Talking Psychometric Assessment | Peter Rhodes

Psychometric assessments can provide significant insight, but they should never be mistaken for a definitive answer.

In this episode of Leadership Bites, I speak with occupational psychologist Peter Rhodes about what psychometric assessments can genuinely tell us, where their limitations sit and why every result needs to be explored, tested and corroborated.

We discuss personality, resilience, conscientiousness, ambition, emotional intelligence and the handling of anxiety. We also consider what these characteristics might mean when recruiting senior leaders, assessing potential or building an effective leadership team.

Peter shares examples from his work with pilots, chief executives, public authorities and senior appointments, including what happens when ambition is not matched by conscientiousness and why somebody can be socially capable without being emotionally attached.

The profile creates the evidence and the questions. The real value comes from the quality of the conversation that follows.

To find out more about Guy Bloom and his award winning work in Team Coaching, Leadership Development and Executive Coaching click below.

The link to everything CLICK HERE
UK: 07827 953814
Email: guybloom@livingbrave.com
Web: www.livingbrave.com

Transcript

1
00:00:00,526 --> 00:00:05,646
Welcome to Leadership Bites with myself, your
host Guy Bloom. This is a leadership podcast

2
00:00:05,646 --> 00:00:09,466
where I have conversations with colleagues,
I chat with guests and sometimes they'll be

3
00:00:09,466 --> 00:00:14,566
just me talking. You can connect with me at
livingbrave.com and when you enjoy the episode,

4
00:00:14,566 --> 00:00:24,794
subscribe and please tell everyone.  Peter,
lovely to have you on this episode of the Leadership

5
00:00:24,794 --> 00:00:30,634
Bytes podcast. Welcome. Thanks for inviting
me. And I, of course, know who you are because

6
00:00:30,634 --> 00:00:36,214
we have known each other for some time. But
for those people that don't know who Peter

7
00:00:36,214 --> 00:00:42,094
is, it would be great just to get a little introduction
that kind of just gives a sense of who you

8
00:00:42,094 --> 00:00:50,386
are and what you focus on. OK, I'm an occupational
psychologist. I've been in business since the

9
00:00:50,734 --> 00:00:58,034
late 80s, although before that I was in academic
life working across three universities,  working

10
00:00:58,034 --> 00:01:03,854
my way back down south actually from Edinburgh
down to London.  So I eight years in academic

11
00:01:03,854 --> 00:01:09,094
life, which actually was no bad thing. It stood
me in very good stead, it kept me, made me

12
00:01:09,094 --> 00:01:14,794
immerse myself in the literature and in fact
since that gave me a taste for the academic

13
00:01:14,794 --> 00:01:23,418
life I've carried on writing for Oxford University
Press, Weidenfeld. Orion and more currently

14
00:01:23,418 --> 00:01:34,398
Routledge.  So I keep myself informed and ensure
I marinate in the literature constantly.  But

15
00:01:34,398 --> 00:01:42,038
my day job is essentially generating reports
for key appointments and that ranges across

16
00:01:42,038 --> 00:01:55,222
sectors,  public sector, private sector,  industry,
pharmacy,  retail. So I think we met initially

17
00:01:55,222 --> 00:02:06,722
in a kind of quasi retail setting.  also I have
to confess, I have skin in this game because

18
00:02:06,722 --> 00:02:16,542
as part of this journey I've been on,  I set
up a publishing company in the early 90s which

19
00:02:16,542 --> 00:02:26,502
produces its own psychological tests and distribute
them online. So we do a lot of assessment of

20
00:02:26,502 --> 00:02:41,182
pilots online.  what else?  We've branched into,
well for many years, assessment centers running

21
00:02:41,182 --> 00:02:47,202
assessments that involve more than psychological
tests.  They involve doing simulations, role

22
00:02:47,202 --> 00:02:54,462
plays. one-to-one interviews,  ability tests,
and putting all that information together and

23
00:02:54,462 --> 00:03:00,262
trying to produce a kind of holistic report
of an individual and their suitability for

24
00:03:00,262 --> 00:03:09,782
a key appointment.  So our focus is essentially
on key appointments.  yeah. Okay.  So if we

25
00:03:09,782 --> 00:03:16,210
talk about my world, which is leadership development
and working with executives at that level,

26
00:03:17,230 --> 00:03:26,790
What is it that somebody who is looking at senior
hires, what is it that they might get from

27
00:03:26,790 --> 00:03:34,180
a psychometric profile that if they don't already
know, what might that give them that they think,

28
00:03:34,180 --> 00:03:39,750
well, I'll interview them, I'll look at their
CV,  what's a psychometric profile going to

29
00:03:39,750 --> 00:03:50,362
give me? If they just are on the outside looking
in,  what would you tell them?  I always think

30
00:03:50,362 --> 00:03:57,682
that what a psychological test does is it fast
tracks an interview. You're starting the interview

31
00:03:57,682 --> 00:04:02,262
at a very different place, a very different
point than you might otherwise done if they

32
00:04:02,262 --> 00:04:06,622
just walked through the door because they've
already told you quite a lot about themselves.

33
00:04:07,262 --> 00:04:11,934
know, the personality test has asked them a
bunch of questions about themselves. which

34
00:04:11,934 --> 00:04:15,554
they may or may not have answered truthfully,
but that's part of what you're interviewing

35
00:04:15,554 --> 00:04:23,434
them for, is to try and corroborate that data.
So we're starting at a different place, and

36
00:04:23,434 --> 00:04:31,054
what the test should do, or certainly the report
will do, is offer up probe areas, areas where

37
00:04:31,054 --> 00:04:38,394
you as an employer would need more reassurance.
If they've described themselves as deeply insensitive,

38
00:04:38,814 --> 00:04:44,634
then you might want some... assurance that they
are able at times to pick up on other people's

39
00:04:44,634 --> 00:04:52,534
feelings and factor them into their thinking
and decision making. So it's a catalyst, it's

40
00:04:52,534 --> 00:04:59,614
a catalyst with insight,  would that be fair?
 It's not doing the work for you.  There was

41
00:04:59,614 --> 00:05:05,734
a famous journalist called John Pilger and he
describes how he'd spent hours and hours and

42
00:05:05,734 --> 00:05:11,566
hours talking to people. and it felt extremely
privileged at the end of that process.  I always

43
00:05:11,566 --> 00:05:17,086
feel,  when I heard him talking about it, I
felt the same. I feel extremely privileged

44
00:05:17,086 --> 00:05:21,586
if I have someone's profile in front of me,
that they have taken the time and trouble to

45
00:05:21,586 --> 00:05:27,606
tell themselves quite a lot about themselves
and gone into areas that are actually an ordinary

46
00:05:27,606 --> 00:05:35,626
conversation, quite difficult to question directly.
I mean, that's one of the benefits of a personality

47
00:05:35,626 --> 00:05:42,054
test in particular is that it are sorts of in-person
questions that we wouldn't otherwise ask people.

48
00:05:42,054 --> 00:05:49,334
 So for some people, they really might not know
the difference between the different versions

49
00:05:49,334 --> 00:05:54,914
of a psychometric profile. For some, it might
be a catch-all phrase.  So if we were going

50
00:05:54,914 --> 00:06:01,594
to, say, trait and type, if we were going to
talk about the big five, for some people, they

51
00:06:01,594 --> 00:06:07,554
won't know anything about that. They'll have
done something that is a... part of a training

52
00:06:07,554 --> 00:06:14,794
program that would, and they might think it's
actually quite a lighter intervention.  So

53
00:06:14,794 --> 00:06:19,954
I think I'd almost like that sense from you
as if to the layman or somebody that didn't

54
00:06:19,954 --> 00:06:25,414
know the difference,  one is preference, one
is assessment, just give that depth as to what

55
00:06:25,414 --> 00:06:33,954
the differences are. I read quite a good description
of the Big Five recently that it's like if

56
00:06:33,954 --> 00:06:39,906
you're in a spaceship, looking down on the planet,
you see the big five continents.

