Can’t see the web player, click here to listen directly.
Subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Spotify | Your Favorite Podcast App
In today’s episode, Mathew becomes the subject of a tried-and-tested behavioral assessment facilitated by Kevin. The subject of Mathew coming under public scrutiny is met with nervous laughter initially. However, we come to realize that such a thing as a “good” or “bad” reading doesn’t exist: the assessment is not a value judgment. This is because a perceived strength can always translate into a shortcoming, with the reverse being true as well. Kevin’s years of coaching experience become clear as he guides the audience through the structure of the test, all the while divulging the reading it gave Mathew at each stage. Kevin makes some lucid observations about how certain personalities just aren’t cut out for particular work environments, and how the test can help prevent this through its predictions. Finally, Mathew gets a chance to speak about whether the assessment’s observations hold any truth. Tune in to engage in this fascinating passageway into the human personality, and to find out why Kevin is grateful to have somebody with Mathew’s personality-type as a co-worker.
Key Topics:
- The origins of Kevin’s personality assessment.
- The influence of the work of Raymond Cattell and Edward Springer on this behavioral assessment.
- Some ranking issues with the assessment.
- The assessment not being a value judgment.
- The inevitable degree of mismatch between a job and a personality.
- Not to show test results to one’s spouse.
- The assessment’s effectiveness in screening job candidates.
- The use of the “adapted” vs “natural” bell curve.
- Four constructs to measure personality attributes.
- Four constructs to measure motivations.
- The position Mathew’s personality occupies according to these constructs.
- Mathew’s interpretation of the reading he was given.
Mentioned in this Episode:
Click here for a PDF version of the transcript
