Ep28 Strengths Vs. Personality

After decades of using personality tools to support assessment for recruitment, succession, development and coaching, in this podcast we are debating the pros and cons of a personality versus strengths approach to assessment. We look at the various personality questionnaires developed since the work of Eysenck, Cattell and Jung, and the role personality has played in helping us understand individual differences. We then look at the move away from personality towards strengths and the benefit of taking a strengths versus personality approach. Finally we look at emotional intelligence, and the state - trait continuum. 

In this episode, the Chief Psychology Officer, Dr Amanda Potter, is being interviewed by Angela Malik.

The Chief Psychology Officer episodes are available here https://www.thecpo.co.uk/

To follow Zircon on LinkedIn and to be first to hear about podcasts, publications and news, please like and follow us: https://www.linkedin.com/company/zircon-consulting-ltd/

To access the research white papers mentioned in this and other podcasts, please go to: https://zircon-mc.co.uk/zircon-white-papers.php

For more information about the BeTalent Strengths questionnaires mentioned in this podcast please contact Amanda via email: TheCPO@zircon-mc.co.uk.

Timestamps

Strengths Vs. Personality

·       00:00 – Introduction to Strengths vs. Personality

·       01:33 – 5th century origins… and bodily fluids

·       02:29 – Experimenting began after the separation

·       03:51 – Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud met in a bar…

·       05:40 – Am I saying this right? It’s trait not state!

Question 1: If you test and re-test, what’s the result going to be?

·       07:08 – The Cattell traits

·       07:44 – Hans Eysenck disagrees

·       09:31 – I’ve heard of the Big 5 before…

·       10:09 – Type vs. Trait

·       11:05 – Steer clear of recruitment and succession (Not the TV show!)

·       13:02 – What falls under Types and Traits?

·       13:37 – Test re-test reliability

Question 2: How will you feel if you can’t even process this next bit?

·       15:46 – Are all personality models Big 5 models?

·       16:41 – Personality tests; the rise and demise of disposable information

·       18:52 – Strengths have taken over

·       20:00 – This seems a bit contradictory…

·       22:34 – Taking culture into account

·       23:54 – (Don’t just) Go West!

·       24:24 – Who uses the Strengths approach?

Question 3: Do you like Personality tests? If not, then this isn’t for you…

·       25:16 – I Hate Personality Tests.

·       27:55 – How did Strengths evolve?

·       28:38 – Deficit based model

·       29:52 – I may not be academically intelligent, but I am emotionally intelligent

Question 4: What comes next in this sequence?: Idea, Capital, Business, Hiring, Strengths, Competencies…

·       31:23 – Competencies vs. Strengths

·       32:57 – Keep things positive…

·       33:58 – Is there data to back this up?

·       35:39 – So what have I learned over the last 30 years?

·       37:12 – This appeals to me

Episodes are available here https://www.thecpo.co.uk/

To follow Zircon on LinkedIn and to be first to hear about podcasts, publications and news, please like and follow us: https://www.linkedin.com/company/zircon-consulting-ltd/

To access the research white papers mentioned in this and other podcasts, please go to: https://zircon-mc.co.uk/zircon-white-papers.php

For more information about the BeTalent suite of tools and platform please contact: TheCPO@zircon-mc.co.uk

Transcript

00:05 - Angela - After decades of using personality tools for assessment, for recruitment, succession, development and coaching; in this podcast we're debating the pros and cons of a personality vs strengths approach to assessment. We look at the various personality questionnaires developed since the work of Eysenck & Jung, and the role personality has played in helping us understand individual differences. We then look at the move away from personality toward strengths and the benefit of taking a strengths vs personality approach.

00:32 - Angela - Welcome to the latest podcast of the Chief Psychology Officer with Dr. Amanda Potter; Chartered Occupational Psychologist and CEO of Zircon. Hello Amanda!

