Technology and its meaning for HR managers

The Age of Surprise is precipitated by the simultaneity of factors that edge our moments in life. Nuclear war, chemical threats, designer famines and physical terror seem likely enough. Yet, the trigger for these could be in the hands of innocent perpetrators. Each time we query a search engine, we are as a civilisation consuming more energy than we expend on a hand-held device. Time Tech said  in 2011 that “One Google search is equal to turning on a 60W light bulb for 17 seconds.” Would it be then appropriate to say that we pay a price for ignorance when we consume what we do?

In order to survive, even human resource managers use technology. They have large data management needs for storing personnel records. They also have personal needs to store reminders, tasks to do and private computations that serve their social and professional interests. However, when swamped with information that software analyses provide; human judgment is called for. In order to practice judgment, one needs to

1)       be prepared to contextualise one’s decisions, irrespective of traditions, and yet mindful of precedents;

2)       be courageous to test the unknown and yet unwilling to be naïve; and

3)       be forthright with candour and yet endear the ones who are impacted.

It turns out that language has a crucial role in the way our frames for decisions inform our judgment. Let us consider the word ‘technology’ for example. Wikipedia quotes “The word technology refers to the making, modification, usage, and knowledge of tools, machines, techniques, crafts, systems, and methods of organization, in order to solve a problem, improve a preexisting solution to a problem, achieve a goal, handle an applied input/output relation or perform a specific function.” And to think that Sony's Walkman and Apple's Mac or the Tata's Nano are the only marks of technology!

Further it states “The human species' use of technology began with the conversion of natural resources into simple tools. The prehistorical discovery of the ability to control fire increased the available sources of food and the invention of the wheel helped humans in travelling in and controlling their environment. Recent technological developments, including the printing press, the telephone, and the Internet, have lessened physical barriers to communication and allowed humans to interact freely on a global scale.”

Hence, when a Human Resource Manager refers to the word ‘technology’ today, it is not surprising, that he / she may like to

1)       contextualise for economic impact, especially when the self is reduced to a denominator, where the numerator is revenue or profit,

2)       resign to rather than test the unknown oneself, for complexity has outpaced singular capacity to deal with variety

3)       bind others through technique, systems and craft than endear with one’s heart, as the toll on emotional energy is upped by the incessant demands of financial value-chains.

So does it help get some perspective of our species per se? It does. Few of us are willing to recognise that evidence points to the use of technology in human society as long back as 54,000 years ago! While the Mu civilisation did not reach as high a technology, supposedly, as other later civilizations, it is, nevertheless, said to have attained some advanced technology, particularly in the building of long-lasting megalithic buildings that were able to withstand earthquakes. However, it was the science of government that is said to have been Mu's greatest achievement. What can be said of our Human Resource Management systems in organisations today?

In the annals of time, some contemporary scholarly adjustments from a Euro-centric view of history to a more integrated one commence not earlier than 700 AD. (Arnold Pacey, Technology and World Civilization (MIT Press, 1991)).  While history itself will judge us on how HR managers use technology, I simply loved a case study posted on the city of Ur in Sumer.  The main idea in the case is that science and technology helped raise productivity, farm produce and the rise of civilization. Undoubtedly, we are in a different context. While current civilizations share some aspects in common with ancient ones, the level of specialization in our society has galloped without respite.

While People Process Capability measurements have popularized the word ‘ institutionalization’ – its inherent meaning is short of integration in organisations that assess themselves for maturity.  An institution could be considered as a long-lasting pattern of organization in a community. Complex institutions, such as government, religion, and the economy, are another characteristic of civilization.

In our times, when the short-term memories of people are heightened on an hourly basis, the moot question for me is this “What model of human being do we hold when we manage human resources?” That will surely influence technologies that enable or accompany HR managers. Let us for purposes of this reading, restrict ourselves to assessment technologies.  Says Alexander Panesh of Moscow’s Technical Univeristy “Assessment technology is a logical scheme of stage_by_stage and complex usage of all the existing approaches to HR assessment. Thus, in this form the best result can be reached. However, under these circumstances it is not always possible to follow an ideal scheme in practice.” Thus human judgment goes in tandem with choice of assessment technologies.

I would refer to a wise set of judgment criteria as laid out by Dr. Daniel Harrison as below

1.       Job Specificity : How controlled is the play of technology? Is it based on workplace performance theory, where success is heightened when the role holder enjoys performance? Besides, does the technology also predict performance success with related characteristics such as fit with supervisor, work environment preferences, task preferences, life-interests, beyond just personality aspects that indicate behaviour preferences? Context matters.

2.       Number of job related factors : Does the technology explain all known aspects of behaviour or just a handful of factors? Does the technology indicate criticality of factors to success on the job? Test the unknown too.

3.       Lie-detection : Does the technology contain measures of respondent consistency that screen out socially desirable responses? Does it indicate which factors are less reliable in the measurement? 

