Recently, I have been engaged in a LinkedIn group discussion on the topic of management assessment tools such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and DISC in the realm of executive coaching. I have used MBTI to some extent and DISC with literally hundreds of people who have participated in my leadership development programs and coaching engagements over the past two decades. This is a global discussion group, and it is the general consensus from around the world that these tools are indeed very useful. One person in the discussion sent an Ezine article to all of us stressing the importance of using the tools but not labeling people who take these profiling instruments. This hit home with me.
I was very instrumental in implementing DISC throughout a three division company years ago and we were most concerned that certain managers would use the behavioral profiles of DISC to determine who should be in which jobs. I recall one group of middle and senior managers were mostly "High D's (Dominant)" with one "High I (Influencer) and one "High S (Steady)." It was not long after this group became aware of their collective profiles that the High S asked to step down from management and to go back into a more functional role. He determined from his profile why he felt he did not fit in with the other managers. He labeled himself right out of a job. I should point out that he was a successful manager. What was more troublesome to me were the High D's who took that designation as a badge of honor, as though their profile validated their positions of control. It took a lot of work to shift this way of thinking, but we eventually made some significant headway.
This discussion reminded me of another assessment process that I occasionally encounter as an executive recruiter, and that is the insistence by some of my clients that any candidate they want to hire must first go through a day long battery of tests and psychological interviews prior to being extended an offer. I have seen a few solid candidates make it to the finish line but not be able to cross it due to the results of their assessment. What bothers me about this is that the client is rejecting a candidate who had made it to the top of a very tall pyramid. It is not unusual for the top candidate to have risen above 100+ others in the search process to reach the offer stage. Many clients interview five or more top candidates to get to the one they want to hire. These candidates would have been thoroughly vetted by me and my team and would have interviewed more than once with a group of their potential employers. Also, by that point, references would have been conducted.
If the assessment organization gives the candidate a "thumbs down," it is a similar situation to me of organizations labeling managers due to their behavioral profile. My feeling in these situations is: Why don't you just test these people first and then let the test tell you whom to hire? Of course I don't really mean that, but my point is that it bothers me that so much effort goes into the hiring process and yet a single organizational psychologist in these situations can sometimes torpedo an executive hire with ease. Granted, there are times when something significant will surface from these assessments. I'm not suggesting that these assessments are a waste of time and money; far from it. They clearly have value as another set of eyes so to speak. The really good assessors make it clear to their clients that their findings are merely a data point to consider, yet many of my clients take their input as gospel and will reject a candidate outright sometimes based on a marginal assessment result.
So what am I suggesting? When assessment results send up a red flag or two, savvy organizations should take that as a cue to probe deeper rather than a cue to drop the candidate like a hot potato. On several occasions when this has happened, I have suggested to my clients that we revisit the references we had contacted earlier in the process and target the issue(s) that arose during the assessment. For example, it may be that the position requires a high degree of conflict management competency and the assessment discloses that the individual shirks from confrontations. A simple matter would be to go back to the references (and even get a few more) and ask them direct questions about, in this case, demonstrated conflict management skills. It may very well be that the assessment uncovered a real problem, but it is worth the effort to have former bosses, colleagues and direct reports address the potential problem and give actual examples to support their comments--one way or the other. The client can then take ALL of this information into consideration prior to extending or declining to extend an offer. Moreover, an organization committed to executive development could take that information and begin immediately to fold it into a developmental strategy for the new executive once hired. Why wait a year or more for a talent mapping exercise to determine what developmental needs the individual has? We ALL have developmental needs. I have found that when a newly hired executive knows there is a clearly identified developmental need regarding a particular behavioral tendency (or aptitude deficit), he or she will work very hard to resolve this deficiency. That is a proper use of leadership developers and executive coaches to me. It is also a common executive coaching practice to help really talented people with great track records get better.
In short, rejecting excellent candidates outright who showed up weak in an area or two of a third party assessment, should not happen until other more direct verification steps have been taken.
www.MichaelKBurroughs.com
