Nowadays, making predictions is essential: we need to anticipate the climate, sports results, monetary information, and so forth. It just bodes well that the business world is going with the same pattern. To this end, vast organizations have been utilizing psychometric tests for quite a while now, to foresee individual behavior before recruiting, advancement and other necessary activities.
The Society for Industrial & Organizational Psychology (SIOP) cites from their research that an active 68% of organizations to engage in various forms of job skill testing. This transcends to about 29% when it comes to one or more forms of psychological measurement and around 20% for cognitive ability tests.
These tests in combination form the essentials of a psychometric test, something when used correctly enhances the chances of organizational success. Having said that, there are several applications to psychometric tests in an organizational context. We’ll take a look at the same in segments to come.
Applications Of Psychometric Tests In An Organizations
· Training & Development
· Organizational Planning
· Performance Evaluation
· Employee Engagement
In 2002, Sara Rynes, Kenneth Brown and Amy Colbert conducted a study that should’ve raised red flags and eyebrows in the business world. It determined whether the ideologies of HR professionals remained consistent with established research findings on the effectiveness of various HR practices. The survey consisted of 1,000 Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) members – Managers, VPs, and Directors with an average of 14 years in experience.
The results identified staffing as an area of great disconnect, an HR lynchpin. It was particularly prevalent in the area of hiring tests where more than 50% of respondents cited unfamiliarity with prevailing research findings.
For anyone who’s ever been responsible for hiring, you must know that there’s wide variation in workforce performance across jobs. This makes it important to understand the differences among individuals that systematically affect job performance, ensuring candidates with the greatest probability for success be hired.
What’s important to note is that psychometric testing doesn’t necessarily restrict its use to larger organizations. SMEs can use the method as part of their recruitment strategies also. Here are some inherent benefits to including the same in your organization:
- Interview Independence: Recruitment agendas are most commonly associated with filling your vacancies with the right people for the job; by itself, interviews do not measure capability. Psychometric tests stand to give you a benchmark – a comparative view of results against other applicants, and also previous hires currently thriving in your organization.
- Cost & Time Efficient: Using psychometric tests at the beginning for the application process eliminates the need to shift through a mountain of application forms. In a highly competitive talent market, it’s easier to work with the filtered best as candidates than finding them from scratch.
- Inherent Traits: Contrary to popular belief, a strongly constructed psychometric test is difficult to game. In most cases, the results mirror the candidates in question. These results are likely an inside view into how he or she is going to interact with, engage or improve your workplace. This would include behavioural traits in addition to the important technical aspect.
- Standardized Testing: It’s a fair form of testing in the simplest of terms. While larger organizations do tailor tests to their specificity, candidates interacting with the test go through exactly the same process and without bias. It’s a strong alternative to interviews, which heavily relies on the interviewer’s frame of mind – often prone to fluctuation.
- Cultural Fitment: Recruitments aren’t all about hiring strong talent with the demonstrative ability to fit into a job role. Whilst a critical requirement, it’s ideal to identify if said candidate fits in well with the rest of the team already working with you, or better yet – how well they fit into a company’s culture. This benefit has also been known to affect employee attrition.
To elaborate the last point, cultural fitment has by large become a critical component in personifying your ideal employee in terms of organizational, job role, or management suitability. It echoes the ideology that a stellar employee in one company may not necessarily stand strong in another.
A small example would lie in Marissa Mayer, and her failure in transitioning into the role of Yahoo’s CEO. Regardless of her failed stint at the helm of Yahoo, Marissa – a former Google VP – was a stellar candidate, having been part of the three-person team to launch AdWords followed by her strong involvement in Google Search.
One could say that her failure at Yahoo boiled down to an intelligent person not being part of the organizational synergy – someone with little to no turnaround experience, leadership experience in running large enterprises, and management experience. This was correlation mismanagement. Another issue psychometrics attempts to address.
On the cultural compatibility front, Marissa forced an end to Yahoo’s popular work from home policy in an attempt to improve work productivity. It ended with increased stress, lowered productivity, and higher real estate costs.
When it comes to L&D programs, Business Impact and Return on Investment (ROI) rank as the two most desired measures by CEOs in an Adecco survey. Yet merely 8% of the organizations surveyed currently notice business impact by L&D; this drops by another 4% when it comes to ROI measurement as well.
Additionally, as part of the Workplace Learning Report, 32% among 500 L&D professionals identified with the genuine challenge of demonstrating ROI and business impact to senior leadership. It’s raised queries about L&D budgets, and its allocation thereof, which may hinder professionals from ever fully optimizing their initiatives.