57
00:06:43,022 --> 00:06:49,322
But obviously if you're on earth, you want to
know what country you're in.  So it's like

58
00:06:49,322 --> 00:06:54,462
taking the big five and taking a hammer to them.
And you get out these much more interesting,

59
00:06:54,462 --> 00:07:02,022
more specific traits, which are worth measuring
separately because they are to some extent

60
00:07:02,022 --> 00:07:10,898
independent of each other.  But at all time,
mean, the thing I must stress, Guy, is that

61
00:07:10,990 --> 00:07:21,610
I always treat personality data as tentative
and problematic and inferential and above all

62
00:07:21,610 --> 00:07:26,630
in dire need of corroboration. So I think if
you adopt that approach a lot of the problems

63
00:07:26,630 --> 00:07:32,970
about faking go away because you assume that
it's all problematic. You know a lot of test

64
00:07:32,970 --> 00:07:40,110
publishers assume that these pesky test takers
try and sabotage the process by lying and faking.

65
00:07:40,110 --> 00:07:46,210
Well I think If you just assume it's all problematic
and it's all likely to be prone to some sort

66
00:07:46,210 --> 00:07:51,790
of distortion, then that problem goes away because
you just assume that all of it needs corroborating.

67
00:07:51,890 --> 00:07:58,110
And what I mean by that is it needs picking
up an interview and pushing and probing and

68
00:07:58,110 --> 00:08:05,290
exploring and trying to corroborate. So I always
say it's about taking inferences that come

69
00:08:05,290 --> 00:08:10,698
from people's responses and corroborating them.
refining them or indeed of course rejecting

70
00:08:10,698 --> 00:08:17,818
them.  So that means for some people it's not
let's get a psychometric profile that will

71
00:08:17,818 --> 00:08:23,798
do the work for us that will tell us what we
need to know because that is a conversation

72
00:08:23,798 --> 00:08:28,838
I have sometimes with people where they go well
right we need to do a psychometric profile

73
00:08:28,838 --> 00:08:33,838
and my position and I think I'm hearing it in
what you say and I'd like you to calibrate

74
00:08:33,838 --> 00:08:42,762
my thinking is No, it's a start of a conversation.
 The individual will offer themselves to you

75
00:08:42,762 --> 00:08:48,622
through the profile.  And there'll be things
in there that even if they feel like a connection

76
00:08:48,622 --> 00:08:54,622
or they feel like a disconnection, that's a
start of a conversation. Because if somebody

77
00:08:54,622 --> 00:08:58,762
says, for example, that their agreeableness,
well, they're not using that vocabulary, but

78
00:08:58,762 --> 00:09:05,440
if there's a score that's high or low,  that
might be their innate trait. But in truth,

79
00:09:05,550 --> 00:09:10,410
if they have a coping mechanism for dealing
with it, they could actually have a very high

80
00:09:10,410 --> 00:09:16,050
skill in that area.  Is that fair?  Have I said
that correctly? That's also, of course, one

81
00:09:16,050 --> 00:09:24,230
of the limitations is people's self-awareness.
 know, in reality, we are not always particularly

82
00:09:24,230 --> 00:09:30,850
self-aware, particularly in terms of where we
are relative to other people. I think that's

83
00:09:30,850 --> 00:09:38,182
one of the main payoffs. of a psychometric test
is that gives you a feel for where people stand

84
00:09:38,182 --> 00:09:44,382
relative to others. Because I think we don't
have a sense often of,  know, I might feel

85
00:09:44,382 --> 00:09:51,522
I'm persuasive, but I have no idea how much
more persuasive other people are.  And I think

86
00:09:51,522 --> 00:09:58,242
that's one of the, I mean, because one of great
critiques of personality testing is that it's

87
00:09:58,242 --> 00:10:04,058
an enormous contric. You know, that I ask you
a bunch of questions about yourself. you fill

88
00:10:04,058 --> 00:10:10,598
in the thing, I then tell you what you told
me.  And often, more often than not, people

89
00:10:10,598 --> 00:10:17,258
are amazed that I know all this about you. But
you told it. Even though... What ice cream

90
00:10:17,258 --> 00:10:23,258
do you like? I extremely able people. mean,
I've had the chief fire officer of a huge fire

91
00:10:23,258 --> 00:10:27,578
service saying, Peter, I don't know how you
know all this about me. And I didn't have the

92
00:10:27,578 --> 00:10:33,762
heart to say, you told me.  Yes.  What ice cream
do you like? Rum and raisin. How does it know?

93
00:10:33,762 --> 00:10:42,242
Well,  you told it.  But having said that, 
there is more to it because obviously we take

94
00:10:42,242 --> 00:10:48,862
that as a start point for having a discussion
and relating those traits to the job demands.

95
00:10:48,862 --> 00:10:56,922
 Well, there is a validity question with testing
that if we looked at trait type, if we looked

96
00:10:56,922 --> 00:11:04,106
at what some of the... And I have my own psychometric
profile,  but I would never say that it has

97
00:11:04,106 --> 00:11:10,606
psychometric validity. I would say actually...
Well, very few of them do. Right. And that's

98
00:11:10,606 --> 00:11:16,246
a huge problem for the industry. Yes. And it
hasn't progressed much since the 1920s in being

99
00:11:16,246 --> 00:11:22,726
able to establish clear... In fact, there's
this famous test that was done with the guy

100
00:11:22,726 --> 00:11:29,122
that bent the spoons.  was his name? Uri Galla.
Uri Galla, yeah. If anyone could... prove that

101
00:11:29,122 --> 00:11:33,562
he could do it. That's right. Or they could
do it. They got a million.  A million. And

102
00:11:33,562 --> 00:11:39,262
then that was extended to psychometric tests.
If anyone could prove that a psychometric test

103
00:11:39,262 --> 00:11:46,042
could demonstrably improve the predictive validity
of selection processes, they got a million.

104
00:11:46,042 --> 00:11:52,622
 I mean, that million still stands. Right. I
mean, the criteria, I have to say, in fairness

105
00:11:52,622 --> 00:12:01,708
to the publishers,  the criteria. for establishing
the predictability were quite tough.  know,

106
00:12:01,708 --> 00:12:07,418
there had to be a reasonable sample size. You
couldn't use the test data at selection.  So

107
00:12:07,418 --> 00:12:15,798
the test data had to kept and stored for a later
date.  And you had to have a clear sense of

108
00:12:15,798 --> 00:12:25,138
what the base rate was. know, was the proportion
of selecting applicants who failed. Yes. and

109
00:12:25,138 --> 00:12:31,518
whether you can improve on that. And you had
to have clear performance indicators to demonstrate

110
00:12:31,518 --> 00:12:40,698
there'd been some improvement.  And a lot of
problems with the whole validity is that the

111
00:12:40,698 --> 00:12:49,398
irony being that test publishers criticize recruitment
processes for resting on subjective processes

112
00:12:49,398 --> 00:12:54,822
like interviews.  But of course the reality
is that a lot of the validity the collection

113
00:12:54,822 --> 00:13:03,502
of validity data uses subjective outcomes like
supervisor ratings,  management ratings, which

114
00:13:03,502 --> 00:13:10,022
are hugely problematic. So that's the irony,
that's the paradox. You're looking at objective

115
00:13:10,022 --> 00:13:18,702
processes to predict subjective outcomes.  So
when somebody is, when people invest, I think

116
00:13:18,702 --> 00:13:24,902
there's a difference between the tools that,
I mean, you certified me for level AB when

117
00:13:24,902 --> 00:13:30,422
it came to psychometric testing, what feels
like a hundred years ago.  So, and if I look

118
00:13:30,422 --> 00:13:37,022
at something like your 16 PFs and those kinds
of profiles, to me, there's a real sense that

119
00:13:37,022 --> 00:13:45,962
they are really saying, this is who you are
as you tell us who you are, but this is who

120
00:13:45,962 --> 00:13:52,554
you're offering yourself to be. And in reality,
if that is true, and you aren't trying to kind

121
00:13:52,554 --> 00:14:01,134
of buck the system, you can take this test multiple
times and in reality, it would come out the

122
00:14:01,134 --> 00:14:08,814
same. Is that true?  something more like your
Myers-Briggs or some of the kind of the preference

123
00:14:08,814 --> 00:14:16,834
type tools,  why would somebody go,  those tools
you can use for development but not for assessment.

