I had never met the man, and yet he knew everything about me–things I didn’t even realize about myself. He spoke from the speakerphone for an hour relaying details that I thought only a psychic could know about someone. All of his knowledge was insight from something called the PI, the Predictive Index test. The professional, standardized PI is a two-page test containing a list of adjectives. You check the boxes you agree with according to the directions and then Rob and Christina, partner HR consultants, analyze and interpret your motivations and personality relating to work (many HR professionals use this tool; it is not exclusive to Rob and Christina).
When I read through the Skills Approach to leadership, the first thoughts that popped into my head were about the PI. Before you take the test, they clarify that it is not an intelligence test, and it’s not a test of your actual “skills” and “abilities,” such as your skill to use Dreamweaver or ability with client relationships. The test is reading where your personal motivations lie in order to predict what type of role you would be best suited for in a work setting, assuming the proper training.
In terms of the Skills Model, Northouse (2010, p. 43) mentions that, “the researchers’ main goal was to explain the underlying elements of effective performance.” They discovered three major components in their model: Individual Attributes, Competencies and Leadership Outcomes. Though the model has three components, it begins with individual attributes. Individual attributes were divided into general cognitive ability, crystallized cognitive ability, motivation and personality. Now, let’s assume for a moment a fluid model of intelligence. This would imply that general cognitive ability can be increased, and certainly crystallized cognitive ability can be increased. This leaves two major components that are more traits than behaviors and are the foundational difference in individual attributes.
From what I understood about the PI, this is why it has been such a powerful tool in predicting an individual’s effectiveness in an organization and revealing what kind of leadership can be expected from people. The test can’t tell you whether to be an astronaut or a car salesman, but it can tell you whether you would enjoy the rigorous, tedious work that goes into being an astronaut or the constant interactions with people and selling that accompanies a car salesman position. It can tell you which skills and company cultures you would most likely enjoy; it predicts that if you find a match, motivation will lead the rest.
References
Northouse, P.G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
VALERIE KATHRYN HODGES says
I had never heard of the PI before and went to Google to learn more about it. The PI seems to get mixed reviews; some people had a very positive experience. However, other people claim that the tests aren’t based on any recent scientific research. They claim that although the test has been around since the 1950’s, and the company claims that there have been over 400 validity studies since 1972, that those studies shouldn’t count if they weren’t in peer-reviewed journals. (Skeptics) That site however, seems to have a bias where these types of tests are concerned though. One of their questions was since personality theory and psychology has changed a lot since then, have the PI Index changed to reflect that? Do you know if he format of the test or how the results are being interpreted have changed over the years?
However, Kevin Vogelsang’s blog described the Predictive Index and also had some concerns about it. He stated the test has two parts. In part one, you check boxes next to words that you think describes you, and in part two, you check boxes that you think others would describe you. The site had a link to the results, but I don’t have enough background to really understand how the results are compiled or what they actually mean. They can be found here: http://http://kevinvogelsang.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/PredictiveIndex_Kevinvogelsang.pdf
What I do think is interesting though, is that in the comments on that blog, two people had taken the assessment. One person was told that he wouldn’t be good at sales, and yet that is an area where he excels (although he didn’t say that he enjoyed it). Another woman had mixed feelings about it, but thought it would be a good starting point. (Vogelsang)
Another interesting take away from the PI and that entry made the point that we can describe ourselves in two ways, our own self image, or how others perceive us and that those two things are never the same. (Vogelsang) I think that’s very true.
I also wonder how the test works. Using your astronaut example, the orignal Mercury 7 astronauts were all extremely smart, but they had a certain amount of daring. All were military test pilots. (Armstrong once ejected a second before a jet exploded.) Although there is plenty of science and math involved, would the test be able to tell you would be better in mission control or test piloting or doing experiments on the international space station? In other words, is the test more broad strokes?
References:
K. Vogelsang. (2010 May 19). Psychological Tests (and my Predictive Index Results). Retrieved from http://kevinvogelsang.com/2010/05/pyschological-tests-and-my-predictive-index-results/
Ruben. (2011 September 11). Skeptics Is the Predictive Index personality inventory for hiring based on scientific research? Retrieved from http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6113/is-the-predictive-index-personality-inventory-for-hiring-based-on-scientific-re
VALERIE KATHRYN HODGES says
I had never heard of the PI before and went to Google to learn more about it. The PI seems to get mixed reviews; some people had a very positive experience. However, other people claim that the tests aren’t based on any recent scientific research. They claim that although the test has been around since the 1950’s, and the company claims that there have been over 400 validity studies since 1972, that those studies shouldn’t count if they weren’t in peer-reviewed journals. (Skeptics) That site however, seems to have a bias where these types of tests are concerned though. One of their questions was since personality theory and psychology has changed a lot since then, have the PI Index changed to reflect that? Do you know if he format of the test or how the results are being interpreted have changed over the years?