The recent advent of assessment technology, however, seemed to have offset this disadvantage; at least to a certain degree. But we can maybe look more closely at how psychometric tests improve learning, training and development programs in organizations.
Exploring Use Cases:
Training Need Identification
The cut-e Assessment Barometer – an international survey of 2776 respondents from about 37 countries uncovered that Irish organizations along with others from Malaysia, the Netherlands and Sweden use psychometric tests in learning & development more than organizations in other geographies. Employers are doing this to better understand the strengths already in the organization.
The underlying principle behind making this happen is to create clearer career paths for the Irish company employees, and to embrace the culture that makes them successful. While historically used towards the end of the recruitment process, much of the data from psychometric tests largely went unused post-hire. The Irish were among the first to realize that these tests are primed to add more value than previously imagined, especially in maximizing ROI or understanding training needs.
Assessments are now deployed before the recruitment process also, the results of which are later used to give candidates more information on the applied role and provide feedback on candidate suitability, strengths and areas of development of the same. In fact, large organizations now utilize talent management systems that assess test data gathered pre-hire to create training plans and link employees with roles that become available in the organization.
In fact, any company working into the creation of training and development initiatives for its workforce must learn how to properly identify and assess the needs for the training. This helps the leadership identify gaps between existing training and that which would be required in the future. Categorically, there could be three different needs the leadership could look at, and perhaps three assessment methods for identifying core training requirements at any organization.
- Industry Based Requirement
While simple, they do become a challenge when you attempt to narrow it down to the necessities required of a training program. It is imperative that every employee across stages in an organization requires different levels of industry knowledge. The need here derives from how the organization fits into the industry itself.
An example could lie in a manufacturing group, and say they create parts for high-tech appliances that require the knowledge about where the parts go, how the manufacturing of said appliances coordinated via other companies impact the industry on whole, and the kind of appliances structured. When assessing this requirement, it is essential to differentiate what needs to be known from what would be nice to know.
- Job Based Requirement
These relate directly to the jobs that are part of the organization. Job related training requirements is aimed to improve the final output of the job. It could be in building an error-free part for a technological appliance, or a completed call with the consumer. The key to building a training program here lies in which aspects of the job belong to leadership or executive positions, and which lie within on-the-job training.
- Task Based Requirement
A combination of different tasks and processes is what creates your job on a daily to yearly basis. This is the underlying commonality between most jobs. When one or more aspects of a job aren’t functioning, it affects the overall productivity of the workforce in question.
For example, a customer service executive may perform optimally in sales and customer satisfaction, but still fail at inputting data into the CRM system. This problem right here may affect customer contact, or worse yet – the number of closed sales.
Training Need Identification that utilizes psychometric tests must remain focused on the effectiveness of the enterprise as a whole. It targets discrepancies that reveal the skills or knowledge required to bridge gaps. The test must take into account factors such as new environmental policies, changing workforce dynamics, demographics, and the economy.
When working through an training, identification of the need ranks fairly high in importance. A prime focus on each kind of training – albeit task based, industry based or job based – is necessary to determine the best course of action for the enterprise.
But while much of what’s been described covers the aspect on how training can most effectively be delivered, a better analysis would require an organization to answer the following questions also:
- Why is training needed?
- What sort of training is required?
- Who precisely needs the training?
To answer the first question, Training Need Identification ranks among those strategic initiatives taken to delve deeper into the ways of enriching competencies, workforce potential, and capabilities. In fact, with the successful deployment of the analysis, the organization would be in its most primed position to evaluate better outcomes considering the best utilization of its resources.
Through the training need analysis, you also gain insight into how relevant training is for the employees. The important question to consider here is if trained, would they actually improve in terms of job performance? And if the improved job performance has anything to do with an organization’s business outcome or goals.
On the other hand, it also allows for a detailed foray into the areas in which employees fall behind – knowledge, attitude or skills. This understanding also works toward empowering employees by providing them with a platform to acquire new skills at a faster pace, and thereby enjoy work.
With proper analysis and implementation, an organization can steadily steer employees into remaining happy and highly productive. It’s this stage – the training need analysis – that scrutinizes the gap in performance against theory to its current form.
It builds towards the improvement of different aspects of the organization, build specific training programs to address important gaps, and boost the effectiveness of the company overall.