124
00:14:17,374 --> 00:14:25,622
What makes something valid for assessment rather
than you might just say within a development

125
00:14:25,622 --> 00:14:33,562
program.  the multi-trade tests I think are
as if not more useful in development settings

126
00:14:33,562 --> 00:14:41,582
as the things like the Myers-Briggs which are
you know they get people talking.  mean the

127
00:14:41,582 --> 00:14:49,862
Myers-Briggs is and similar tests like the colour
one, Insights,  is permission to talk. So it

128
00:14:49,862 --> 00:14:56,302
gets people talking about themselves in a safe
way because there are guardrails around those

129
00:14:56,302 --> 00:15:05,801
concepts. You can't start having to go at each
other because there are very clear limits to

130
00:15:05,801 --> 00:15:13,882
those concepts.  I think the key thing is, I'm
going back to my point about corroboration,

131
00:15:14,342 --> 00:15:21,422
is that these things need corroborating. And
the problem is that people often lack self-awareness

132
00:15:21,422 --> 00:15:27,802
in the notion of what is typical of their behaviour.
 Because personality questionnaires ask you

133
00:15:27,802 --> 00:15:36,382
about what is typically the case. Yes. You know.
So it requires a robust process to go with

134
00:15:36,382 --> 00:15:43,618
it. It's not get them to fill out a... psychometric
and then we'll read it and that'll tell us

135
00:15:43,618 --> 00:15:48,338
everything we need to know. No, it's do the
psychometric test and then have a conversation

136
00:15:48,338 --> 00:15:55,837
with the individual to corroborate or even to
get some clarity about the position in relation

137
00:15:55,837 --> 00:16:02,298
to it and then we will have the evidence to
make a decision.  when you've been involved

138
00:16:02,298 --> 00:16:08,198
in,  well actually I'd like you to just talk
for a few minutes about some of the roles that

139
00:16:08,198 --> 00:16:16,578
you've been called in to,  which have required
the level that you're operating at from either

140
00:16:16,578 --> 00:16:22,838
with the airlines or with racing teams or when
there's been disaster management and cultural

141
00:16:22,838 --> 00:16:32,498
shift. I'd just like to hear how what it is
that you do has been called upon because I

142
00:16:32,498 --> 00:16:43,502
think that really would give it a sense of context
as well.  The biggest compliment I ever got

143
00:16:43,502 --> 00:16:51,282
was from Ofsted where we went into a county
council after it had been taken into special

144
00:16:51,282 --> 00:16:58,982
measures and Ofsted said, and we did some very,
very depth assessments of the senior managers

145
00:16:58,982 --> 00:17:10,770
and which included personal disability tests,
some simulations and... scenarios and so on.

146
00:17:10,770 --> 00:17:18,050
 And also said whatever happened at this authority
should be bottled because it had made such

147
00:17:18,050 --> 00:17:24,990
a difference to the performance of the authority.
 Similarly,  I spent a few years following

148
00:17:24,990 --> 00:17:37,626
the Grenfell tragedy going through the invitation
of the chief exec there.  I spent ages. week

149
00:17:37,626 --> 00:17:45,246
in week out going through the management tiers,
the management team from director level right

150
00:17:45,246 --> 00:17:53,466
down to the people on the front line and then
it went beyond housing into other areas of

151
00:17:53,466 --> 00:18:01,806
the authority and that was all in order to make
a very profound change to the culture of the

152
00:18:01,806 --> 00:18:08,366
authority and make it much more... There's assessment.
Is that assessment centers? Is that the profiling?

153
00:18:08,506 --> 00:18:17,286
that what is this process?  With Grenfell, it
was just purely a personality questionnaire

154
00:18:17,286 --> 00:18:25,186
followed by an interview. And it's the same
with I've been working with an airline and

155
00:18:25,186 --> 00:18:31,906
they're the same process. do a personality questionnaire,
which, as I say, I always take as inferential,

156
00:18:31,926 --> 00:18:39,934
tentative, problematic and in dire need of corroboration.
and I spend an hour and a half pushing, pushing

157
00:18:39,934 --> 00:18:45,534
those scores and finding out what's real about
the way they've described themselves and what's

158
00:18:45,534 --> 00:18:51,494
patently not real. So somebody does the assessment,
they then sit with you, they have a conversation

159
00:18:51,494 --> 00:18:59,054
with you, which is to almost do a diagnostic
on the report and go, what rings true, what

160
00:18:59,054 --> 00:19:05,654
under pressure may not stand up to muster or
whatever. So you refine,  corroborate. or reject

161
00:19:05,654 --> 00:19:12,804
the hypothesis. And then are you writing a report?
Subsequent. Yes. So there's a do the test,

162
00:19:12,804 --> 00:19:19,214
have a conversation, here's a report and that
becomes something then for the line manager

163
00:19:19,214 --> 00:19:26,134
or as part of a kind of a cultural shift, it's
giving me an image of the individual, but then

164
00:19:26,134 --> 00:19:32,874
a collective picture. Yeah. And some more, I
mean, I always offer up areas where more reassurance

165
00:19:32,874 --> 00:19:40,446
is required.  And in fact,  probably about 90
% of the time, the reality is that I don't

166
00:19:40,446 --> 00:19:47,306
do the interviewing. So I do with the pilots
and in other scenarios.  But a lot of the time,

167
00:19:47,306 --> 00:19:55,686
 what I am left with is the fact that I have
to give the recruiting managers the questions

168
00:19:55,686 --> 00:20:00,406
I would have asked if I'd been locked in a room
with these people.  I wouldn't have let them

169
00:20:00,406 --> 00:20:07,302
out until they'd given me evidence on these
issues. So I put the onus on the recruiting

170
00:20:07,302 --> 00:20:14,982
manager to corroborate what's come out of their
responses.  So if we looked at somebody wants

171
00:20:14,982 --> 00:20:21,462
to make an executive hire, they want to bring
somebody into the C suite. It's a really important

172
00:20:21,462 --> 00:20:28,022
recruitment process for them. If they get it
wrong, it causes them a lot of problems.  So

173
00:20:28,022 --> 00:20:34,782
that process fits that very nicely. Do the profile.
here are the questions that will help you have

174
00:20:34,782 --> 00:20:40,322
the conversation with the individual. It could
be that you do it, it could be that they do

175
00:20:40,322 --> 00:20:47,122
it, but then that information is gathered and
then that allows you then to do a summary report

176
00:20:47,122 --> 00:20:54,062
on the individual that will either go into maybe
a second interview or a decision making process.