00:42 - Amanda - Thank you Angela! Thank you so much for being the host today, and I'm very excited to be talking about personality today. I did my PHD on Personality Theory 20 or so years ago, and it's something that I'm particularly interested in, and as you know, I also love Strengths so talking about personality and strengths is an absolute joy for me.

01:03 - Angela - As a non-psychologist, I am really fascinated by this topic and I think I will learn a lot over this episode.

01:09 - Amanda - And I'm always learning; so even though I did my PHD in Personality Theory 20 or so years ago, and have spent my career focusing on Personality Theory, I'm still learning all the time. What's so fantastic about this world is that there are new models, new theories, and new products coming out all the time that is assessing personality, but actually it goes back thousands of years (the assessment personality), all the way to Hippocrates . And so the very first known personality model was in the 5th Century B.C. and was based on 4 different temperaments. And it related to bodily fluids which seems strange, but it goes to show that our interest in why there are differences in characteristics in people, has been something that people have been interested in for centuries.

02:04 - Amanda - But it wasn't until the late 19th Century that a Psychologist - Wilhelm Wundt - in 1879, started to articulate the difference between the human body and the mind, and personality. And it was from that research, that the real in-depth look at personal differences, started to really appear.

02:28 - Angela - So that's interesting. For centuries we connected the physical and mental and then separated that in the 19th Century so; when did Personality Testing come about?

02:39 - Amanda - It's so interesting because, firstly, I have a real problem with the word testing and I'm going to be talking about that a bit later. But to answer the question, Personality Testing really came about after 1917, and it started with the Wordsworth Personal Datasheet and that was from WW1. And they used it and developed it to identify soldiers who were prone to nervous breakdowns during enemy bombardment, and this Personal Datasheet was the first ever Personality Test. And the reason why I have a strong reaction the word test, is that the questionnaires that are developed and used today are most definitely not tests, because there's no right or wrong answer to a Personality Questionnaire; you can't have a wrong personality. However, if you think about the original, first ever Personality Questionnaire; because they were assessing whether someone was prone to, or not prone to a nervous breakdown, there is of course a right or a wrong answer in that situation because they don't want people to break down. So, Personality Theory has changed fundamentally from that very first assessment.

03:52 - Angela - Oh wow that's really interesting that WW1 was the catalyst for personality assessment (let's call it). Speaking of personality theories; what are the more notable ones that come to mind?

04:05 - Amanda - I would probably start with Jung, because most people will have heard of the MBTI or Myers Briggs, and many people now are using Insights which is another Union type product. So Carl Jung - in 1913, who was a friend of Freud (Sigmund) - he started to look at ways they could categorize mental functioning. And, that's really where the concept behind the MBTI was born, and they categorize mental functioning in terms of senses, and intuition, and thinking, and feeling. And they have 4 dimensions in the Union model of personality, and the questionnaire that has been developed as a result, assesses us on those 4 dimensions. So Angela it would assess you in terms of your extroversion and introversion, whether you're sensing, or you have intuition; so sensing is whether you take information literally through the 5 senses, or whether you're intuitive and build connections, whether you're thinking or feeling; so, do you step out of the situation objectively, or do you step into the situation and think about personal values and how people feel, and finally judging/perceiving; so are you someone who is very planned and forward thinking (which is judging), and perceiving is very much enjoying the last minute rush and being in the moment. And so these 4 dimensions that were articulated back by Jung in 1913, are still the foundation of some, really well established and fantastic products like MBTI and Insights and others.

05:41 - Angela - So I know from spending lots of time with Psychologists, that in the world of questionnaires, differentiation between State vs Trait; I'm assuming that these personality based questionnaires are trait based. How does that relate to the trait models and personalities that you've talked about in the past?

06:02 - Amanda - Jung's is not a trait model; actually its a type model. So, we have 2 different types of personality: it's trait and type. One looks at the individual in terms of individual differences, and the other looks at it in terms of the unique individual. And trait is all about individual differences. So trait personality was originated by a different set of theorists; like Raymond Cattell, Hans Eysenck, and then moving onto in the later years, Costa (Paul) and McCrae (Robert R.). Raymond Cattell in 1957; he focused on gathering scientific data and conducted objective observation, in order to understand the plethora of personality types that could exist. So rather than having 4 broad dimensions that everybody falls into in some way - like extroversion and introversion - he identified 16 different traits, and each of those traits, we would either have a preference for, or we would not have a preference for.