Learning & Development Initiatives have historically faced little support within the organizational ecosystem. People have speculated that this is in part because of an organization’s inability to measure training effectiveness without directly testing employees or candidates in real world scenarios.
In a survey by the Open University Business School on over 200 learning and development (L&D) senior decision makers, two-fifths of international organizations revealed to possess little to no global strategy for learning initiatives. This in part, because of a lack of general visibility on business outcomes from said initiatives against the investment laid – ROI.
The Challenges of Global L&D Survey unveiled two more insights of note:
- 50% of L&D decision-makers find that learning is not seen as important
- 42% lack direction from the leadership
However, the advent of test technology propelled the understanding of L&D efficacy without leaning in on real-world observation. This has, in fact, stretched to better budgeting and greater improvement in the concept of training and development also. The inclusion of psychometric tests to analyse behavioral competencies, inspired from its use in assessment centers, served to augment the process.
An evaluation, in the first place, is taken which gives a report of proficiency of each participant over the critical competencies- specific set of competencies required to be effective at the workplace crosswise over various job roles.
These reports are fundamental for we can’t move onwards until the point that the right match between candidate to be trained and competency to be worked upon has been discovered.
Then comes the training part which could shape into various forms. It could be classroom or educator driven or could incorporate intelligent techniques (tests, case studies, group discussions, etc.)
After the training, comes the part to gauge its adequacy. Luckily, there exists some demonstrated methodologies for measuring training effectiveness. Using Kirkpatrick Model, with a basic 4-level approach, one can effectively gauge the viability.
Through the Kirkpatrick Model, assessment technology is introduced via a set of customized diagnostic and summative assessments. This covers employee proficiency right before and 3 months post training, and is most easily identified with the learning part of the Kirkpatrick Model.
Behavioral changes are better measured via use of a 360 feedback loop, an assessment that accounts for an individual’s change in behavior based on manager, peer and subordinate experience.
There are couple of reasons to consider behind the benefits of training based evaluations:
- Validation as a Business Tool
Training in its purest form aims to improve organizational performance and profitability. Only with proper evaluation can it stand in comparison against other methods, such as hiring or recruiting experienced outside talent, and expect to be selected either in combination or over said methods.
- Justification of Costs Incurred
Conventional wisdom has shown training budgets to be amongst the first to experience shortage under financial stress. Quantitative and Qualitative analytics could serve to help training departments resist such budgetary sacrifice.
- Improved Training Design
Training programs possess the potential to evolve and improve to provide better benefits and stronger business outcomes to an organization. Without data-backed evaluation, the foundation of change can be subjective at best.
- Selection of Training Methods
Training delivery is often subject to debate, be it on-the-job, self-study methodologies, classroom interaction or more. Evaluation techniques at a comparative level help organizations make sound decisions behind the methods to utilize.
Assessment & Development Centers
Assessment Centers are known to involve participants completing a range of tasks that simulate real-time activities carried out in the target job. A combination of the same, and more importantly methods that utilize psychometric tests and interviews are used to assess specific competencies in candidates.
The concept is defined by an organization’s desire to predict future job performance. Assessment & Development Centers are known to draw this outcome by having individuals carry out a set of tasks that most accurately sample those required in the job. In simpler terms, these centers are designed to measure and observe behavior.
This approach derails from the more traditional approach in which an observer primarily infers personal characteristics from behaviour based upon subjective judgement, and usually without much evidence. Over time, these have been rendered ineffective and inaccurate because of the subjective biases and hims of the observer.
There are multiple ways to deploy an assessment center based on organizational preference, requirement and convenience also. A couple of ideologies in place currently include:
- Virtual Assessment Center
A high-impact simulation of real world scenarios based on organizational definitions allows candidates to experience an assessment that yields a consistent and stable evaluation of actual behavior.
- Blended Assessment Center
A concept that bridges both the digital and physical worlds. Often used as a management development strategy, blended assessment center solutions allow for a human review along with the efficiency an online platform for test delivery.
In many cases, traditional approaches have also produced selection criteria or decisions based on loose social interactions, post which an individual’s cultural fitment with an organization is determined. Assessment & Development Centers aided with test technology, especially in the field of psychometrics remedy this situation rather heavily.
As of 2017-18, every decision is often put under the microscope from a business perspective. These decisions require justification, backed and informed by data. When it comes to organizational planning, a lot of weight is given to employees at different stages of their employee lifecycle.
