It is interesting that people from one end of the bell curve view those
on the other end as disadvantaged. Certainly in the typical education
system that is true. Short people are disadvantaged in a basketball
game. However, that advantage begins to fade when the sport changes to
golf, and it transforms into an advantage as a gymnast or an
equestrian.
I am continually evangelizing companies about job fit. My experience is
that myths such as "the smarter the better" drives businesses to
construct job descriptions that can only be filled successfully by
individuals who will not do that job for very long. A recent example is
of a large call center with hundreds of telemarketers. They were
plagued with high turnover, and their belief was that the job was just
too difficult. They recruited people for the job, and then put them
through an intense training program over 2 days. Those that passed the
training test were then hired. Over 50% left that job which they had
sought so diligently within 90 days. Using good assessments which
included a measure of general reasoning, we showed them that candidates
who could pass the training test, would not be challenged by the
routine of the actual job. Only the intensity of the training program
engaged them sufficiently. Who should they hire? Candidates in the 50th
percentile and even lower were engaged by the routine of the job. They
took pride in mastering the tasks and in delivering them each and every
day. By extending the length of the training program and adding more
hands on experience and repetition, slower learners could be
successful.
We have had similar experiences in sales teams, executive teams,
financial positions. "Smart" is an answer, but it is not the answer for
all jobs. Slow is actually a powerful strength in many positions.
Schools are simply a game that does not favor the slower learners.
Unfortunately, that model carries over into jobs, and it carries a
negative connotation. Equality is a myth, and myths do not support
personal growth. Casting intelligence as having a value relative that
is relative to the situation in which it is used can be powerful.
Chuck Russell
On Jan 19, 2007, at 5:18 PM, Paul Barrett wrote:
> Hello
>
> Charles Murray has published a 3-part opinion-piece in the Wall Street
> Journal over the past three days. The full-text of each piece is
> available from the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy
> Research where he is the W,H, Brady Scholar in Culture and Freedom
>
> http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25452,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
>
> Part 1: Intelligence in the Classroom
> Part 2: What's wrong with Vocational School
> Part 3: Aztecs vs Greeks
>
> Whatever you feel about these issues - and about intelligence
> measurement - these are a suite of provocative and thought-provoking
> articles. As ever, he sometimes speaks with an authority about
> intelligence which belies the imprecision of its definition and
> measurement. But, within the clever weaving of fact and assertion,
> there are some critical questions posed about the role of education
> and the current fad for everyone to gain a degree in something.
>
> For me, one of the most "stand out" and chilling paragraphs (in terms
> of what it implies from many competing perspectives) is from Part 3
> ...
>
> "In short, I am calling for a revival of the classical definition of a
> liberal education, serving its classic purpose: to prepare an elite to
> do its duty. If that sounds too much like Plato's Guardians, consider
> this distinction. As William F. Buckley rightly instructs us, it is
> better to be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone
> book than by the faculty of Harvard University. But we have that
> option only in the choice of our elected officials. In all other
> respects, the government, economy and culture are run by a cognitive
> elite that we do not choose. That is the reality, and we are powerless
> to change it. All we can do is try to educate the elite to be
> conscious of, and prepared to meet, its obligations. For years, we
> have not even thought about the nature of that task. It is time we
> did".
>
> ______________________________
> Paul Barrett
> Chief Research Scientist
> Hogan Assessment Systems Inc.
> Tulsa, Oklahoma
>
>
>
Chuck Russell
Author - Right Person - Right Job, Guess or Know
Jobfun.com
770.715.8326
[log in to unmask]
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments,
is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of the original message.
|