177
00:20:54,062 --> 00:21:01,482
 Would that be right? In those situations you
probably also want to add to that mix a cognitive

178
00:21:01,482 --> 00:21:08,358
test.  you know,  a critical reasoning test.
So some objective evidence about people's ability

179
00:21:08,358 --> 00:21:13,778
to make judgments about other people's judgments,
 and particularly where those judgments are

180
00:21:13,778 --> 00:21:22,158
clouded by emotion and where they sort of start
tapping into their own values and beliefs that

181
00:21:22,158 --> 00:21:27,018
are designed to cloud their judgment.  So you
want to know whether people can cut through

182
00:21:27,018 --> 00:21:34,726
all that and make clear logical, critical judgments.
I'm particularly interested when it comes to

183
00:21:34,726 --> 00:21:42,846
senior hire around or working with senior teams
when it's developing those teams around individual,

184
00:21:42,846 --> 00:21:49,786
 the willingness of the individual to connect
and work with others and the underlying for

185
00:21:49,786 --> 00:21:56,166
the want of a better word,  grit of an individual.
I've come to a bit of a conclusion that there

186
00:21:56,166 --> 00:22:01,706
are a hundred ingredients that might make a
cake, but actually if I'm in a team, I have

187
00:22:01,706 --> 00:22:09,746
to be willing to contribute outside of my own
need, but also then I need the grit to work

188
00:22:09,746 --> 00:22:16,646
through the context of the problems that we've
got.  within... Can I just say... Yeah, of

189
00:22:16,646 --> 00:22:23,546
course.  Grit was a concept that got people
in the psychrometric world quite excited a

190
00:22:23,546 --> 00:22:32,046
few years ago.  And there were measures of grit.
 But in fact, what grit seems to be... is a

191
00:22:32,046 --> 00:22:39,086
combination of conscientiousness and resilience.
So it's quite possible to measure grit with

192
00:22:39,086 --> 00:22:46,506
the tools that we were historically using. 
So I'm fascinated by that. I think that's the

193
00:22:46,506 --> 00:22:57,206
bit that for me,  that level of that depth within
a profile, even though it isn't giving you

194
00:22:57,206 --> 00:23:03,446
a definitive statement on the individual. I
think you're, I do appreciate and that's why

195
00:23:03,446 --> 00:23:13,426
I think what you do is valuable in the work
is very much indicating and actually it's not

196
00:23:13,426 --> 00:23:21,306
so much about a justification but if this is
true what that might mean.  And I think that's

197
00:23:21,306 --> 00:23:25,986
interesting. That's context. Exactly.  And that's
where it becomes more interesting writing a

198
00:23:25,986 --> 00:23:30,886
report and where you have to know the business
to get an understanding of what. how is this

199
00:23:30,886 --> 00:23:36,946
likely to play itself out? Given the politics
of political acceptability, public acceptability,

200
00:23:36,946 --> 00:23:41,556
 organization,  acceptability of stakeholders.
 And that's where it gets more interesting.

201
00:23:41,556 --> 00:23:51,466
That's where I enjoy writing reports because
I like to put myself in the seat of the decision

202
00:23:51,466 --> 00:23:58,466
maker and think.  In fact,  with psychologists,
I always put a sheet in front of their desk

203
00:23:58,466 --> 00:24:04,582
saying,  what?  And getting them to focus on
what does this actually mean in the context

204
00:24:04,582 --> 00:24:10,942
of this business?  Getting them to actually
project that set of scores into this organizational

205
00:24:10,942 --> 00:24:15,682
culture and this set of job demands. Yes. And
that's where people actually begin to realize

206
00:24:15,682 --> 00:24:19,982
they're actually getting their money's worth.
Yes. So I always start with the job demands.

207
00:24:20,162 --> 00:24:27,982
I always start with a briefing, a chat with
the CEO or one of the directors to really get

208
00:24:27,982 --> 00:24:33,994
behind the job description. Yes. Because often
the JD doesn't give you the whole picture.

209
00:24:33,994 --> 00:24:38,714
 I love that and I think that's where it gets
exciting, which is look, the questionnaire

210
00:24:38,714 --> 00:24:42,314
is the questionnaire, but that's almost like
doing a training program. Look, the training

211
00:24:42,314 --> 00:24:47,914
program is a training program. The reality is
what's your context and what are these people

212
00:24:47,914 --> 00:24:54,834
actually dealing with? What is the truth of
not the aspiration,  not the brochure, but

213
00:24:54,834 --> 00:25:00,454
what's the truth of the internal dynamic, the
human beings that are in play here? the stresses

214
00:25:00,454 --> 00:25:06,554
of the role, et cetera.  And actually this isn't
about is this a good human?  Let's presume

215
00:25:06,554 --> 00:25:11,394
every, you know, within reason, most people
are good humans.  It's whether or not in the

216
00:25:11,394 --> 00:25:16,614
context they're going to be operating in that
actually they're going to be the right jigsaw

217
00:25:16,614 --> 00:25:21,334
piece. It's about understanding their business.
Yes. Do you understand our business? Yes. Can

218
00:25:21,334 --> 00:25:29,718
you help us?  Do we like it? Yeah. And if I
did a tool some years ago, I did a tool. of

219
00:25:29,718 --> 00:25:36,018
all of the MSc's courses in the country and
it was entitled A Plea for a Connected Psychology

220
00:25:36,018 --> 00:25:42,368
because I thought at that level the MSc in Occupational
Psychology was going off down the wrong road.

221
00:25:42,368 --> 00:25:48,718
was all telling people that what was crucial
was learning nine times the validity.  You

222
00:25:48,718 --> 00:25:57,318
know, whatever, it's probably 11 now.  and the
reality had been lost sight of. It's actually

223
00:25:57,318 --> 00:26:04,962
about understanding these people's businesses.
 So I started this talk of writing down all

224
00:26:04,962 --> 00:26:10,962
of the white papers, the names of the white
papers that generated most of our business

225
00:26:10,962 --> 00:26:17,132
that year and saying to people,  does anyone
know what any of these are?  And of course,

226
00:26:17,132 --> 00:26:24,842
a few people did.  And the response to that
lecture tour I got was quite extraordinary.

227
00:26:24,842 --> 00:26:30,262
 People said, we're not told this. we're not
told this, that it's crucial to understand

228
00:26:30,262 --> 00:26:35,982
the client's business. And I got letters saying,
you all we get told is how important it to

229
00:26:35,982 --> 00:26:42,162
get chartered.  Well, it is, you know, I've
never been asked where I'm chartered. I get

230
00:26:42,162 --> 00:26:47,482
asked, know, do you understand our business?
Can you help? That's it. And not, are you chartered?

231
00:26:47,562 --> 00:26:51,802
Well, I think there's something there. I should
say I am chartered. Well, of course, of course,

232
00:26:51,802 --> 00:26:56,822
because without saying a man of your caliber.
 But also it's like if you're... Picking a

233
00:26:56,822 --> 00:27:01,702
photographer, I don't really care what the qualifications
are. I want to see the photos.  So there is

234
00:27:01,702 --> 00:27:05,762
something about, I think you're right,  the
fact that somebody has the qualification. 

235
00:27:05,762 --> 00:27:10,822
Don't get me wrong, I think there's a huge value
to that. But in truth,  there'll be unqualified

236
00:27:10,822 --> 00:27:16,282
people and qualified people that are good or
bad. There's a reputation, there's a history.

237
00:27:16,542 --> 00:27:24,398
And I know that you've been doing this now for,
are you in your fourth decade?  30 probably.

238
00:27:24,398 --> 00:27:32,698
 A third decade.  Maybe.  I don't know.  it's
some time. there is a... 35, okay. So there

239
00:27:32,698 --> 00:27:36,878
is something, there? Because I know I'm 57.
I've been doing leadership development for

240
00:27:36,878 --> 00:27:42,558
some time. And my knowledge has... Okay, my
knowledge has increased. But not exponentially.