It mostly covers segments on high potential identification, which could broadly spread through different levels of the organization, and succession planning centered around future leadership development.
Psychometric testing contributes to an important element of scientific function in an industry that has often relied on external human measures such as instinct or synergies between the reviewer and reviewee. While the idea of psychometrics does not diminish neither instinct or reviewer-reviewee compatibility, it does add to its objectivity.
A Willis Tower Watson Study measured the utility of psychometric tests by organizations in both facets of high potential identification and succession planning across varied seniority.
High Potential Identification witnessed its largest usage in middle management, with 52% of the companies from the study utilizing psychometric tests to improve organizational effectiveness of the same. Succession Planning – on the other hand – displayed its usage in senior management with 28% of the studied organizations using psychometrics. These numbers are expected to rise with improved awareness and visible positive impact.
Exploring Use Cases:
Succession Planning is determined by the identification of vacancies that an organization may expect through either attrition or retirement. It is the strategic consideration of how, where and when internal candidates may be primed to fill said vacancies.
This would require the assessment of skills and requirement from the job of existing employees, seeking to plug the gaps between needs and skills with articulate training and development initiatives. Simply put, it identifies future leaders.
This is an important way to isolate employees with the skills or potential to develop said skills that could perhaps help them move higher in an organizational ladder, or onto more suitable positions. When you place psychometric tests into the equation, there is evidence to a more effective form of succession planning. Some of which are highlighted below:
- Fiscal Benefits
Utilizing psychometric tests to identify for behavioral traits that are indicative of leadership leads to a positive impact on performance management, ensuring strategic positions remain occupied with competent performers. This would negate the cost and time behind external recruitment and training, which are statistically more expensive that promoting from within.
- Levels Beyond training
Contrary to popular belief, succession planning isn’t about training alone. And while it is part of the process necessary to provide potential employees with the skills, abilities or knowledge to bridge voids left by future vacancies, it also aids with the initial assessment of potential vulnerabilities that may impact performance management.
For example, an organization at the risk of losing a high-performance salesperson without anyone in line to step into the mantle is vulnerability. The early identification of these vulnerabilities is key to managing risk.
- Gaps in Desirable Competencies
An important benefit to consider in succession planning is the utilization of diagnostic tests to identify where there might be gaps between what an employee currently knows and what he or she needs to know.
The gaps are better measured on the basis of current needs for key strategic positions; an inherent lack of employees with the required skills, or foresight into the determination of what new competencies may become necessary. This is required for an organization to avoid breaking stride in terms of performance and productivity in the event of a vacancy.
The identification of potential employees to fill vacancies, the consideration of internal talent that requires coaching, an aspect of mentorship, and training to step into slots when necessary is a key function of the HR department in several organizations today.
Succession Planning is a strategic approach to make sure that the necessary talent and skills are made available when required, and has been identified as a key initiative for addressing a number of critical human resource issues. This includes increased turnover rates, fast-paced changes in work, and a desire for a sound workforce across levels.
The most commonly utilized steps for succession planning are as follows:
- Identification of Critical Positions: These are the focus of succession planning efforts, and if left vacant would make it difficult for the organization to achieve business goals.
- Competencies Required: This speaks to the identification of competencies required for success in said position.
- Incorporation of Strategies: Learning, training and development for successful succession planning and management.
- Evaluation of Effectiveness: This tells about the productiveness of the strategies incorporated.
The story also works to highlight that a succession either propels an organization to brave turbulent market waters, or sinks it through the holes. In situations where requirements and roles are sharply defined, psychometric tests could be used to identify an employee’s future potential in the role.
It provides advantages in the form of objective information on employee effectivity, behavioral competencies suited to the organizational ecosystem, and leadership stage compatibility.
High Potential (HiPo) Identification
In the business world today, there is a growing interest in high potential (HiPo) identification. An employee’s potential determines the upper limit of his or her development range. Suffice to say, the more potential they have, the cheaper and quicker it is to develop them.
Studies indicate that investment in the right people maximizes organizational returns, largely derivative of Pareto’s Principle or the 80/20 Rule. It roughly identifies that about 80% of the effect arise from merely 20% of the causes. This is further validated by deeper research – across a broad range of industries, organizations, and tasks, a minute portion of the workforce drive large proportions of organizational results.
This pattern visibly grows with the complexity of the job itself. For jobs of low complexity, top employees outperform average employees by a rough median of 50%. You could take manufacturing as an example here. This difference rises to about 85-100% for jobs of medium complexity; trainers or sales managers.