07:08 - Angela - So could you give us, and example of some of the traits that Cattell (Raymond) identified?

07:13 - Amanda - In 1957, Cattell (Raymond) as I say 16 factors or dimensions of personality, that I would call traits; and some of them could include Emotional Stability, Dominance, Perfectionism, Self-Reliance, Openness to change, Apprehension and others.

07:31 - Angela - What are some other personality models that come to mind?

07:35 - Amanda - Eysenck (Hans) is one many of the psychologists will clearly know, but even I think people who are just interested in Personality Theory and Psychology might've also heard of. In 1967, Hans Eysenck disagreed I suppose with Cattell (Raymond) and said, actually he thought that there were a fewer number of larger factors that really articulate what Personality Theory is really all about. So I suppose in some way he agreed with Jung, in that he was saying; there's not as many as 16, there's a much fewer number, but actually he had originally 3 factors of personality which were Extroversion, Neuroticism and Psychoticism. I was then developed and taken even further by Costa (Paul) and McCrae (Robert R.) in 1992, and they built something called the Big 5 model of personality, which is pretty much the accepted basis of personality now and those 5 areas Neuroticism, Extroversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. And so, we're having a very technical conversation today Angela about personality, but it is interesting how the story has developed over the decade, and how Personality Theory either went down a trait approach or a type approach. But actually, where we go to is that many of the researchers and authors over those decades, really started to agree, that the trait and type approaches to personality are really quite different from one another, that the Big 5 - I mentioned from Costa (Paul) and McCrae (Robert R.) - is really the foundation of all trait models of personality, and since then, there's been some really interesting research from all the models like 16PF, OPQ, and even my PHD was looking at it; all of the trait models of personality, including Wave (Elliot) and others can be factored down to a Big 5 model.

09:31 - Angela - Well even as a non-psychologist, even though I maybe wouldn't have known the term Big 5 before meeting you, I have definitely heard the Big 5; when you list them out they are familiar to me. You hear about it a lot in clinical psychology as well don't you? When someone is assessing a person for certain neuroses or whatever.

09:52 - Amanda - Indeed, and in fact, we think about the dark triad as well when we're talking about that, so we look at Narcissistic, Psychopathic and Sociopathic personalities, but we're going off track on that one...

(Amanda & Angela laughing)

10:05 - Angela - That's a whole other podcast episode!

10:07 - Amanda - It is! It is!

10:09 - Angela - You talked a lot about type and trait and I am not sure I understand the difference quite yet; so, can you help me understand that difference please?

10:20 - Amanda - So, just to remind us then, type based methods are tools that use a fewer number of scales and they tend to combine patterns or traits together into a classification; they're almost an expression of that behaviour. And products that classify these behaviours into these groups, and then you fall onto that dimension in some area, or into a colour if you think about Insights and Colour Me, and so the products that really assess the type based approach to personality are MBTI, Insights and Colour Me. But the really important thing about type-based tools is that they should never be used for recruitment, and never used for assessment for succession or assessment for restructure.

11:05 - Angela - And why is that?

