The test

In the myriad of holiday season parties, you find yourself bumping into many a ghost of Christmas past. Last week, it was Michelle.

It’s a pleasure to see her, but she invariably engages me the same way. Years ago, we met at a seminar for business owners. Part of the weekend was running through the Myers-Briggs test. Ever since then, Michelle always greets me by reminding me that we came out with the same profile.

I hadn’t thought about that in some time. This morning, I dug out an old file to see what that profile was. The file was like a time line in the evolution of profiling. I started business life with a Fortune 500 company, and you got run through a battery of testing every time you were up for a promotion. Then there was the DISC system that I encountered in a sales course. And, the Performance Index that I took when someone tried to sell me use of the system when I owned a company. A lot of sophisticated (and expensive) tools.

These tests are useful in flagging extremes. Outside of that, they are subject to variables, in my experience. They may nail the profile, but I don’t believe they necessarily predict performance. For instance, I had an applicant apply for a sales support position. His tested profile matched up with it.

But, I don’t rely upon that. I like to get people to talk about their lives to get a real sense of who they are. The path they took, the decisions they made, how they handled adversity, their outcomes, their attitudes, their relationships – everything draws a picture.

This guy felt like sales to me, not supporting it. He was goal-oriented, had something to prove and was a winner. I talked him into selling.

He became our star salesperson and was promoted to sales manager. The top salesperson is rarely a good candidate for sales manager, but his natural profile helped make him an excellent one. Now, he’s running a company. Some people can understand their profiles and outperform them by building on strengths and dealing directly with their weaker areas. The complex tests don’t always predict that aspect.

That’s why a couple tattered sheets of composition paper stood out in my file. I couldn’t help but grin. One of the most prosaic tests I ever took, and would use for potential key employees for many years. It spoke volumes.

The paper had nothing but handwritten rows of ones; the numeral. You are told to write as many ones as you can in two minutes. At the end of the writing, you are told to count how many you wrote. The score isn’t important.

Then, you are told that you will take the test again and are asked to estimate how many you will write. This is the key.

Most people guess they’ll do a little better. They understand there’s some learning involved in anything or think they have a gear in reserve. This tells you someone is in the middle of the bell curve. But, the extremes are more predictive of performance.

At one end of the spectrum, you have those who say they’ll do a lot better. Ask why. Are they figuring out a way to do better? Are their competitive juices piqued? Are they just telling you what they think you want to hear? The reason is as germane as the prediction.

Generally, you’re in good shape with this group. They aim for the stars and make the effort to reach them. They will take responsibility for their outcomes and succeed more times than not. The potential of falling short does not deter them. The positive expect to win and do not fear the alternative.

At the other end are the negative thinkers who forecast the same or worse performance. This is not an absolute measure, but is usually not a good sign. They will set their goals low to avoid the possibility of failure, and the performance often fulfills the prophecy. Defining a low or mediocre goal to one’s self as “success” is a red flag for all kinds of problems. You can expect these people to always have a rationalization for setting the bar low or for shifting responsibility for their poor performance to other people or factors. Not a good hiring risk.

It’s a simple (and cheap) test. But, I’ve seldom seen it fail to provide insight into future behavior.