Highly complex jobs, especially senior leadership roles contribute more than double of the average margin, with a contribution output over 100%. There’s also an added benefit to having these star performers in a team environment, boosting effectiveness of other members to around 15%.
In fact, study shows stronger fiscal performance in companies dedicated to identifying and developing top talent. But if an organization is to invest in the right employees, the question raises of who they actually are. Differently put, what are the key indicators that signal this high potential? Psychometrics, however, reveal that regardless of industry, job, or complexity, such individuals tend to possess a range of measurable qualities – qualities that can be identified early in the process.
In the 21st century, when comparing scientific research or psychometric use to desirable qualities or traits on the predictors of job performance identified a couple of markers of high potential. These ingredients are key to making the psychometric test suited to high potential identification.
- Ability: Forecasting potential in a bigger, more complex job environment shifts focus to how likely an individual is to learn and master skill along with requisite knowledge. Cognitive ability or IQ is the single-best predictor of the same. Learning ability includes a heavy cognitive component, aided by motivation to pick up new skills in a flexible and speedy manner.
- Social Skills: Research reveal that the primary reason for management derailment is relationship problems. Employees steadied to succeed in more complex environments are able to first manage themselves, and establish strong cooperative working relationships. Sophisticated political skills are also much desired for senior roles, and much of these functions form core elements of emotional intelligence. While the traits are revealed via assessment, it could be further refined through training and development.
- Drive: Standardized tests that are known to measure conscientiousness ( a part of the Five Factor Model), ambition and achievement motivation are often readied as part of tailored psychometric tests. These traits are also identified behaviorally with indicators around hard work, willingness to extra duties, responsibility, and readiness to sacrifice.
Not many employees possess these traits, which is why they often remaining the 1%.A company is more likely to end up with a stronger proportion of high potential employees that disproportionately contribute to an organization when they rely on tests with a scientific foundation. This is key to the highest levels of ROI.
In 2008, Howard Schultz re-assumed the role of CEO at Starbucks. He has since achieved market capitalization of $33 billion, over $11 billion in annual sales, and net annual profits of more than $1.7 billion. This is all the more impressive when you consider that in a struggling US economy, where average growth of S&P 500 companies lingered at 0.4% in 2011, Starbucks’ share price increased by more than 40%.
When setbacks post the Great Depression urged Schultz to temporarily close 7,100 US Stores in an effort to retrain baristas on how to make the perfect espresso. Over the course the two years that followed, Schultz led Starbucks’ massive turnaround, which included tripling profits from $315 million to $945 million by 2010.
Another key aspect of this overhaul consisted of Schultz desire to have Starbucks hire over 10,000 military veterans along with their spouses by 2018. The company also developed policies to pay for its employees’ college tuition. Interestingly, throughout the man’s career at Starbucks, Howard Schultz prioritized his employees. He called them his partners, offering them complete health coverage as well as stock options.
In one sentence – high performance to disproportionate gains for one company that was Starbucks by one employee, namely Howard Schultz. HiPo.
It is important to note that in the matter of performance evaluation, job performance is subject to social and organizational influences. This is indicative of something known as effective job behavior, but what constitutes good from poor performance relies entirely on organizational context.
For example, the armed forces place a ton of importance on performance metrics such as military bearings. It signified the appearance and mentality of a serviceman, covering meticulous attributes such as ironed uniforms, properly worn equipment, manner of behaviour in and out of formation, and more.
Likewise, a mechanic would be evaluated a little differently than military personnel by a car dealership. It’s why experts suggest the inclusion of descriptions based on job complexity for the purposes of appraisal – namely situational factors that interact or influence behavior, job outcomes, and job behaviour.
In 1980s, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) was reported to use the Management Excellence Inventory. The MEI described management functions and the skills required of said functions. It suggested that at three levels of management, different layers of knowledge and skills are required to reach a measurable level of success
- Lower Level Managers: Required technical competence and interpersonal communication skills.
- Mid Level Managers: Needed less technical competence, but significant skill in areas such as communication, flexibility, risk-taking, leadership and concern with goal achievement.
- Top Level Manager: Required all the skills of a mid-tier manager including a long-term view, a strategic view, and sensitivity to the environment.
Via review, research on these areas of skill indicates that all are general, some are task-oriented, and some such as flexibility and leadership are personal traits.