241
00:27:42,558 --> 00:27:50,046
 But my ability to operate in context has shifted.
Yeah. You know, I... Yes, of course, every

242
00:27:50,046 --> 00:27:54,526
day is a school day and I learn a little something
here and I'm constantly upskilling. Fine. But

243
00:27:54,526 --> 00:28:03,326
in truth, the bulk of my knowledge exists. 
What deepens is,  think, which I really relate

244
00:28:03,326 --> 00:28:09,966
to with you, is context and being able to apply
the knowledge and have the insight to translate

245
00:28:09,966 --> 00:28:17,046
that either into questions.  in this business?
 Business at schools, here's your job demands.

246
00:28:17,046 --> 00:28:23,550
 How do they relate? That's right. And the profile
is saying,  we're running a program that is

247
00:28:23,550 --> 00:28:29,190
challenging you to, with what you've said and
the context you're operating in, in reality,

248
00:28:29,190 --> 00:28:34,470
 how much of this, a particular assessment,
how much of this is performative and how much

249
00:28:34,470 --> 00:28:43,790
of this is you offering yourself in a manner
that once tested in truth,  you run the risk

250
00:28:43,790 --> 00:28:48,494
of failure. because actually it feels as if
there's a disingenuous connection between what

251
00:28:48,494 --> 00:28:53,654
you've either said and then what you're offering
in relation to the context that you're going

252
00:28:53,654 --> 00:29:00,534
to be operating in. And I think that's interesting
when you can see those gaps,  imagine.  So

253
00:29:00,534 --> 00:29:05,194
when you do work with pilots, for example, what
is it that you're looking for there? Because

254
00:29:05,194 --> 00:29:11,314
that's a key role. That's quite an easy question
to answer because there are some sets.  Actually,

255
00:29:11,314 --> 00:29:17,810
it's legal requirements as well.  There are
some set things that the Civil Aviation Authority

256
00:29:17,810 --> 00:29:27,390
and the American equivalent look for. Obvious
things like resilience.  Resilience,  the leadership,

257
00:29:27,390 --> 00:29:33,770
 team working, decision making, and working
in structured and regulated environment. So

258
00:29:33,770 --> 00:29:40,150
ability to follow rules.  Ability to make effective
decisions on the load.  Ability to work effectively

259
00:29:40,150 --> 00:29:44,758
with others. Demonstrate some leadership.  the
ability to maintain a sense of perspective

260
00:29:44,758 --> 00:29:49,768
and not get frightened. mean, some of stories
I hear when I'm interviewing these people,

261
00:29:49,768 --> 00:29:54,758
mean, just think if that had been me. Which
is why we're not pilots. I would have avoided

262
00:29:54,758 --> 00:30:02,568
my bowels and... Exactly.  So what is it on
a profile for a pilot that you're looking for,

263
00:30:02,568 --> 00:30:10,958
just out of sheer interest? What tells you this
person's in the right space?  Obviously resilience.

264
00:30:10,958 --> 00:30:18,090
 And I mean, is obviously the problem with that.
That's one of the most fakeable scales. So

265
00:30:18,090 --> 00:30:25,790
if it's too high, you do get a bit worried about
it. So you push them on that and try and get

266
00:30:25,790 --> 00:30:33,250
samples of where they've had to deal with. So
you've got to back that up with some more concrete

267
00:30:33,250 --> 00:30:40,298
forms of evidence.  But obviously self-belief,
the ability to, you know, full back on your

268
00:30:40,298 --> 00:30:44,818
own judgment or have faith in your own judgment,
but not to the point where you kind of rule

269
00:30:44,818 --> 00:30:53,698
out other people's analyses and thinking.  One
of the key things that I look at is how people

270
00:30:53,698 --> 00:31:00,338
handle their anxieties because I'm crudely speaking
in the literature, we can either externalize

271
00:31:00,338 --> 00:31:06,658
our anxieties, take them out on others. So you
see fault in everyone else and you see you

272
00:31:06,658 --> 00:31:12,130
become much more suspicious and wary of others.
or you internalise it, you beat yourself up.

273
00:31:12,130 --> 00:31:19,710
 And so one thing I'm interested in is how do
people externalise?  one thing, in fact, in

274
00:31:19,710 --> 00:31:25,010
the management literature, the literature of
the derailed manager is essentially the literature

275
00:31:25,010 --> 00:31:29,870
of people who externalise their anxieties. So
take it out on others. Everything's always

276
00:31:29,870 --> 00:31:34,450
on the people's fault. I'm super interested
in that. think that's what I look at. And it's

277
00:31:34,450 --> 00:31:39,766
the same with pilots. If you're just assuming
you're surrounded by idiots.  who can't make

278
00:31:39,766 --> 00:31:45,526
effective judgments at speed,  you're in trouble
probably, because you're not going to respect

279
00:31:45,526 --> 00:31:51,806
other people's judgment.  So if you externalize
an attack, that's not good. If you internalize

280
00:31:51,806 --> 00:32:01,286
and hold it in, that's not good.  Yeah, if you
externalize too much,  then you're bad to be

281
00:32:01,286 --> 00:32:05,966
around. You're to be difficult to have So if
you emote in a negative way. And if you beat

282
00:32:05,966 --> 00:32:11,894
yourself up all the time and sit there sobbing,
that's no use either.  But externalizing, I

283
00:32:11,894 --> 00:32:17,194
think, is one of real problems, because you
become a nasty piece of work, and you're not

284
00:32:17,194 --> 00:32:23,674
good to help around. So being able to be forthright,
but not aggressive. Yeah. Being able to...

285
00:32:23,674 --> 00:32:28,454
So different between yourself,  Sorry, I shouldn't
point. No, no. The difference between assertion

286
00:32:28,454 --> 00:32:35,014
and dominance. Yes. And persuasiveness, dominance.
 Yeah. That there's a kind of underlying unpleasant

287
00:32:35,014 --> 00:32:41,126
edge when you get the kind of the externalizing
that... that comes with the self-assertion.

288
00:32:41,186 --> 00:32:47,586
And I'm very interested in that kind of capacity
to verbalize the context that you're observing

289
00:32:47,586 --> 00:32:54,566
or the emotion that you're feeling in a manner
that explains to the other person where you

290
00:32:54,566 --> 00:33:03,366
are.  You can make demands of them, but actually
getting that balance between motivating the

291
00:33:03,366 --> 00:33:09,482
individual, engaging them in conversation. 
then having that maintenance of, I call it

292
00:33:09,482 --> 00:33:15,422
preservation of the personality,  that being
able to preserve your personality when you

293
00:33:15,422 --> 00:33:24,742
are under stress.  And I think that's a, can
imagine for an airplane pilot,  it's not a

294
00:33:24,742 --> 00:33:30,662
problem until it's a problem.  And you can do
all the virtual training that you like, but

295
00:33:30,662 --> 00:33:34,982
it might be a never in a career or a once in
a career, rather like that sully gentleman

296
00:33:34,982 --> 00:33:41,630
that, landed the plane in the Hudson. It might
never happen in his life.  there was another

297
00:33:41,630 --> 00:33:46,830
one where it was a British pilot, worked for
Air New Zealand, went through the volcanic

298
00:33:46,830 --> 00:33:55,170
cloud and all four of his engines packed up.
 he sat there reading the manuals and they

299
00:33:55,170 --> 00:34:00,710
sat there for 28 minutes,  going through the
checklist, going through the manuals, there

300
00:34:00,710 --> 00:34:04,890
was nothing in the manuals that enabled them
to figure out how they would start this thing

301
00:34:04,890 --> 00:34:12,198
up. So he put it into it, took a judgment, put
it into a dive and it cleared the engines of

302
00:34:12,198 --> 00:34:19,298
the Volcanic Ash and he restarted and extraordinary.
28 minutes sitting there figuring out what

303
00:34:19,298 --> 00:34:27,618
to do. So that's the ability to hold your own
council to not have an emotional overload.

