How effective each employee is at work is essential to each company’s bottom line. There are many issues that are a part of a complicated equation that determine an employee’s effectiveness. After all is determined, these results are subjective, and the measurements are not formulas that are an exact science. However, one tool that is used to measure an employee’s productivity and effectiveness is through measurements of psychometric instruments as well as some other theories and valid models that have been studied and depended upon over many years.
A truly psychometric measure identifies and measures only one aspect of human behavior. Although multiple measurements can be done within one survey, it is important to ensure that each question is trying to assess only one aspect each. Without this, the test is not valid or reliable. The tests cannot be completed in isolation. The tests need to not only identify a person’s present abilities, but also to focus on future potential. This needs to include adaptations made through constructive criticisms, career coaching, and continuing education.
When using a psychometric approach to study employees’ effectiveness at work, it is important for the assessor to look through the lens of the employees. They will be wondering why they are being assessed. Questions such as reduction in workforce or restricting of the organization may arise. If these issues are indeed going to result from the assessments, employees are going to react differently than if the assessments are being used for general purposes such as increasing productivity. If there are no reasons for employees to fear the outcomes of the assessments, they are more willing to buy into the process as well as any suggestions made for improvement.
Self-reporting questionnaires may help start the process and help employees overcome any reservations about the process of using psychometric instruments to judge and increase effectiveness in the workplace. The assessor can use the questionnaire as a means to help determine for each respondent if immediate career counseling is needed, remediation is necessary, or use psychometric tools to identify the skill sets that each particular employee has the strength to do immediately, has the potential to do, if a change in work environment would help the employee be more efficient, if there are educational tools available that would help an employee excel and reach unknown potentials, and may other factors to motivate each particular employee to increase their working potential. Such testing would also be key to introduce during training courses and during initial probationary periods to assess where an employee would best suit a company.
Some signs that an organization is in need of psychometric testing due to employee dissatisfaction and stress include high rates of staff turnover, low morale among employees, and high rates of absenteeism. Even if such a company remains profitable, productivity will suffer. Employees will be stressed. In many cases, the profits will diminish. The stress thrust upon employees in such situations not only affects them at work, but carries into their personal lives. Eventually, compensation is not enough for the chronic suffering, thus the high rate of turnover.
In such situations, identifying the causes of the stress and finding ways to diminish them are of the utmost importance. After this, other areas of psychometric evaluations can be used (Lord 1993).
It also used to be that psychometric testing instruments were used to assess only high level jobs. That perception has been changing among employers. Managers now realize that job performance at all levels affects business and the bottom line. Roles and employees are becoming more interchangeable. There is more cross-training occurring and employees are encouraged to know more than their own role within the company structure. A narrow focus of duties is no longer encouraged as it once was decades ago. A distinction has been made before the previous normal circumstance of task proficiency and the increasing occurring situation of contextual performance. This newer trend can be defined as employees not only performing their core activities for their specific position but also possess proficiency in areas that contribute to the organization in areas such as organizational, psychological, and social environment. Examples of such efforts include enthusiasm, volunteering to perform extra duties not related to one’s position, and supporting the objectives of the organization.
Employers are now aware that a teamwork approach benefits the employees as well as the corporation itself. Specific, on-task performance at all times is inconsistent with this approach. Many conditions of employment now incorporate not only a person’s ability to perform the required duties of the position, but also to work as an effective and contributing member of the team as well. Employees tend to give more weight to negative job conditions when working in relative isolation. When working in a team atmosphere, there are more positives shared by the group which boosts the morale of all the participants, not only improving how employees feel about where they work, but their productivity as well (Arvey and Murphy 1998).
Nursing is an area where the field is demanding, the need is growing, and effective employees are essential since quality patient care is imperative. Many nurses have the innate ability to be able to accurately self-assess their effective work skills by identifying their strengths. Additionally, through the same process, these same nurses are also able to identify areas where they need to improve their skills and since they desire to perform at peak level, they often seek to take their needed continuing education credits in these areas to make them the best practicing professionals that they can be so that they can serve their patients to the best of their abilities. This self-assessment practice is best utilized with nurses that work on specialized units. Having a targeted and specialized area of nursing on which to focus helps to make the self-assessment process easier for the nurses to utilize, analyze, and apply the necessary corrections necessary to improve work effectiveness (Meretoja et al., 2004).
