

www.personalitytype.com    www.personalitypage.com    www.typelogic.com

.... or for a light hearted look at type, see which types typically read which British newspaper.

.... or which types prefer hiking, canoeing or kayaking - MBTI and the Outdoors

Ima High Yellow