Introduction

A large range of instrumentation is now being used in industry, commerce and government to assess personality, managerial style and to predict work behavior. Many of these instruments were never designed for such a purpose. They are used because they are available, convenient and well marketed. However the results obtained and the feedback given have to be interpreted in the context of the use for which each instrument was initially designed. This section explains the difference between work specific and generalized instruments and outlines guidelines for their use in human resources.

Understanding Behavior at Work

Over the last thirty years in particular, various efforts have been made to gain a better understanding of why people behave the way they do. Measures to achieve this have been based on a wide range of theories and research. Too often however, the measures which have been created and tested with specific samples in specific situations are then used in other contexts without considering their utility and applicability, let alone their validity in the new situation.

This is no more evident than in the world of work. Instruments which were originally designed for testing children, prisoners, or people in medical situations are introduced into the work place with the assumption they will be equally valid in their measurement and in the feedback provided. Likewise instruments that have been devised for general assessment of say extroversion or neuroticism are transferred to the work situation without evidence of face, concurrent, or predictive validity. There are considerable dangers in this, not only because the staff involved will complete the instrument in the context of their job but also because the feedback provided may not be appropriate and in many cases may be misleading.

When Cattell (1965) first developed the 16PF it was not specifically designed for the work situation. Indeed it is a non-situation specific instrument. However, it is now used widely in employment situations. Likewise the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) assessment¹ (1976) was originally developed to assist young people with life choices based on Jung's type theory (1923). This is now used widely and often indiscriminately in employment situations ranging right through from selection to training and work adjustment counseling.

There are many other instruments that are used with little regard for their specific context validity. We are therefore of the view that there is a need to look at all psychological instruments within the sociological context in which they will be used.

This is a view clearly articulated by George Kelly (1955) whose work on personal construct theory helps bridge the gap between the individual and the situation.

Kelly's view was that a person experiences a situation and has feelings about the events which lead to an interpretation and a structure of meaning. These guide a person's behavior until such time as it is modified by further experience. Therefore a person establishes a number of constructs to explain and relate what is happening around them.

This approach is similar to the work of Carl Jung (1923) who considered that individuals develop their understanding through particular approaches to situations based upon their own predisposition for interacting with others. As a result Jung said people develop differently within a framework of psychological types.

In our work we have built on these ideas and constructed measures which take into account both the psychological (who am I?) issues and the sociological (what is the context?) issues. As a result we have developed the Team Management Systems instruments to help people in the work situation gain self understanding and the understanding of others (Margerison and McCann, 1991).

Analysis

A sample of 99 Training and Development managers were asked to describe their preferences for one pole of each of the four Team Management Profile Questionnaire constructs, both at work and outside of work.

Figure 1. Team Management Profile Questionnaire constructs

The different patterns which emerged as peoples' preferences changed between work and non-work settings are reported in the table below.

It seems that work, at least for this group of managers, required a more analytical rather than beliefs based preference, and more structured than flexible preference. The workplace can be seen therefore as placing contracts on people's preferences.

Moreover, this data suggests that preferences are not consistent for everyone. By definition if you give people a choice then some people prefer to see themselves acting in different ways in different situations. This supports our view that situational measures as far as work are concerned are essential to gain relevant feedback.

This lines up with the work of Kabanoff (1980) who proposed that people's orientation in work and non-work settings can be different.

Summary

The Team Management instruments are all examples of those that have been especially developed for use in the work situation. Therefore it is as unwise to use them outside of that context as it is to use the other instruments that have been devised for non-work assessment. Increasingly we need more instruments that are specifically focused on the needs of people at work which provide useful and relevant feedback to help people improve their performance.

Copyright © Team Management Systems. All rights reserved.

Footnotes:

¹ ® MBTI, Myers-Briggs, and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator are trademarks or registered trademarks of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust in the United States and other countries.

References:

• Cattell, R.B., (1965), The Scientific Analysis of Personality, Penguin.
• Jung, C., (1923), Psychological Types, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
• Kelly, G.A., (1955), The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Norton, New York.
• Margerison, C.J., and McCann, D.J., (1990), Team Management: Practical New Approaches, Mercury Press.
• Myers-Briggs, I., (1976), The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Consulting Psychologists Press.

Further Information:

Visit our E-Shop to view information on:

• Team Management: Practical New Approaches
• Team Management Systems Research Manual