|
FAQ’s
|
| Q. |
If a company is using a simple
psychological appraisal method and it is working, why would
it have a need for a more comprehensive method?
|
| A. |
To say that something is working is a relative
statement. In the 30s and 40s, radio worked and it still does.
Yet beginning in the 50s, the invention of television plainly
worked better. The very idea /invention of television
is more advanced and comprehensive than radio. Now television
did not altogether replace radio, but in most ways it takes
us further.
Similarly, with appraising people, the stakes are so high, making
the right “people decisions” so crucial, that we need
an appraisal method that goes beyond the state-of-the-art of
the 70s and 80s.
In the competitive climate of today, we need to be asking, “is
there a method that works better… that facilitates clearer,
more far reaching insight… that can significantly increase
our odds, and confidence in making our most important business
decisions?”
People are not so simple. People are comprehensive. Thus, to
appraise people effectively, we cannot rely solely on simple
methods. We need a method that can appraise people comprehensively.
|
|
| Q. |
Does this mean a comprehensive method is
difficult to use?
|
| A. |
Not at all. Is a television set difficult
to use… any more so than a radio? The brilliance of the
ADVANCED ANALYSIS™ is that it provides real comprehensiveness
without sacrificing simplicity.
|
|
| Q. |
Is the ADVANCED ANALYSIS™ more expensive
than other systems?
|
| A. |
Yes, and our comprehensive method costs
more than simpler methods, but provides much greater relative
value. At the same time, it’s a fraction of the cost of
a skilled assessment psychologist. Either way, relative to the
cost of making a mistake, the ADVANCED ANALYSIS™ is a bargain.
|
|
| Q. |
Just what makes PLM’s ADVANCED ANALYSIS™
(C) method more comprehensive? How does it go beyond the simple
methods (such as the well-known Myers-Briggs), that you denote
as (A)-level methods?
|
| A. |
There are many (A)-level methods, and they
are generally very good and useful, their conceptual schemas
very compelling. They are only limited by their simplicity and
limited comprehensiveness.
|
|
| Q. |
What else? Go on.
|
| A. |
The (C)-level is able to take an expanded (panorama-like)
view of someone’s attributes, to provide a well-rounded
and more pinpointed picture of him or her. By contrast, descriptions
of personality /temperament or behavioral style at (A)-level
leave too much out of the picture. They provide more of a
sketch, a caricature or a profile, that highlights certain
features of a person at the expense of others, so that there
is a kind of distortion factor. To compensate for this, people
are placed in categories, and this is where the objection
of labelling or stereotyping arises.
|
|
| Q. |
Can you say more about the (C)’s expanded
view of personality /temperament—indeed, expanded view
of the individual?
|
| A. |
Firstly, the theory of the (C) makes a
clear distinction between the surface of the individual and
what lies underneath. What we call personality, “behavioral
style” and now “core competencies” is the surface
if you will of what is more substantial and deep-seated. This
is generative of personality, temperament, behavioral
style and core competencies—a whole array of dispositions
that can be referred to as one’s dispositional set. (The
now fashionable term, core competencies, is in most respects
synonymous with what is meant here by temperament.)
Secondly, it is because of the (C)’s capacity to represent
this whole array of dispositions comprehensively, that it is
able to home in on the uniqueness of the individual by providing
what is more like a portrait than a caricature.
To produce a well-rounded picture, the (C)’s view of temperament
and personality incorporates specific values, attitudes, interests,
motivations and aptitudes, which are usually excluded, over-generalized,
or insufficiently differentiated at (A)-level. Since the (C)’s
perspective is so integrated and inclusive, each of these facets
might be considered aspects of temperament in a new-found expanded
sense. This means so many new and useful distinctions—all
internally consistent and picture-enhancing—can now be
made.
Take, for example, the role distinctions between selling, marketing
and management. At (A)-level, these distinctions are at best
hazy. There is no adequate conceptual basis for saying that
an individual is generally more suited to selling or to marketing,
and surprisingly little basis for differentiating between sales
and management. The conceptualization of the (C), on the other
hand, is able to make such distinctions easily and clearly.
|
|
| Q. |
When you mention the important distinction
between sales and management, you are speaking very generally.
If we take selling, for example, are there not many different
kinds of selling, depending on the industry and the sales environment?
|
| A. |
Absolutely. And this points up the limitation,
even possible danger, in putting too much stock in a general
sales profile or a general management profile. Here again is
where the (C)’s capacity for specificity is employed, because
numerous features of the product, type of selling and environment
can be effectively taken into account in calculating someone’s
suitability. First we consider the role in general, and then
we layer on the specifics of context and circumstances.
|
|
| Q. |
Surely your competitors take into account
context and circumstances?
|
| A. |
They do in general, but due to the limitations
of their methodology, they are unable to explicitly and effectively
take into account the specifics. The new technology of PLM’s
(C) is uniquely capable in this domain.
|
|
|
|