The field of nursing has six of its own evidence-based standards of what is considered to be a healthy work environment. These standards include skilled communication, appropriate staffing, effective decision making, true collaboration, skilled communication, and meaningful recognition and authentic leadership. Each of these qualities, both independently and together, show nursing as a professional career, as well as one that is worthy of respect and dignity. In looking at each of these evidence-based standards, it is also true that if each of these is met, both independently and together, nurses will be able to work in a more effective manner when they are working to meet the needs of their patients. Additionally, retention rates will also be increased and the quality of patient care will be at a high level of satisfaction with all of these factors in place. The American Association of Critical Care Nurses also enables nurses to score each other in anonymous fashion using a psychometric scale to determine effectiveness of skills while on the job. By using a simple grading scale, nurses use the same grading scale that they do to measure their own effectiveness as professionals in a brief format to encourage participation. With a high rate of participation, nurse leaders are able to use the surveys as reliable and valid tools to determine the effectiveness of the nurses in their health care organizations. The results when this format was used demonstrated that nurses tended to rate themselves higher than their peers. This demonstrates that overall improvements are needed and that intra-professional and inter-professional skills and relationships need to be fostered. Through various studies that follow nurses and their effectiveness at work, it is necessary for both nurse managers and staff nurses to work together to maintain a work environment that is healthy for both staff and patients (Mays, et al., 2011).
Additional factors influence how nurses and other professionals as well, handle their effectiveness when at work. Factors such as mood, a person’s social style, comfort level with being assertive, and conscientiousness all attribute to one’s work performance and style. By viewing these factors, executives can use such tools to help determine what attributes are most prudent for an employee’s particular position and use this information to work with the employee to improve one’s job performance. This can hopefully be viewed as a meaningful discussion and constructive criticism about improving one’s job performance. Enabling the individual time to focus on areas of needed improvement and giving some structure and guided feedback as changes are occurring to facilitate any transitions can also help ease the experience and lessen the stress associated with the changes. This technique can also be used for group changes as well in the same manner, offering departments the opportunities to use self-reflection as a means to identify strengths and weaknesses as mangers interject what specific skill sets they are looking for to make the department function in a more effective manner and enable the staff to try and devise and incorporate changes that would help them to make the changes necessary to meet the expectations that are being sought (Kets de Vries 2011).
One part of having career development and self-efficacy as a mediator within one’s career helps professionals to develop their personal competencies. It also helps individuals to determine some of the positive actions that have been made and positive choices that have helped to advance their careers. People that use this process have been identified as having higher status positions and earning more in the same field than people than people that do not use this process of reflection (Bonnett 1992). Additionally, there has been a surprising correlation in a person’s mood at the time of their assessment and the burden under which they feel they are operating at the time that they are questioned in terms of their outcome. A negative mood, a particularly heavy workload, or both, can have a tremendously negative impact upon a person’s outlook on their performance (Farias 2008).
The four scales that are measured identify preferences of the person being questioned. The first scale identifies where a person gets one’s energy and prefers to focus one’s attention, which is referred to as extraversion or introversion. The second scale identifies the way in which one gathers information, either through sensing or intuition. The third scale is used to determine how one makes decisions, either by thinking or feeling. The fourth pole is used to identify how one orients oneself to the external world, either through judging or perceiving.
The poles that are measured only indicate preferences. It is not to say that because one measures or prefers a particular way that the other is never used. There are situations where the less-dominate pole will be used, which will be determined by the situation. One will probably exhibit more confidence when using the preferred pole, or preference. It is also essential to realize that there is no right or wrong to either pole. The amount which one prefers a pole and the combination of the amount that one leans towards one end or the other just contributes to that individual’s uniqueness. A well-balanced team will be compromised of individuals from all eight poles.