11:07 - Amanda - Well, the big thing is that, what it suggests is that everyone is going to fall within certain boxes; so MBTI for example you find out are you an ENTJ or ENFP (because of the letters that it denotes), and actually work drives us towards being in an ENTJ direction which is Extroverted, Intuitive, Thinking & Judging type of activity because that's what the work requires from us. And what it's suggesting is that all of us fall into one of these 16 boxes beautifully - because it's a 4x4 matrix - but actually, life is not that simple. In fact, the trait based approach, which is about having a number of different scales; so if we think about the OPQ, 16PF, or Wave or Neo; all of them have a number of different scales, and you and I might have a variety of scores across those different scales, and that's why each of us are individually different. So trait-based approach is based on individual differences and assumes that everybody is completely different from one another, that we can all be measured on these different scales. The issue with using type, is that you might say we only want to hire ENTJ's and ENTP's into our business and you've got to fall into the right box. But with trait, what you're seeing is you're seeing the pattern of scores across each of the different scales, and building a story or a picture of what that person might be like and their preferences. But you wouldn't be judging whether that person is the right or the wrong person for you on the basis of that personality; what you'd be doing is using to understand that person in greater detail. So in summary; type, you should never use those tools for assessment for recruitment, whereas trait, you can, but you should never profile match.

13:02 - Angela - So, a type is a classification of a number of traits, a sort of grouping; can you give me an example of this?

13:09 - Amanda - So, extroversion is a classification. So, the traits under extroversion could be Sociability, Talkativeness, Assertiveness, Excitability, they're the traits that you would assess in a trait based tool, and so the extroversion classification, gives you a summary (a grouping) of each of those things. But actually, if you were to use a tool for recruitment, you'd need to understand all of the elements within.

13:37 - Angela - I've read that some tests have low reliability; for example there was a study that showed that people re-taking MBTI 5 weeks later would get different results.

13:49 - Amanda - Gosh that's contentious isn't it! So, all of the products that are BPS verified, they should all have test-retest reliability which is what you were talking about which means that an individuals personality doesn't rapidly change over a shorter or longer period of time. And actually the test-retest level should be more like 6-9 months, not over just 5 weeks. And so, if there's low test-retest reliability it suggests that the tool isn't stable or isn't reliable, because the person isn't being consistently measured over that period of time. And of course the MBTI is BPS verified, so that's quite a surprising statistic actually, and my belief is that traits and personality, are much more enduring and stable, according to all of the researchers over the last hundred years, than strengths. Actually strengths are much more of a state than a trait, and our strengths change depending on the environment that we're in, because we enjoy and gravitate towards different activities depending on who we spend time with, the work that we do, the sociable activities that we participate in outside of work; so I actually think our traits and personality, are much more enduring than our strengths, so I wouldn't be surprised if there was a low level of test-retest reliability for a strengths questionnaire, but I am surprised when there's a low test-retest reliability on a personality questionnaire.

15:16 - Angela - I suppose it depends on the study as well.

15:18 - Amanda - It does! It does! And I think, I mean... the reality is, with statistics... for every fantastic study sharing at all, there is going to be one that isn't quite so good because, data can flummox me.

(Amanda & Angela laughing)

15:31 - Amanda (Continued) - Quite frankly! Even building our own products, we've got great test-retest on our strengths questionnaire, which is brilliant! And we've got now really good validity data and we've been improving it all the time, but it's been a journey.

(Amanda & Angela laughing)

15:46 - Angela - Is every model of personality a Big 5 model?

15:50 - Amanda - Well, my PHD was looking at exactly this., and many psychologists would argue that trait models are pretty much all Big 5. And what that means is that if you were to look at the data and factor analyse each of the scales and each of the items, they would pretty much fall into the Big 5, or if you were to corollate a Big 5 model like the Neo model of personality, with another personality model, then you're going to find significant positive correlations between those 2. And my PHD was doing that with a measure of well-being, and also looking at the type-A model of personality which looks at coronary heart-disease prone personality model, and both of those factor analyse and correlated in with the Big 5, as assessed by the Neo.

16:41 - Angela - Personality assessment is really popular; I think something like 80 million people complete a personality assessment every year.