304
00:34:27,618 --> 00:34:35,210
Exactly. The capacity to... Extraordinary. 
It's partly trained, know,  initially comes

305
00:34:35,210 --> 00:34:40,930
from having a stable personality. Yes. But then
it's overlaid with training.  Yeah. So I noticed

306
00:34:40,930 --> 00:34:46,350
that in the fire brigade, which is somebody
said to me, competence outweighs fear. You

307
00:34:46,350 --> 00:34:52,330
know, we train out the fear. fall back on it.
Yeah, because it's trained to an almost autonomic

308
00:34:52,330 --> 00:34:57,470
response. Yeah. Which I find very interesting.
But then there is something about trusting

309
00:34:57,470 --> 00:35:04,778
your own counsel.  I think I'm very interested
in people that internally validate versus externally

310
00:35:04,778 --> 00:35:12,798
validate.  Either look to others to understand
if they are performing well. And for me, I

311
00:35:12,798 --> 00:35:20,378
want leaders to internally validate but externally
calibrate, not the other way around.  If they

312
00:35:20,378 --> 00:35:25,398
do it the other way around, they normally have
a very negative self-talk. You be too smug,

313
00:35:25,638 --> 00:35:31,570
I think.  You can be too smug, think. Yes. Because
that means you... you have no real interest

314
00:35:31,570 --> 00:35:37,210
in other people's points of view or judgement.
Or you rely too heavily on other people's judgement

315
00:35:37,210 --> 00:35:41,730
and perspective to tell you that you're doing
a good job. So I'm very interested in that

316
00:35:41,730 --> 00:35:49,310
balance between I need to have that internal
motivation and personal clarity, but I also

317
00:35:49,310 --> 00:35:57,890
need to take counsel and calibrate myself because
otherwise, you know, I could just be a maniac.

318
00:35:57,890 --> 00:36:04,162
 So we're back to the value of completing the
questionnaire is that it raises these questions.

319
00:36:04,162 --> 00:36:11,282
Yes. You know, these questions come out of the
way people describe themselves in the, in context

320
00:36:11,282 --> 00:36:16,982
they're, they're hoping to operate in or currently
operating in.  So in terms of when we're doing

321
00:36:16,982 --> 00:36:23,422
profiles, there's something about somebody's
actual performance capability and their potential.

322
00:36:24,022 --> 00:36:31,982
And I'm just kind of interested in within profiling.
Is it really the conversation after the fact

323
00:36:31,982 --> 00:36:38,242
that picks up on whether or not this is telling
us about somebody's potential rather than just

324
00:36:38,242 --> 00:36:43,222
their capability now? Because for a lot of roles,
 we have a role now, but we want it to grow

325
00:36:43,222 --> 00:36:51,032
and develop.  is this person able to?  So what
would I be looking for in a profile that OK,

326
00:36:51,032 --> 00:36:58,098
well, the classic psychological response to
that would be what's called factor G.  which

327
00:36:58,098 --> 00:37:05,178
is the general intelligence of somebody. In
other words, do they have any kind of more

328
00:37:05,178 --> 00:37:14,077
headroom intellectually to, you know,  to cope
with novel learning,  novel processes,  and

329
00:37:14,077 --> 00:37:21,118
respond to more complexity in their jobs.  There
is also another G in personality, which is

330
00:37:21,118 --> 00:37:28,710
conscientiousness.  On the 16PF, the Cattell
profile. which is about how much graft and

331
00:37:28,710 --> 00:37:34,710
hard work they're prepared to put in.  But one
things I found in my years doing the assessments

332
00:37:34,710 --> 00:37:47,490
is I found that the level of self-assertion,
which is quite a complex thing,  because it

333
00:37:47,490 --> 00:37:55,684
actually includes things like ambitiousness,
 and you're concerned to kind of get on and...

334
00:37:55,790 --> 00:38:03,630
increase your profile and increase your sphere
of influence. That I think is really central

335
00:38:03,630 --> 00:38:09,530
to that discussion.  The motivational driver?
 Yes,  yeah.  Whether it's motivational or

336
00:38:09,530 --> 00:38:14,850
whether it's a trait, dispositional trait, 
I don't think terribly matters, but I found

337
00:38:14,850 --> 00:38:23,070
just discussing with senior managers who don't
want to go... I I did one building society,

338
00:38:23,070 --> 00:38:27,222
just one below board level. And that's when
it really came home to me that there was a

339
00:38:27,222 --> 00:38:36,702
bunch of 32 people under board level and quite
a lot of them were not desperately ambitious

340
00:38:36,702 --> 00:38:43,302
and they weren't terribly bothered about whether
they got up to being on the board. And that

341
00:38:43,302 --> 00:38:47,442
seemed to be the main kind of discriminator
between people who were still pushing to get

342
00:38:47,442 --> 00:38:54,362
on and increase their profile, rightly or wrongly.
 And people were quite happy where they were.

343
00:38:54,362 --> 00:39:00,870
 So there's a marriage here, isn't there, that
if that ambition element is high but my conscientiousness

344
00:39:00,870 --> 00:39:09,010
is low,  I might be an absolute nightmare. Yes,
 rule breaker. Yeah, that's right. So wanting

345
00:39:09,010 --> 00:39:13,030
to get on is one thing, but wanting to get on
with no conscientiousness or low consciousness

346
00:39:13,030 --> 00:39:20,290
would indicate that actually you could be very
self-focused and it's about your journey. And

347
00:39:20,290 --> 00:39:24,826
that's when the skill of the report writer is
important because looking to those connections.

348
00:39:24,942 --> 00:39:32,562
Yeah. mean, one of the, the, the only tests
that we use from a machine, uh, from a bit

349
00:39:32,562 --> 00:39:39,022
of software is one that looks for those patterns.
 So it will, and it will make up to five connections

350
00:39:39,022 --> 00:39:44,582
before it makes a statement. So it simulates
what a psychologist would do.  So you have

351
00:39:44,582 --> 00:39:49,062
to, you have to be conscious that, you know,
okay, self assertion is over there, but where

352
00:39:49,062 --> 00:39:53,830
is conscientiousness and also where is something
like sensitivity.  you know, are they going

353
00:39:53,830 --> 00:39:58,390
to try and influence others without any kind
of appreciation of other people's perspectives

354
00:39:58,390 --> 00:40:04,870
or other people's opinions or values or feelings
or whether that's going to be too important

355
00:40:04,870 --> 00:40:11,330
to them. They're almost, you know, unwilling
to tread on other people's sensitivities. You

356
00:40:11,330 --> 00:40:18,310
see, I find that very interesting where I think
there are a lot of people who,  depending on

357
00:40:18,310 --> 00:40:24,286
where you're going,  up the food chain, so to
speak. or into different sized organizations

358
00:40:24,286 --> 00:40:34,046
where, for example, I notice a lot of mid-level
organizations who are on a fast trajectory

359
00:40:34,046 --> 00:40:44,426
often go after senior individuals from much
larger organizations. But when those individuals

360
00:40:44,426 --> 00:40:49,846
join that company, they're used to pulling a
lever and 10 other people go and do it for

361
00:40:49,846 --> 00:40:54,290
them.  And then they intellectually know that
it's not gonna be like that. But then they

362
00:40:54,290 --> 00:41:00,050
get in there, they pull that lever, and that
lever doesn't go anywhere because it's not

363
00:41:00,050 --> 00:41:05,660
large. But they may be being paid even more
because actually we need that skill set in.

364
00:41:05,660 --> 00:41:10,890
And then they join and when they pull that lever,
they realize that it's connected to them. 