Introverts and extroverts can balance each other out in a workplace setting. Each type has its strong points and each has situations that are stressful. By being able to identify which one each team member is, tasks can be assigned in a manner to use each person’s strengths to benefit the team. Introverts prefer to communicate in some written form and to have the opportunity to think through their thoughts before communicating with others. They reflect, in private, and then talk and act. They will take the initiative when they know that they can follow through with positive results. Extroverts like atmospheres where they are able to collaborate face-to-face with other members of the team. They do well with frequent, verbal interaction and do not need time to reflect or think before speaking. Immediate verbal feedback is important. In order to work together it is important to schedule face-to-face meetings, but allow time afterwards for reflection. Expect communication in written and verbal means from team members. Schedule follow-up meetings before the group disassembles so the introverts know how long there is to reflect. Allow some team members to be quiet, take notes, and contribute in later meetings after they have had to think about what it is they want to share.
Sensors and intuitives can also contribute to teams in different ways. Sensors want to keep things brief and realistic. Intuitives like to use their imagination to create solutions to problems, often by proposing multiple scenarios. A sensor wants all of the answers before an answer can be given about estimates or possible timelines or budgets. Intuitives are comfortable using past situations as a guide for a current project. Sensors enjoy working on the details in the design of a project whereas intuitives prefer the conceptual design and planning phases. By having a mix of both poles on a team, the project can get off to a start with some conceptualizing and estimates and get done correctly due to a focus on the details needed at the end.
Extraverts and introverts can balance each other in the workplace as well. Extraverts do well at establishing and maintaining client contacts while introverts have an aptitude to work independently, within deadlines, and on budget. If the extraverts on the team are utilized to focus as the outreach support mechanisms of the team and the introverts are able to work behind the scenes on the details, both groups can be productive, as long as they are communicating effectively with each other. This may need to be an assigned role, often with the members that are closer to the middle of the poles.
Perceivers and judgers, as well, can conglomerate as effective team partners if they understand each-others skill sets. A slight majority (60%) of managers have a judging preference. As such, they tend to prepare detailed agendas, assemble training materials, and gather meeting materials in advance. On the contrary, perceivers might just gather what be necessary for the meeting together and have no agenda. Judgers make great facilitators on team projects since they are well-organized, are concerned with timelines, and keep people focused on the item at hand (Culp and Smith 2001).
Employees want to know that they are respected and valued. Employers want employees that are productive. By using instruments such as MBTI and other psychometric instruments an employee’s productivity can be evaluated, working style and strengths identified, and perhaps future benefits for the company identified. As workplaces become more streamlined, and employees take on more roles and responsibilities, trying to make the best out of their situations will help them be more productive and therefore making the employers ore profitable, keeping capitalism alive and well.
REFERENCES
Arvey, R.D. & Murphy, K.R. 1998, "Performance evaluation in work settings", Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 49, pp. 141-68.
Bonett, RA 1992, 'A psychometric analysis of the career attitude scale', Measurement & Evaluation In Counseling & Development (American Counseling Association), 25, 1, p. 14, Professional Development Collection, EBSCOhost, viewed 5 August 2013.
Culp, G, & Smith, A 2001, 'Understanding psychological type to improve project team performance', Journal Of Management In Engineering, 17, 1, p. 24, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 5 August 2013.
Farias, S. T., Mungas, D., Reed, B. R., Cahn-Weiner, D., Jagust, W., Baynes, K., & DeCarli, C. (2008). The measurement of everyday cognition (ECog): Scale development and psychometric properties. Neuropsychology, 22(4), 531-544. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.22.4.531
Kets de Vries, M, Vrignaud, P, Korotov, K, Engellau, E, & Florent-Treacy, E 2006, 'The development of the Personality Audit: a psychodynamic multiple feedback assessment instrument', International Journal Of Human Resource Management, 17, 5, pp. 898-917, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 3 August 2013.
Lord, W. (1993). The use of psychometric tests in counseling and stress management: An overview. Employee Counseling Today, 5(3), 11. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/198485439?accountid=458
Mays, M, Hrabe, D, & Stevens, C 2011, 'Reliability and validity of an instrument assessing nurses' attitudes about healthy work environments in hospitals', Journal Of Nursing Management, 19, 1, pp. 18-26, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 2 August 2013.
Meretoja, R, Isoaho, H, Leino-Kilpi, H 2004 Jul. Nurse Competence Scale: development and psychometric testing.. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 47(2), pp. 124-33.