16:49 - Amanda - I know, it's crazy! And that's why I think it's so important to talk about it because, so many people have completed personality questionnaires for new positions for a job, to get promotions and sadly, I don't think they're always used very well. And the point I made earlier is that, about the word test; that's the real issue with personality is that if we call it a test, we are therefore assuming there is a right or wrong answer. If we start thinking there is a right or wrong answer, then we're likely to start profile matching, which is we're looking for certain personalities within an organisation in order for that organisation to be successful, and that will undermine cognitive diversity. I think it's important for the lay person who isn't a psychologist to understand the origins of personality; to understand, it's not testing, to understand that there are different types, and some tools are absolutely no suitable for recruitment, some are just for development like MBTI, and also to make sure that people understand how the output of those questionnaires should be used which is all about reflection and increasing self-awareness, and to enable an assessor - if you are using a trait based approach - to ask really insightful questions, to gather information. And the reason I'm saying this and why I think it's such an important message, is because the industry of personality is a $2.3 billion industry and is expected to get to a $6.5 billion industry by 2027.

18:30 - Amanda - And 80% of organisations use personality assessment for recruitment; let's just hope they're using the right products when they're doing that and they're not profile matching. There is a real risk around the misuse of personality and it starts with the word test for me and it ends with profile matching; so red flag for me!

18:51 - Angela - I think it's great to have an episode just to challenge the thinking on this because we know that, a lot of these well established organisations can be traditional in their views.

19:01 - Amanda - What's amazing is that 10 years ago, 73% of Fortune and FTSE 100 organisations were using strengths based approaches for assessment. But now, it's reported that 90% of those organisations use strengths based approaches for assessment for recruitment; so actually strengths have overtaken personality which is what I expected to see happen, and actually it is happening. So more organisations are using strengths based approach assessments for recruitment globally, than they are using personality for assessment. But your point Angela is that some organisations get very embedded with product, because they get embedded with their test publisher, their consulting partner, they get a lot of people trained on those tools, and they're unable to shift away, or feel like they're unable to shift away from their very well established personality products. But actually I think there is a real place for strengths, and there's a place for personality in organisations.

20:00 - Angela - That's interesting; those statistics almost contradict what we just said, how 80% of companies use personality assessment for recruitment, and now we're saying that up to 90% are using strengths...

20:14 - Amanda - I know; I wonder from experience, I find that many of our clients segment their assessment for recruitment strategies. And so they will use different tools at different levels within the organisation for example. I know from working with a major global health tech organisation that we've been partners with for a number of years, for their most senior populations, if we did use personality we used to use Neo in combination with HDS, and for the more junior populations, we would use Wave, and I've worked for a major national bank, it used to be Neo and HDS for more senior populations and it was OPQ for the lower level employees across the organisation, so I do notice that organisations have different tools for different groups they segment the products, and another client uses strengths for some populations and personality for others. And it depends on who the leader is whose running those programs and who've got the relationships, that makes a big difference in what products they use; but the issue with that is the personality and strengths are fundamentally different. yes, they both assess how someone sees themselves, but actually how the tools gather information, and how that information should be used and the type of insight that they bring for that person, is fundamentally different. And there's another big message here; the line of sight. So if an organisation has some culture aspirations or has a competency model or a capability model, we should be mapping back those strengths, those traits to that model so we understand the linkages between the tools that we're using and the aspirations of that organisation, so we understand the messages we give to that employee; if that employee is interested and energised by certain things, and we look at the aspirations of the organisation, we can reflect back what does that mean for them, what do they get excited about according to the strengths questionnaire, what's the implication for them/organisation and what the organisation is trying to succeed. So it's not just a strengths questionnaire in isolation, its the "so what?"; it's really important when we use these products that we don't just use them in isolation without thinking about the implications for the organisation and the team.

22:33 - Angela - That said, it's about cultivating the story behind that and seeing how all those things fit together and connecting those dots. So with personality questionnaires being so popular and so well established over the last century, I'm just wondering about cultural aspects...

22:48 - Amanda - So you're right, they are widespread; for example Hogan is used in over 100 countries now and is in 47 languages; that's amazing! That's my aspiration by the way Angela - with strengths and decision -  that would be great. And there are over 2,500 personality questionnaires on the market, with new ones appearing every year. We still go back to the major ones that I have been mentioning, but there are new ones coming out. But the issue with many of the assessments for validity of these tools, is that the research that's done is based on white, educated, industrialised, rich and democratic societies; it's known as WEIRD. Ironically, personality theory and strengths based approach should help us with cognitive diversity, but we're actually undermining it by the very data we're collecting in personality based assessments. That's why in our organisation we're trying to put together really diverse data for the validation of our tools.