365
00:41:10,890 --> 00:41:16,830
And it might be because it might be two decades
since they've really been doing the graft.

366
00:41:16,830 --> 00:41:24,170
 And so I'm really interested in. The ability
to assess somebody's, and I do like what you

367
00:41:24,170 --> 00:41:31,250
said there, their mental capacity to take on
new growth,  their conscientiousness around,

368
00:41:31,250 --> 00:41:40,250
actually this sits with me,  their, what is
it that would get somebody through that recalibration

369
00:41:40,250 --> 00:41:47,470
of,  oh, I'm not in Kansas anymore, you know,
and recognizing that they intellectually knew

370
00:41:47,470 --> 00:41:51,814
what they were getting into. But in truth, they
didn't know what they were getting into. And

371
00:41:51,814 --> 00:41:56,094
now they've got to adapt. They've got to take
on that ownership. They cannot rely on others.

372
00:41:56,154 --> 00:42:01,794
They're going to have to engage others. Whereas
before, they were very senior and everybody

373
00:42:01,794 --> 00:42:08,574
engaged with them.  I think that's where the,
back to your, the knowing the context, the

374
00:42:08,574 --> 00:42:17,618
profile might tell us, but your context is shifting.
And I think that's quite interesting.  One

375
00:42:17,618 --> 00:42:25,538
of the things that can be very important there
is the appreciation of stakeholders,  other

376
00:42:25,538 --> 00:42:33,338
people's  and being able to anticipate stakeholder
reactions, and being aware that there are other...

377
00:42:33,338 --> 00:42:41,138
I mean, one of the things I find in, say, the
police force is you get to a point where you're

378
00:42:41,138 --> 00:42:47,826
a hard-nosed, practical, realistic,  task-focused
deliverer of results.  And that gets you to

379
00:42:47,826 --> 00:42:55,246
a certain point.  then beyond that point, it's
a whole different set of schools. It's actually,

380
00:42:55,586 --> 00:43:00,766
you your ability to work with social services
and the probation services and the local authority

381
00:43:00,766 --> 00:43:05,406
and the health service and being aware of all
these different perspectives and how they might

382
00:43:05,406 --> 00:43:11,366
actually feed in and constrain your own decision
making.  And that's where things like the measurement

383
00:43:11,366 --> 00:43:17,682
of sensitivity becomes really, really important.
And then picking up on that and having a discussion.

384
00:43:17,682 --> 00:43:23,582
 And that doesn't mean being sensitive,  which
would be a different thing. it's being aware

385
00:43:23,582 --> 00:43:27,902
of being willing to appreciate other people's
perspectives. And I find that quite interesting

386
00:43:27,902 --> 00:43:34,732
that some people I think,  particularly people
that may have been over-trained, go, well,

387
00:43:34,732 --> 00:43:40,632
you you've got to have an emotional intelligence,
which I think they think means being emotional,

388
00:43:40,632 --> 00:43:45,982
but actually it means, no, I have to have a
radar. that can read the room and pick up on

389
00:43:45,982 --> 00:43:49,982
how I might be feeling and how others might
be feeling. It doesn't mean that I inherently

390
00:43:49,982 --> 00:43:56,342
care about people, but it means that I can see
it, act on it, and engage you in a way where

391
00:43:56,342 --> 00:44:02,622
you feel that I've heard you listen to you.
That doesn't mean that I necessarily care about

392
00:44:02,622 --> 00:44:08,262
you. And I'm quite interested in that difference.
Yeah, I mean, that's the difference between...

393
00:44:08,262 --> 00:44:14,438
I mean, these things you can differentiate and
discriminate. with on something like the PF,

394
00:44:14,438 --> 00:44:19,858
 because you have one factor that is very specifically
about your willingness to be involved with

395
00:44:19,858 --> 00:44:25,998
others.  the extent to which you actually understand
other people's perspectives. So it's that kind

396
00:44:25,998 --> 00:44:30,558
of wanting to be socially involved or personally
involved, and also wanting to be emotionally

397
00:44:30,558 --> 00:44:35,778
involved. And that doesn't mean like, does it?
In fact,  one of the problems I found with

398
00:44:35,778 --> 00:44:45,142
the PF is that it... It marries up two quite
different things.  It's sociability and affiliativeness.

399
00:44:45,142 --> 00:44:52,162
 So one of the tests we use actually splits
that up. So I had a manager, for example, who

400
00:44:52,162 --> 00:44:59,682
was a classic.  He was very high on the sociability
one. Really, really good working with others,

401
00:44:59,682 --> 00:45:08,502
but actually quite detached. Yes. I had no genuine
interest in others.  But he was sociable. 

402
00:45:08,502 --> 00:45:14,746
Well, I think that's okay. It is okay,  particularly,
and he was the chief exec,  so it was quite

403
00:45:14,746 --> 00:45:20,326
important for him to maintain a detachment,
but he was actually,  observably, quite a friendly

404
00:45:20,326 --> 00:45:27,666
guy. Well, I look at somebody who I know works
in ANA,  or somebody I know who works for the

405
00:45:27,666 --> 00:45:34,146
fire brigade,  and if they intrinsically cared
about every single person they came into contact

406
00:45:34,146 --> 00:45:38,366
with, they'd lose their marbles, they You don't
know if it's breakdown, yeah.  You couldn't

407
00:45:38,366 --> 00:45:43,666
do it. So they have a duty of care. I mean,
occasionally they may take a particular care

408
00:45:43,666 --> 00:45:48,686
with somebody, but in truth, it's not about,
oh, you've got to care for people. No, you've

409
00:45:48,686 --> 00:45:53,086
got to have a care for people. You've got to,
and so I'm not really looking for people that

410
00:45:53,086 --> 00:45:58,966
are emotional. I'm looking for people that have
an understanding of emotions. And actually

411
00:45:58,966 --> 00:46:03,726
that means very often, particularly at a senior
level, that means that I can meet people that

412
00:46:03,726 --> 00:46:10,050
affiliative wise may be incredibly low scoring.
However, the people are really engaged by them

413
00:46:10,050 --> 00:46:14,430
because their social ability is high. They're
very good at reading what's going on. They're

414
00:46:14,430 --> 00:46:19,110
very good at giving you the experience you need
to engage with them. And that's okay. And I

415
00:46:19,110 --> 00:46:24,350
think that does away with the stereotype of
what necessarily sometimes.  And that combination

416
00:46:24,350 --> 00:46:29,390
comes out quite a lot in the, that you get people
who are actually in effect quite detached,

417
00:46:29,390 --> 00:46:34,560
 but actually quite sensitive. So you've got
no desire to get involved with this person,

418
00:46:34,560 --> 00:46:38,442
but actually you can put yourself into their
shoes. and understand the world from their

419
00:46:38,442 --> 00:46:44,762
perspective. And you might argue from an emotional
robustness perspective, that's a much more

420
00:46:44,762 --> 00:46:49,722
survivable way of being.  If you're going to
be at a senior level for a decade, two decades

421
00:46:49,722 --> 00:46:56,202
or whatever it is, dealing with a host of emotions
in truth, how do you safeguard yourself? Well,

422
00:46:56,202 --> 00:47:03,222
it's not by being detached, but it's about having
a care without necessarily over caring.  And

423
00:47:03,222 --> 00:47:07,874
I think that's the stuff that comes out in conversation
and in interview. So I find that fascinating.