However, Kevin Vogelsang’s blog described the Predictive Index and also had some concerns about it. He stated the test has two parts. In part one, you check boxes next to words that you think describes you, and in part two, you check boxes that you think others would describe you. The site had a link to the results, but I don’t have enough background to really understand how the results are compiled or what they actually mean. They can be found here: http://http://kevinvogelsang.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/PredictiveIndex_Kevinvogelsang.pdf
What I do think is interesting though, is that in the comments on that blog, two people had taken the assessment. One person was told that he wouldn’t be good at sales, and yet that is an area where he excels (although he didn’t say that he enjoyed it). Another woman had mixed feelings about it, but thought it would be a good starting point. (Vogelsang)
Another interesting take away from the PI and that entry made the point that we can describe ourselves in two ways, our own self image, or how others perceive us and that those two things are never the same. (Vogelsang) I think that’s very true.
I also wonder how the test works. Using your astronaut example, the orignal Mercury 7 astronauts were all extremely smart, but they had a certain amount of daring. All were military test pilots. (Armstrong once ejected a second before a jet exploded.) Although there is plenty of science and math involved, would the test be able to tell you would be better in mission control or test piloting or doing experiments on the international space station? In other words, is the test more broad strokes?
References:
K. Vogelsang. (2010 May 19). Psychological Tests (and my Predictive Index Results). Retrieved from http://kevinvogelsang.com/2010/05/pyschological-tests-and-my-predictive-index-results/
Ruben. (2011 September 11). Skeptics Is the Predictive Index personality inventory for hiring based on scientific research? Retrieved from http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6113/is-the-predictive-index-personality-inventory-for-hiring-based-on-scientific-re
VALERIE KATHRYN HODGES says
I had never heard of the PI before and went to Google to learn more about it. The PI seems to get mixed reviews; some people had a very positive experience. However, other people claim that the tests aren’t based on any recent scientific research. They claim that although the test has been around since the 1950’s, and the company claims that there have been over 400 validity studies since 1972, that those studies shouldn’t count if they weren’t in peer-reviewed journals. (Skeptics) That site however, seems to have a bias where these types of tests are concerned though. One of their questions was since personality theory and psychology has changed a lot since then, have the PI Index changed to reflect that? Do you know if he format of the test or how the results are being interpreted have changed over the years?
However, Kevin Vogelsang’s blog described the Predictive Index and also had some concerns about it. He stated the test has two parts. In part one, you check boxes next to words that you think describes you, and in part two, you check boxes that you think others would describe you. The site had a link to the results, but I don’t have enough background to really understand how the results are compiled or what they actually mean. They can be found here: http://http://kevinvogelsang.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/PredictiveIndex_Kevinvogelsang.pdf
What I do think is interesting though, is that in the comments on that blog, two people had taken the assessment. One person was told that he wouldn’t be good at sales, and yet that is an area where he excels (although he didn’t say that he enjoyed it). Another woman had mixed feelings about it, but thought it would be a good starting point. (Vogelsang)
Another interesting take away from the PI and that entry made the point that we can describe ourselves in two ways, our own self image, or how others perceive us and that those two things are never the same. (Vogelsang) I think that’s very true.
I also wonder how the test works. Using your astronaut example, the orignal Mercury 7 astronauts were all extremely smart, but they had a certain amount of daring. All were military test pilots. (Armstrong once ejected a second before a jet exploded.) Although there is plenty of science and math involved, would the test be able to tell you would be better in mission control or test piloting or doing experiments on the international space station? In other words, is the test more broad strokes?
References:
K. Vogelsang. (2010 May 19). Psychological Tests (and my Predictive Index Results). Retrieved from http://kevinvogelsang.com/2010/05/pyschological-tests-and-my-predictive-index-results/
Ruben. (2011 September 11). Skeptics Is the Predictive Index personality inventory for hiring based on scientific research? Retrieved from http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6113/is-the-predictive-index-personality-inventory-for-hiring-based-on-scientific-re
JASON THOMAS RONCZKA says
I don’t know that I would put so much faith in the Predictive Index alone. Aside from the oft-debated problems inherent with self-report data –for a good discussion on this as it relates to personality and one’s sense of self, please see the first few chapters of David Funder’s The Personality Puzzle (2004)– and the fact that Predictive Index tests are most often supported by case studies rather than peer-reviewed experimentation (“Case studies”, n.d.; “Predictive index”, n.d.; “Client voice”, n.d.), we must also address the research which suggests that our sense of self awareness may reach far beyond our ability to make accurate inferences as to the causes of our behavior (Nisbett & Ross, 1980). This is problematic because we use this flawed self-awareness data to create or reinforce our schemas of who we really are. Researchers Nisbett and Wilson called this phenomenon, “telling more than we can know” (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977).