23:55 - Angela - Because everyone whose excluded from western psychological research is literally excluded from the model.

24:02 - Amanda - Our concept of cognitive diversity that... we want spiky people which is very much our approach to strengths, is absolutely fundamental because we want to understand the variety, the extreme differences between people in order to get that clear understanding of the extremes.

24:21 - Angela - And I guess, since we're comparing personality vs strengths, do we have any information on how widely strengths assessments are used?

24:29 - Amanda - So, we've already said that, now those large organisations - 90% of Fortune and FSTE 100 organisations are using a strengths based approach - it's less widely than personality because it's still a growing area. I mean our BeTalent Strengths Questionnaire is being used around the world; our limitation is that ours is only in English at the moment, but we're currently going for the BPS verification; we're very close, were in the final stages of our validation process, writing up our technical manual (thank you to my most fabulous colleague Jess) and we hope in the next coming months that we will be submitting, and when we pass we will start translating into the critical languages for our clients. So to answer your question; not as much as personality.

25:15 - Angela - So I know you hate calling personality questionnaires tests-

25:19 - Amanda - Yep; hate is a strong word, but I very, very much dislike it.

25:23 - Angela - I wonder if you have and example of the misuse that can occur when you think about an assessment like that as a test...

25:30 - Amanda - There was an outdoor garden retailer in the UK who used OPQ for recruitment; it was in the press actually about 20 years ago, and they used the OPQ which is a reliable, robust and valid method of personality assessment, and they used it for a profile matching approach. So there was a candidate who was recruited and he was brought into the organisation, he worked for 2 days and then the organisation received the OPQ results and they didn't match the profile that they wanted; so 2 days after this person had started their job, they were told that they didn't have a position and that their contract was terminated and that they were no longer working there because their personality assessment didn't match the profile. And so they challenged this organisation and this individual won. It's fundamentally wrong.

26:29 - Angela - I suppose that applies to strengths too, in terms of using strengths for recruitment.

26:34 - Amanda - Completely, so you should never profile match with strengths either, but for a different reason. It isn't because we're trying to find a perfect fit of strengths, or that we're trying to find the best certain strengths within an organisation; actually strengths are great for helping us understand, the areas people really enjoy and where they gravitate towards, and so it helps us to understand the areas they're likely to be excellent and really differentiate; the brand they will have in the organisation. And because we want cognitive diversity, we want everybody to be different so, we should never profile match fundamentally for personality or for strengths.

27:13 - Angela - I guess it's just a recognition that everyone is very different; exactly like this matrix that you were talking about with MBTI; you can't just fit nicely into a box as a human being.

27:24 - Amanda - And I don't think anyone really likes being put into a box. I don't particularly enjoy the horoscopes aspects either because of the Barnum Affect, we start to identify with certain elements that we want to see, that are positive and we reject things that we don't like or don't want. But actually, I think trait based approaches and strengths based approaches are much better because they challenge our thinking and just to increase our level of self-awareness, and understand how we are seen by others.

27:55 - Angela - So how did the strengths approach evolve?

27:57 - Amanda - So, it was much later than personality; what's fascinating is whilst personality theory grew out of WW1, strengths grew out of the US Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's & 1970's. And strengths originally were designed as an alternative to the kind of deficit based model where you're looking at the gaps and looking at what needs to be developed. And it was recognised that actually we should focus on the things that people enjoy, and therefore influence peoples lives in a positive way, rather than focusing on the negatives and the weaknesses and trying to fix people.

28:39 - Angela - You said it was intended to counteract the deficit based model; I'm not sure I understand what that is, can you explain please?