424
00:47:09,902 --> 00:47:16,542
So Peter, you know, with a good meal and a bottle
of wine,  there's a conversation I could have

425
00:47:16,542 --> 00:47:24,622
with you all weekend.  It did once happen to
me actually.  I had a guy,  he was applying

426
00:47:24,622 --> 00:47:31,042
to be a chief exec. And this is not the way
I normally work, I should say.  I caveat this

427
00:47:31,042 --> 00:47:38,118
story with.  This is not the way I normally
work.  However.  Big American. corporation

428
00:47:38,118 --> 00:47:45,038
with multiple different products. So we just
can't get to the point where he seems to do

429
00:47:45,038 --> 00:47:50,998
really well and then leave places. And I said,
can you get to the bottom of this? And then

430
00:47:50,998 --> 00:47:57,978
when I assessed him,  he kind of maxed out on
the scale that is about projecting your anxieties

431
00:47:57,978 --> 00:48:07,666
and being rude and critical. the derailed manager.
 And so I said to him, I said, the way you

432
00:48:07,666 --> 00:48:12,186
describe yourself seems to say you can be quite
critical of those around you. And he said,

433
00:48:12,186 --> 00:48:18,586
no, no, it's not me, not me. He I'm never critical
of anyone.  so I said, all right,  so we're

434
00:48:18,586 --> 00:48:22,486
carrying on chatting about other bits of the
way he described himself.  Then came back to

435
00:48:22,486 --> 00:48:28,266
about sort of half an hour later.  And I said,
let's just talk about this. I said, I'm still

436
00:48:28,266 --> 00:48:35,254
confused. He says, yeah, I'm surrounded by idiots.
 I rest my case, my lord. And then it was just

437
00:48:35,254 --> 00:48:42,234
this kind of avalanche of bile and venom about
all the team that he worked with. And of course

438
00:48:42,234 --> 00:48:47,593
it all became clear that he got to, and then
he was just so unpleasant that he had to be

439
00:48:47,593 --> 00:48:55,314
removed, you know.  And his relationships just
broke down.  But the only way I got at that,

440
00:48:55,314 --> 00:49:03,086
which is why I brought this up,  I got a bottle
of claret. opened it up and said,  have a glass.

441
00:49:03,086 --> 00:49:07,626
 And I was stressed, I would never normally
do that.  I thought- Not standard operating

442
00:49:07,626 --> 00:49:13,126
practice.  understand. I've got to get behind
this school.  So he loosened up hugely.  And

443
00:49:13,126 --> 00:49:16,746
I think that's, I mean, that's a very particular
context. But with executives, you're often

444
00:49:16,746 --> 00:49:21,446
having dinner or you are in a social context
and it's not always, you know, in an assessment

445
00:49:21,446 --> 00:49:25,186
center. But whether or not we're having a cup
of coffee and you're relaxed or you know, put

446
00:49:25,186 --> 00:49:33,306
you, you know,  the skill of being able to work
with people. I've seen the lab. who are probably

447
00:49:33,306 --> 00:49:39,766
very good at managing conversations and to find
the mechanism to have an honest conversation

448
00:49:39,766 --> 00:49:45,286
without them trying to manage the conversation.
Or without filling them up with claret.  Which

449
00:49:45,286 --> 00:49:51,506
may not be the process that I necessarily put
in the invoice plus a bottle of claret.  they

450
00:49:51,506 --> 00:49:57,266
are, yes, we know what that is. But in truth,
there is a skill. There is the skill of the

451
00:49:57,266 --> 00:50:02,606
testing,  there's the skill of the writing the
report. There's the skill of the interview

452
00:50:02,606 --> 00:50:08,565
questions and the conversation.  And there is
the skill of putting somebody at ease to have

453
00:50:08,565 --> 00:50:14,326
an honest conversation that comes down to the
dynamic of the person doing it. And that's

454
00:50:14,326 --> 00:50:21,626
not in the test. That's in the gravitas, the
weight, the trust they have in the person that's

455
00:50:21,626 --> 00:50:26,406
doing it. And I have that with executive coaching,
with executive development, with teams.  The

456
00:50:26,406 --> 00:50:32,534
knowledge is the knowledge.  And I think I can
put a tick in the box there. But it's the ability

457
00:50:32,534 --> 00:50:38,933
to do the work and to create an environment
where you can have those conversations.  there

458
00:50:38,933 --> 00:50:43,994
is jest in the port, but also it's no small
thing when it comes to working with somebody

459
00:50:43,994 --> 00:50:50,514
like you, that it's not just what you're doing,
they're also investing in who's doing it, which

460
00:50:50,514 --> 00:50:56,354
is somebody that can hold space with senior
people and have conversations that you will

461
00:50:56,354 --> 00:51:04,916
get to the nub of the situation. And I think
that's important.  Good.  Well, on that note,

462
00:51:04,916 --> 00:51:14,026
I noticed two minutes that we have on the clock.
 So not wishing to overrun.  It's not so much

463
00:51:14,026 --> 00:51:20,466
a time, it's more a people's attention span
clock, I think I have.  Here's one little thing

464
00:51:20,466 --> 00:51:28,614
for me. If somebody said, ooh, I've got to fill
out a psychometric profile as part of... my

465
00:51:28,614 --> 00:51:34,634
interview or this program, leadership development
program that I'm on with Guy Bloom or whatever

466
00:51:34,634 --> 00:51:42,234
it is, how would you say, what's the mindset
to go into it with so they can actually give

467
00:51:42,234 --> 00:51:46,434
a version of themselves that won't catch them
out, that will be on, what's the advice that

468
00:51:46,434 --> 00:51:51,994
you give? Does people get quite intimidated
sometimes by the idea of it? That is a tough

469
00:51:51,994 --> 00:51:57,570
one because it depends on whether you're going
to do what I do, which is try and corroborate.

470
00:51:58,126 --> 00:52:04,866
you know, treat that data as problematic and
inferential and in dire need of corroboration.

471
00:52:04,986 --> 00:52:10,146
Because if that's the case, then it kind of
doesn't really matter. You know, can fake to

472
00:52:10,146 --> 00:52:15,326
your heart's content, but you're gonna get found
out. So actually don't bother.  So don't bother.

473
00:52:15,406 --> 00:52:22,986
However, if it's just part of a screening process,
 you know, the joke is always,  you know, 

474
00:52:22,986 --> 00:52:30,982
you always have to remember at the back of your
mind, then. I love my mother, I love my father,

475
00:52:30,982 --> 00:52:39,122
 I love my father slightly more than I love
my mother.  I like reading.  I never get upset.

476
00:52:39,122 --> 00:52:49,442
 those things are the ones that get faked a
lot, know, neuroticism.  well, yeah, largely

477
00:52:49,442 --> 00:52:53,842
neuroticism, actually. I always think other
bits of the profile tend to be more resistant.

478
00:52:53,882 --> 00:53:01,454
So in truth, enter into it with a... an understanding
that in reality, if you're going to be part

479
00:53:01,454 --> 00:53:06,574
of a process, then all you can do is dig yourself
a hole that you can't get out of. So just answer

480
00:53:06,574 --> 00:53:11,454
it with an open. Just try to be.  a genuine
self. Well, listen, Peter, I'm going to draw

481
00:53:11,454 --> 00:53:19,314
us to an end.  You've been an absolute rock
star.  I've enjoyed this conversation. I appreciate

482
00:53:19,314 --> 00:53:25,258
you. And when I'm talking to clients and I want
you to work with me, with senior teams. and

483
00:53:25,258 --> 00:53:30,998
we do that work, I hope that this goes some
way to people having a line of sight on you.

484
00:53:30,998 --> 00:53:36,378
 Thank you very And we'll wrap it up from there.
So thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you very,

485
00:53:36,378 --> 00:53:41,398
much.  OK, that's it. I hope you have enjoyed
listening or watching the podcast. If you have,

486
00:53:41,398 --> 00:53:45,178
please subscribe and tell people you spreading
the word makes a massive difference. And if

487
00:53:45,178 --> 00:53:51,960
you'd like to consider working with us, then
make your way over to livingbrave.com.