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.