4.       Simplicity and Amenability : Does the tool ease up the process of assessment, than to make additional demands on the assessor? Can it involve the assessee only to the extent required and no more to produce reliable and accurate outcomes?

5.       Measurement Scale : Does the technology use scaling techniques that are at once amenable to comparison to a norm for the specified job as also for self-reflection and development? E.g. Is it merely a bipolar scale as opposed to an integration of paradox behaviours? Endear the assessee to success on the job.

Thus as we can see, just from the above scenario for technology in human resource assessments, the technology for discernment and judgment amongst HR practitioners need parallel development. The craft, art and use of science in HR practices may never be ideal, merely because we deal with phenomena of people who have volition beyond mere biological presence.

I am reminded more than ever that learning may come in the way of learning in our times. For evolution in human resource practices, we need to pay dynamic attention to the model of the human being at work. Maturity after all, is a marking against an ideal. If civilisation is developing, will it be because of human resources, or will it be in spite of them? Just as we need to be conscious in our use of energy on a google search, so should we be parsimonious in talent search. 

Technology is not just out there in disembodied virtual reality in the Age of Surprise, but within us as interactive human beings ourselves. Do we need to strike conversation on such? Comments and views welcome.

Measure for Success not for Seats filled - Are you both eligible and suitable?

Always useful to listen to a creator like Dr. Dan Harrison. The enmeshment of mathematical matrices and psychology of human preferences or tendencies is the Harrisons Assessment Talent Solutions (HATS). This note is to help recall some salient aspects of Dan’s approach. Am glad I had some direct interaction of high quality with him over the past few months. This is from my recent one on May 23, 2012 in Bangalore.

1.       In human assessments, especially for the workplace, two fundamental purposes need fulfillment. They are a) Predict Job Success and b) Inspire Performance. Now while that may seem obvious and ordinary, the uniqueness of such languaging is that values for science through measurement and values for humanism through accurate concern for human beings are both accomplished in HATS without compromise or deception.

2.       Without a method to integrate both prediction and inspiration, we find that the larger picture in relation to an incumbent’s job is lost. Often, we hire for eligibility or what people do, and fire for lack of suitability or for what people eventually become. Quite a shame is that not?

3.       In recruitment and related people management processes, for want of method, the numbers in measurement that business reviews today are the number of seats filled or attrition by some direct cost related demographic. Filling seats does not guarantee capability against competition. The measurements required are that of target role eligibility criteria, and person-job-fit for suitability.

4.       Suitability is more than just personality. Personality includes motivation for the job and attitudes towards it that a person has. Suitability includes personality and work preferences and interests. So, when hiring a person for selling medical equipment, over-emphasis on product or market knowledge may blind us from more determining factors such as self-improvement in a turbulent market.  In customer service roles, almost 70% of weight-age should go to suitability, than to eligibility criteria.

5.       Personality hardly remains stable across cultures. Suitability criteria for jobs or roles hold relatively constant across cultures. Hence, assessments that are job or role centric will yield better outcomes, than assessments on rule of thumb or those that are merely ‘assessment’ centric.

6.       Generally speaking the weightage criteria between eligibility and suitability would be 50:50 for upper management roles, 30:70 for middle management roles and 70:30 for entry level roles.

7.       When recruiting, do the most cost effective steps first. E.g. eliminate ‘spam’ candidates. Specify eligibility requirements in ways that weed out irrelevant applications. Then check for suitability. Until then there is no point interacting with them on a face to face basis. If the applicant is both eligible and suitable, you may then go for work sample tests or aptitude third-party assessments like verbal or numerical reasoning. Lowering your costs means knowing how to configure job success criteria.

8.       To ensure predictability of job success, measure ALL aspects of behaviors, including motivation, interests, personality, work-values and preferences. Missing any one will adversely affect the outcome. Without measuring at least 100 traits or tendencies, the complex construct of personality and suitability will be less robust in measurement.

9.       You’ve heard of the lie-detector. Missing reliable ways to test authenticity of response will lower predictability of assessment. For top or upper management roles, you need at least 90% consistency in response authenticity scores. Generally, you will need at least 75% consistency to predict job success through assessment.

10.    75% consistency in response is required to assure satisfaction on the job.  The gap today is that we do not look for what employees want in a job or role. Go further, and the questions become of what methods do we use to get such data about employees' interests and work preferences?

11.    The valid issue today is how do we cut people from the misery of uninformed choices regarding vocations we pursue? Do we end up cutting people from jobs that will inspire them?

So what is then the best data that will help the world of work today? Is it not data on what will make people succeed on their jobs? Hire for passion, train for skills! 


Develop for relationship and help people uncover their paradoxical constraints.  People develop polarities over time. They can uncover them through the Paradox Technology (TM). I particularly enjoyed Dan's humility when I mentioned of Barry Johnson's approach to Polarity Management. These come handy when coaching my executive clients. Just last week, an entrepreneur wondered at the insights he got, and realized what a sustained process development should be. Development is indeed no trifle either, as I have earlier written.