Aptitude assessment for selection and development

The Job Evaluation Tool (JET) is suitable for deriving a function-specific requirements profile; here we distinguish between potential, risk factors, motives and competencies. A self-assessment method can provide perspectives on the person; interviews, work samples and experience in the company complement them. We document which information supports which statement. This makes visible where a person fits the task and where support or development would be needed, without reducing a complex personnel decision to a single value.

In the evaluation meeting, results are discussed in relation to the position and the working environment. A published logistics case study shows how profiles were applied in a specific project; its findings remain tied to that case. The diagnosis supports a traceable decision and a possible development plan. It replaces neither the judgement of the people responsible nor a review of the legal and data protection requirements in the specific assignment.

Ergebnisse auf die Rolle beziehen: Der Soll-Ist-Abgleich verbindet die Anforderungen mit den Informationen zu Kompetenzen, Erfahrungen, Potenzialen, Risiken und Motivation. Zum Assessment gehört ein Rückmeldegespräch. Die Ergebnisse unterstützen eine begründete Einschätzung und die weitere Entwicklungsarbeit.

Arbeitsergebnisse: Ein Anforderungsprofil als Bezugspunkt der Einschätzung; Ein auf die Funktion bezogener Vergleich von Anforderungen und Kandidatenprofil; Ansatzpunkte für Besetzungsentscheidungen und individuelle Entwicklung.

Before any assessment, we agree the decision to be made, the choice of methods, qualified administration, feedback and how personal results are handled. Current instrument versions and technical access are part of this.

Several instruments answer different questions. A position-related requirements profile describes what the organisation needs. A personality profile can provide indications of strengths, motives and risks. A 360-degree feedback shows how behaviour is perceived in the working environment. Methods for assessing cognitive performance, in turn, focus on other characteristics. These findings must not be mixed up. Before choosing an instrument, we examine which question the client actually has to decide and which information is suitable for it.

With managers in particular, a difference between self-image and how others see them can be an occasion for reflection without a decision on suitability following directly from it. The quality criteria are objectivity, reliability and validity. A method must currently demonstrate its suitability for the specific purpose. In the evaluation meeting, matches and differences with the job profile are made transparent. From this, those involved can derive interview questions, development goals or a well-founded selection decision. The diagnosis is intended to raise the quality of the decision and to disclose its limits.

Objectivity, reliability and validity are quality criteria for diagnostic methods. These terms help with the question of what conclusion an instrument can actually support for a specific selection or development decision. We therefore distinguish between what a test measures, what an interview shows and what is known from observed work. A 360-degree feedback, for example, provides perspectives on experienced behaviour; it is not automatically a prediction of suitability for a new position.

In the conversation with those responsible, the findings are related to the previously clarified requirements profile. Contradictions remain visible and are examined rather than being offset into a seemingly unambiguous single score. The result supports a well-founded personnel decision and can name concrete conditions for development. Current standards and legal requirements must be checked separately for the chosen method.

Such methods are to be distinguished from typologies such as the Golden Profiler of Personality (GPOP) and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). They go back to Jung's theory of types and are based on self-assessment; the GPOP explicitly does not regard itself as a test. Four pairs of preferences are captured: extraversion or introversion, perceiving through the five senses or through intuition, analytical or values-based decision-making, and a structuring or a perceiving attitude towards the outside world. This results in 16 profiles, which can be grouped into four basic patterns. There are no good or bad types.

A typology shows how someone prefers to perceive reality and make decisions, and it provides suggestions for recognising and managing one's own stress patterns. Managers can use it to recognise their preferred leadership style, and leadership teams become more sensitive to the different “wavelengths” of their employees. Its place is therefore in self-reflection, the further training of managers and work in teams. It does not provide a ranking of candidates, because it describes preferences and does not evaluate types. For the question of suitability, the comparison with the requirements profile remains decisive.