Research also suggests that we employ judgment heuristics instead of our schemas in situations where we are unsure, under stress or where our schemas do not clearly apply or when too many of them do at once (Gigerenzer, 2008). One of the more problematic heuristics is referred to as the availability heuristic. Research has shown that self-assessments tend to take on the interpretations that can be supported by the evidence that is easiest to recall rather than by objective assessment as to the interpretation or judgment’s accuracy (Schwarz, Bless, Strack, Klumpp, Rittenauer-Schatka & Simons, 1991). It is not out of the question that a battery such as the PI could take any number of biased or misrepresentative shapes based on these factors and the cases studies alone do not really validate the measure against that due to the possibility of confounding variables.
This concerns me because management and executives are often looking for the single, most cost effective and accurate way to accomplish a goal; this is part of being efficient and performing at an organization’s peak. Assessments like the PI are often sold by consultants with no psychology background and no basis or interest in what constitutes sound science. This is not to say that the PI and other self reports are useless, only that serious decisions or answers to serious questions should not be entrusted to a single measure alone.
References:
Case studies – performance snapshots. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.predictivesuccess.com/Performance.html
Client voice. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.piworldwide.com/Client-Voice.aspx
Funder, D. C. (2004). The personality puzzle. (3 ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Co Inc.
Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Why heuristics work. perspectives on psychological science, 3(1), 20-29. Retrieved from https://wweb.uta.edu/insyopma/prater/Heuristics/why%20heuristics%20work.pdf
Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference, strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling us more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231-259. Retrieved from http://people.virginia.edu/~tdw/nisbett&wilson.pdf
Predictive index case studies. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.getgmr.com/case-studies.php
Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6(2), 195-202. Retrieved from http://sitemaker.umich.edu/norbert.schwarz/files/91_jpsp_schwarz_et_al_ease.pdf
BENJAMIN EDWARD NIXON says
I had an experience once to take the PI test. It was an interesting insight into my own skills. I feel that more companies would benefit from the use of PI testing when looking into hiring individuals for specific tasks. With the use of the PI Subway was able to reduce turnover from 70 to 32%.This is a good demonstrating of how to put such a tool into action and have demonstrated success.
References:
PI Midatlantic. Subway. PI Midatlantic: People Smart Results Driven. 2012. Retrieved on 22. September 2012 from: http://pimidlantic.com/
JASON THOMAS RONCZKA says
I don’t know that I would put so much faith in the Predictive Index alone. Aside from the oft-debated problems inherent with self-report data –for a good discussion on this as it relates to personality and one’s sense of self, please see the first few chapters of David Funder’s The Personality Puzzle (2004)– and the fact that Predictive Index tests are most often supported by case studies rather than peer-reviewed experimentation (“Case studies”, n.d.; “Predictive index”, n.d.; “Client voice”, n.d.), we must also address the research which suggests that our sense of self awareness may reach far beyond our ability to make accurate inferences as to the causes of our behavior (Nisbett & Ross, 1980). This is problematic because we use this flawed self-awareness data to create or reinforce our schemas of who we really are. Researchers Nisbett and Wilson called this phenomenon, “telling more than we can know” (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977).
Research also suggests that we employ judgment heuristics instead of our schemas in situations where we are unsure, under stress or where our schemas do not clearly apply or when too many of them do at once (Gigerenzer, 2008). One of the more problematic heuristics is referred to as the availability heuristic. Research has shown that self-assessments tend to take on the interpretations that can be supported by the evidence that is easiest to recall rather than by objective assessment as to the interpretation or judgment’s accuracy (Schwarz, Bless, Strack, Klumpp, Rittenauer-Schatka & Simons, 1991). It is not out of the question that a battery such as the PI could take any number of biased or misrepresentative shapes based on these factors and the cases studies alone do not really validate the measure against that due to the possibility of confounding variables.
This concerns me because management and executives are often looking for the single, most cost effective and accurate way to accomplish a goal; this is part of being efficient and performing at an organization’s peak. Assessments like the PI are often sold by consultants with no psychology background and no basis or interest in what constitutes sound science. This is not to say that the PI and other self reports are useless, only that serious decisions or answers to serious questions should not be entrusted to a single measure alone.
References:
Case studies – performance snapshots. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.predictivesuccess.com/Performance.html
Client voice. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.piworldwide.com/Client-Voice.aspx
Funder, D. C. (2004). The personality puzzle. (3 ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Co Inc.
Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Why heuristics work. perspectives on psychological science, 3(1), 20-29. Retrieved from https://wweb.uta.edu/insyopma/prater/Heuristics/why%20heuristics%20work.pdf
Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference, strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling us more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231-259. Retrieved from http://people.virginia.edu/~tdw/nisbett&wilson.pdf
Predictive index case studies. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.getgmr.com/case-studies.php
Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6(2), 195-202. Retrieved from http://sitemaker.umich.edu/norbert.schwarz/files/91_jpsp_schwarz_et_al_ease.pdf