28:48 - Amanda - So a deficit based model is when you focus on the weaknesses and the gaps and negatives of an individual, and you potentially try to fix them and you try to basically bridge that gap. And the strengths based approach is literally just turning that around., so you focus on the positive qualities of the individual, and you recognise and celebrate where they are strong, what they enjoy, what they are energised by, and you encourage them to focus on the things that bring them joy, to gravitate towards the things that they're good at, and to invest time in the areas where they have the greatest joy, and are likely to be the most engaged, productive and happy. It's based on the concept of positive psychology and its really about driving us away from spending time and doing the things we don't love, to actually focus on the things we do love.

29:41 - Angela - So it sounds like positive psychology, led the way to a strengths based approach.

29:46 - Amanda - Yep, totally! So, strengths are absolutely driven from the concept of positive psychology.

29:52 - Angela - So where does emotional intelligence fall in all of this; is that personality, is that state, trait... what is that?

29:58 - Amanda - We have already established that in terms of a continuum, personality is on one end of that continuum as a type or trait approach; in other words, our personality doesn't change rapidly over time. On the other end of the continuum is state; state is much more dependent on our emotions and how we're feeling and can change rapidly daily. And so emotional intelligence or resilience is a state, so its the other end of the continuum to personality. Personality is stable and enduring; in theory it doesn't change rapidly, it might evolve over time very slowly, whereas our resilience and emotional intelligence, can change rapidly, can change daily, so its a state. Strengths I would put in the middle of that see-saw; they're not really fully trait, they're not really fully state, they're a combination of the two, and what that means is that our strengths can evolve over time, depending on the environments we are in, so if we change our work situation, or our family situation, and if we we're to get together with a new partner or spend time with someone new, we would start to get excited and get involved in new activities and maybe doing new things with that person; therefore what we enjoy doing might change and therefore what we get energised by or excited by might change, so our strengths can gradually evolve and change.

31:23 - Angela - What about competencies? I know that in other episodes we have already talked about the difference between strengths and competencies but I feel like that question belongs in this episode as well - just to touch base on that - so what's the difference between strengths and competencies?

31:40 - Amanda - I agree; its definitely one that we should just touch on for a few minutes, and the reason I'm saying that is because I'm talking to a number of clients who are asking if they should move away from a competency model towards a strengths based model. And the answers no, they shouldn't. They're 2 completely different things; you could use a competency model in a strengths based way, but you shouldn't replace your competencies with strengths. Competencies are a combination of the knowledge, skills and abilities of an individual in order to do the job; you can very much assess whether someone has got the competence, or has not got the competence; you can assess and test that person against a competency. With a strength - because its about what they enjoy doing - there should not be any right or wrong answers, about what strengths are good and what strengths are bad for a job or an organisation. And so you would want both; you would want competencies to assess a persons capability to do the role or to fit into an organisation, but you would want strengths to understand that once they're in that role, where will they gravitate towards, what will they enjoy doing, what will bring them energy and how they will show up as an individual.

32:58 - Angela - Strengths sound really positive; sounds like if a company wants to foster a more inclusive environment, they would need to assess strengths, along with what other models they've got on their roster.

33:10 - Amanda - Yeah, I think Strengths are definitely the way to go because it very much celebrates everyone being unique, and having a different combination of what they enjoy, which then really helps each individual show up differently, and not in a box like we said with a type based questionnaire. And so, depending on your top 7 strengths for example in our BeTalent questionnaire, that combination of strengths will give us a real indication of what you enjoy Angela and where you will gravitate, and the difference you will make as a result of a different combination. But actually the ones at the bottom end of your profile as well - your least preferred strengths - will also give us an idea of the things you might actually avoid.

33:57 - Angela - So earlier in the episode we talked about test-retest reliability; do we have any data on the predictive validity of personality or strengths assessments?