Now in private-sector organizations with easily measurable bottom lines, it is simpler to develop individual or quantitative work goals than it is in bureaucracies or governments where bottom lines are difficult to define. But the easy availability of quantitative goals might actually prove to hinder the valid measurement of employee effectiveness, especially since these goals shift focus to short-term results.
Further evidence highlight that the incorporation of countable, objective measures of performance into an overall appraisal could lead to an issue of overemphasis on fairly concrete aspects of performance and an underemphasis on those less easily quantified – aspects that yield concrete outcomes only in the long term.
When in application for performance evaluation, psychometric testing involves two prime functions – the use of appropriate instruments, and the evaluation in the wake of applying such tests. The reason testing rose to prominence for segments such as performance evaluations is better explained with a weighted example.
The example but shows that traditional methods of performance evaluation carry a high-risk of individual bias, race aside there are also matters of favoritism and gender bias among others. They are not comprehensive and undermine the effectiveness of people performance. Psychometric tests move beyond decisions made on the basis of a chance to make a real impact on the success and talent quotient of any business.
We have discussed a little about validity and reliability of a psychometric test; suffice to say, they need to remain high on both accounts for performance evaluation also.
A 2006 research revealed that in order to make psychometric tests valid, an organization is required to supervise changes in criteria in order to keep balance of skills and personalities in need of evaluation. If good communication skills is a mandate for a role, a baseline must be established normatively for the test in question before the evaluation process. Again, it is wise to modify if factors of emotional stability – for example – is required in addition to base communication.
Therefore, to maintain the validity of the performance evaluation process, the psychometric tests deployed require a certain amount of flexibility in accordance with the situation. In other words, if you are considering these tests, it is only helpful in case of well-established metrics of job performance. Let us take a look at some of the criteria required of this validity:
- Objective and removed of impact by the values of the tester
- Managed in standardized or controlled scenarios
- Basic certainty of quantifying and minimizing intrinsic errors
- Predict and evaluate performance of employees accurately
- Provide a status of being non-discriminatory
Of course, this is only established when an organization makes use of combined psychometric and traditional techniques. But, choosing the right test criteria mostly depends on the role or position for which the employee or candidate is being assessed.
In an organizational context, there is often the case of employee burnout – a situation of emotional exhaustion, lack of personal attribution or accomplishment, and depersonalization. Around the early 1980s, psychometric research led to the development of the Maslach-Burnout Inventory (MBI) designed to measure burnout.
Typically restrained to the evaluation of human services, research later led to the making of the MBI-General Survey (MBI-GS), a newer version to include all employees and not merely those in industries of people work.
Relatively little attention has been directed toward concepts considered antipodes of burnout; an exception being psychological presence or to be invested fully. The thought emerged from role theory and is often defined as an experiential state that channels energies into cognitive, physical and emotional labors using personally engaging behaviors.
Now why does this require intervention by test technology? In January 2016, Gallup released the results of its annual employee engagement survey polling more than 80,000 working adults in the U.S.A. It accounted for a workforce across industries, of which Gallup identified merely 32% as engaged at the workplace.
Interestingly, 17.2% fell into the category of being actively disengaged and 50.8% into the classification of absolutely not engaged. It mirrored the results of 2015, marking little to no improvement in avenues of employee engagement. There are some other researches that compels one to remain firm in the matter.
Contrarily, engaged employees possess a sense of effective and energetic connection with work related activities, going as far as to see themselves as able to deal perfectly with the demands of the job. In psychometric tests designed to assess the matter – such as the MBI or MBI-GS – it would be wise to review the opposite pattern of scores on the below mentioned MBI dimensions.
- Low scores on exhaustion and cynicism
- High scores on efficacy
Both engagement and burnout hold easily measured metrics, and while the metrics itself are opposites, the concept of the two are not. This is something that’s being constantly researched into improvement. Psychometric qualities of the two inventories, and the tests that yield it face considerable favor due to two immediate benefits to organizations:
- Effective Measurement of Engagement based on Cultural Fitment Pre-Hire
- Process Improvement via Regular Assessment through an Employee’s Lifecycle
A logical next step to everything that’s been discussed thus far, employee engagement aside, is further research. While simple in statement, there are a lot of facets or scales and their relationship to job-related variables matter.
For example, burnout research reveal different types of variables related to different dimensions of burnout – emotional exhaustion correlating to job demands such as time pressure and workload, whereas cynicism or disengagement from work is more a function of poor job resources, poor job control, lack of feedback, lack of participation in decision making, and lack of social support.
Coming soon…….chapter five