[IPAC-List] A question of personality

[RPClare at aol.com]

Since I am in the job market myself, I have taken notice of selection  
elements that are related to this discussion. Notably, interview training guide  
(both written and taught) suggesting "the best way" to respond to  
typical/common interview questions. Most of these q's deal with non-job specific  
areas such as what is your greatest weakness, where do you see yourself in 5  
years, why do you want to work here. In a sense, this practice is similar to 
 the "faking" being discussed here. It would be nice if we could figure out 
 a "faking" index for such interviews.
 
 
In a message dated 11/22/2009 9:18:57 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
Mark.Hammer at psc-cfp.gc.ca writes:

When one  uses any tool that looks at the social properties of the 
individual, some  of what you'll get is "managed" information from 
the respondent, and some  is the unguarded spontaneous information.  
As Harry's informants  suggested, it is not really possible to completely
escape the managed  information component, even if one were simply 
observing the person in a  closed windowless room via videocam.  So 
the question becomes one of  whether there is *enough* non-managed 
spontaneous information to make a  reasoned judgment about the social 
properties of that person.  In  some respects, high scores on faking and 
social desirability on a  personality test are equivalent to a person 
leaving 
much of an exam  unanswered - no basis for evaluation - although in 
other respects they ARE  information of a sort, aren't they?  Here is where 
RPClare's advice  to declare and define such responding AS information 
up front is  well-taken.  Far too many may interpret a personality 
inventory 
as  intended to show "them" that you can be who you think they want you 
to be,  and not necessarily intended to show who they are when no one is  
looking.  That it is a promotional exam merely shifts the balance  more in 
the direction of the first interpretation than the second  ("See?  I can be 
that kind of lieutenant too.")

When you say  you have been asked to recommend substitute procedures, 
do you mean for  the two candidates in question?  for the candidates 
overall?  
or  simply for any future competitions?  By the way, is there anything  
relevant 
from the original writing of the test that could be salvaged as  
interpretable, or
does the response distortion information negate  everything?

Finally, one of the messages that doesn't get out to  candidates often 
enough
is the manner in which many of the things they  perceive as obstacles to 
their
own success in competitions are intended to  provide a level playing field 
FOR
THEIR BENEFIT.  In other words,  should a candidate bare their soul and 
self-
report in a throughly honest  manner, they should not be penalized for it
because everyone else is  faking, either the first time or in any subsequent
competition.  It's  the same reason we don't provide too much feedback about
some kinds of  assessments; open the gates to feedback too much and one 
risks giving some  candidates an unfair advantage the next time by 
providing 
more usable  feedback for some than for others, or by simply giving the 
advantage to  re-takers over first-timers.  The candidate, meanwhile, 
thinks 
you're  just holding out on them, rather than holding out on everyone else 
who  
might beat them unfairly.  They need to be educated to see things in  the 
big 
picture.  We need to work harder at that.

My  sympathies, Harry.

Mark Hammer
Ottawa


>>>  <RPClare at aol.com> 2009/11/21 8:34 am >>>

I agree with Lance  that a retake creates the impression of a second chance 
 
that is not  provided to others who failed. I also would have concerns 
regarding   your "overly generous" interpretation. It suggests that they 
were not 
only  given  a second chance but the requirements were also eased. 
I do  believe this type of test can have a place in Civil service. We   
routinely use "non-scored" hurdles that do not impact the rankings  (e.g.  
degrees, trainings, licenses, physical exams).
The magic is  to clearly communicate what the rules are in advance. For my  
own  benefit, I would have a clearly written "pass point" for the test. If  
that  can't be done because there is a "clinical" judgment involved,  I 
would 
make sure  a credentialed clinician make the call (even if  it's only on 
the 
close  ones)


In a message dated  11/20/2009 5:51:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,   
Harry.Brull at pdininthhouse.com writes:

Folks,

I'm interested  in any advice in a sticky  situation:

Recently I conducted a  police lieutenant promotional process  for a 
department of  approximately 100 sworn personnel. One of the components  
was an  
omnibus personality inventory which I "scored". (It happened to be a   PDI 
proprietary instrument, but the situation would have been no  different  
with, for 
example, the California Personality Inventory  (CPI) or  equivalent.)

Two of the candidates produced invalid  profiles (as  evidenced by a good 
impression and response distortion  scale). I asked them to  re-take the 
instrument and was able to  interpret the results (although one  resulting 
profile 
was marginally  valid and I probably was overly generous in  interpreting 
the  
results)

Afterwards, even though his total results  placed him  well out of the 
running for promotion, one of the candidates   complained that he was 
unfairly 
treated. Others wondered publically why  I  didn't just "fail" him for this 
portion of the process.

Two  Civil  Service hearings later, I am feeling somewhat frustrated trying 
 
to explain  personality testing, faking, etc. to people who either  don't 
understand or  don't want to understand.

So here's my  questions:
*    Do  self-report measures such as personality  profiles have a place in 
Civil  service procedures which must produce  a rank-ordered list of  
scores?
*    Are there instruments  which overcome the hurdle of  faking (my 
internal experts tell me  "no")
*    What should one do  with a candidate profile that  is uninterpretable?

I've been asked to  recommend substitute  procedures. So far I've suggested 
oral interview,  role-plays, and  the Promotability index (a procedure 
where 
multiple raters  place  candidates of numerical "rungs" of a ladder - 
candidate score is the   arithmetic average of assigned ratings).

Any ideas out   there?

Thanks,
Harry Brull
Harry Brull |  Senior   Vice-President 
PDI Ninth House
Global Leadership   Solutions

1.612.337.8233  office
1.612.414.8998    mobile
1.612.337.3695  fax
Harry.Brull at pdininthhouse.com   <mailto:First.Last at pdininthhouse.com> 

33 South Sixth   Street
Suite 4900
Minneapolis, MN  55402

www.pdininthhouse.com  


Confidentiality Notice:  All information in this communication,  including 
any files or  attachments, is intended for the sole use of the  individual 
or  
entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that  is  
confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret information entitled  to  
protection 
and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If  you are not  the 
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any  dissemination,  
distribution, or copying of this communication is  strictly prohibited. If 
you  have 
received this communication in  error, please notify the sender by return  
email 
and delete this  communication from your system. Thank you for your   
cooperation.
_______________________________________________________
IPAC-List
IPAC-List at ipacweb.org  
http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list  


_______________________________________________________
IPAC-List
IPAC-List at ipacweb.org  
http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list
_______________________________________________________
IPAC-List
IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list