34:08 - Amanda - It's hard to test the predictive validity of any product; strengths or personality. And the accepted level of predictive validity for questionnaires is 0.3; so that's quite low level it seems, but actually that's the accepted level of validity for this type of questionnaire; an so out strengths questionnaire is 0.33 which is in the acceptable range, its more than valid, in other words you can predict a proportion of behaviour using our strengths questionnaire; you wouldn't expect to be able to predict someone 100% from a single questionnaire. And we looked at the other products on the market; they are much more circumspect about sharing data than us - we're quite open with our validity data - there's is either behind paid firewalls or they just don't publish it in their technical manual at all which is quite surprising. But our strengths questionnaire is pretty comparable to personality; sometimes you find personality has slightly higher predictability levels and I'm putting that down to the fact that because they're trait and more enduring and stable, that their personality test doesn't change rapidly over time, therefore it's more likely to predict standardised outcomes than strengths are, because strengths change. So if you are looking at predictability over an 18 month period, then actually personality is going to be more stable and enduring than strength.

35:39 - Angela - Well Amanda, you started your PHD on the Big 5, you started your career in personality, you've since transitioned into strengths, what have you learned since doing all of this strengths research over the last, what is it 2 decades now?

(Amanda & Angela laughing)

35:55 - Amanda - 3 decades I know! Well, to be fair, its 3 decades since I started the PHD because it took me such a long time. So, I've probably learnt that I've got such a passion around strengths because, when I'm using strengths questionnaires to give feedback, or for coaching, or for exec assessment, that combination of the strengths for the top 7, really helps me understand how someone is going to show up in the areas that they're really interested in because the combination of those strengths is so key. And how they answer the questionnaire; if they answer it favourably, what gives me a real signal of their self-concept and how they see themselves, or if they answer it really critically, it gives me another indication of their level of overall negativity or pessimism, and again their self-concept that they might have quite a negative and dark lens, and they can be quite critical of themselves; and I just think it's a bit more profound than a personality questionnaire and I think its the joy an individual gets from understanding what they love and therefore gives them permission to spend time doing those things, whereas personality is a bit like "Oh; that's interesting". Strengths, almost there's a call to action on the back of it that I don't think you get with personality.

37:13 - Angela - I think also that because you're such a positive and energetic person yourself, I can see how you would gravitate to an assessment that essentially looks at energisers, and positive psychology, and all of the positive outcomes of that approach.

37:27 - Amanda - I must admit I love it, and I absolutely adore using our products and when I'm coaching people, I start with strengths; because it just helps me understand what they're all about, and it just creates a really positive first conversation.

37:39 - Angela - So do you have any final conclusions as we close out this episode Amanda?

37:44 - Amanda - I think its really just building on what we've just talked about which is, the strengths based approach has such a positive feel and it was articulated interestingly by the personality researcher Saville in 2018. Their research identified that 86% of applicants want the recruitment process to motivate and encourage them to want to work for the organisation, and they want to come away from a recruitment process feeling positive about the organisation, the recruitment process and the brand. So creating a positive candidate experience is key, and from my experience, using a strengths based approach is pretty fundamental to achieving this because every conversation I've ever had about strengths, has been a positive one and does leave a candidate, or a coaching client feeling quite good about themselves; rather than the personality approach or performance management approach - which is of course for development - which is sometimes focusing on the gaps and what's missing. That's why I love strengths.

38:47 - Angela - Yeah I can see that definitely I mean, my own experience of strengths assessment; you don't feel judged because everything is positive ultimately. Even though I know we talked before about meticulous being at the bottom of my strengths, it doesn't feel like anyone is looking for ways to pick at me about that so; yes, I love strengths too.

39:10 - Amanda - Very good.

39:11 - Angela - Well thank you Amanda for giving us some great insight into the difference between personality vs strengths assessments. Thank you as well Attila Simony for his research and for helping us prepare for this podcast. And if our listeners have any comments or questions or suggestions on what we spoke about today, we would love to hear from you on LinkedIn or by Email if you like. And if you'd like any further information about the BeTalent Strengths Questionnaire that we discussed in this podcast, please go to betalent.com.

39:40 - Amanda - Thank you Angela and thank you everyone for listening and I hope you have a lovely day lets hope the sun shines!