Management diagnostics

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term management diagnostics refers to a subset of the professional aptitude testing : With Management Managers are meant in organizations in this context (not the activities of managing), with the diagnosis Psychological Assessment . The term was coined with the handbook of the same name by Werner Sarges , which first appeared in 1990.

background

According to Sarges, there are three reasons for considering and naming the aptitude diagnostics separately for the narrower group of managers :

  1. the importance of management for the success of a company or organization
  2. the particular influence of the entire personality of a manager on effectiveness and efficiency in his job, which leads to an emphasis on diagnostic approaches and procedures that are able to take this fact into account
  3. the clear treatment of aptitude diagnostic concepts and instruments that are especially or especially suitable for the group of managers.

Management success in an ever faster and more unpredictable changing business world requires special skills. a. in relation to:

  • the quick adaptation to the rapidly changing conditions of the markets and technology as well as
  • the exploitation of the opportunities that are not always easily perceived.

It is therefore of particular advantage to be able to assess the suitability of a manager for a given job as accurately as possible before his appointment.

Key factors in management diagnostics

personality

Leadership research to date shows that success in a management function requires personality traits and profiles that can often only be found or trained to a limited extent even in large applicants (cf. e.g. Howard & Howard, 2002). Key characteristics for management can be found in the aptitude diagnostic literature, for example: Ability to provide an overview , goal-oriented initiative , persuasion and assertion as well as general learning potential - in addition to the various prerequisites in the cognitive , motivational and socio-interactive area, where only small differences in expression and Combination can have great effects. Nevertheless, practice shows that there is no homogeneous requirement profile for all management jobs: Depending on the industry, department / function, hierarchical position, etc., different weights of the general aptitude dispositions of the person and additional specific requirements of the particular situation are important.

Personality fit to the situation

Management or leadership success, however, cannot be traced back to the personality of the manager alone, but also to the circumstances of the situation, but mostly to the interaction of both - as a historical thought experiment by the psychologist Lykken illustrates:

" Gandhi 's simplicity and saintliness might not have dealt effectively with Hitler 's war machine, and Churchill 's bombast and epicurean self-indulgence would not have endeared him to the Indian masses."

Successes in politics or management are therefore neither brought about by “great men” (personalistic view) nor by “great times” (situationist view), rather the individual fit of person and situation (interactionist view of 'person-job-fit' ) is decisive. -Concept). The distinction made in the context of the so-called interactionism debate between “strong” (structured, restrictive) and “weak” (ambiguous, facilitating) situations is particularly helpful here. Quite a few personality traits (e.g. extraversion , initiative) only permit a wide range of behaviors or a lot of behavioral variability in rather weak situations. However, the typical work situation in which a manager moves should be viewed as a weak rather than a strong situation. For this reason, the influence of characteristics of his personality on his professional success is considerably greater than in a narrowly specified working framework (e.g. during activities on the assembly line with specified cycle times).

Assessment of the management suitability of a candidate

In order to be able to assess candidates more accurately with regard to their suitability for management positions, special forms of evocation and the recording of informative indicators are necessary. The first two are based on management-diagnostic tradition; according to Sarges , the three following show further opportunities for increasing validity .

1. Multi-methodality

Figure 1: Three approaches to aptitude diagnostics (according to Schuler, 2000)

Important characteristics of professional suitability (e.g. intelligence , achievement motivation ) should be tried to determine with more than just one diagnostic method (principle of multi-methodality ). If one differentiates between the three methodological approaches properties, behavior and results (according to Schuler , 2000, see Figure 1), then suitability should not only be based on interviews, tests or activity simulations, but at least through two of the approaches (as in practice often common) only to one.

Multi-methodology has been implemented in assessment centers (AC), which serve to select and develop managers, since the 1960s . In group events of this type, broadband captures of job-relevant personality and behavioral characteristics are sought in order to capture the personality of the candidates more holistically. In addition to interviews and tests , behavior simulations (in individual and group exercises) are carried out there . After the AC, the observers assess the applicants as to whether they have the potential to move up to the (next) management level ( prognosis ) and / or in which areas of competence their strengths and weaknesses lie ( diagnosis with recommendations for further development). Recently, however, there has been criticism that in AC practice for more than two decades, multi-method and measurement technology has often been neglected.

AC are mainly used for young managers as well as lower and middle management. But also other procedural arrangements such as the management audit (assessment of the potential of groups of mostly middle managers, for example all heads of the branches; see Wübbelmann, 2005) and the individual assessment (assessments of suitability and suitability of individuals from middle and upper management, cf. Bäcker & Etzel, 2002) - depending on the multi-method requirement - usually use tests and / or activity simulations and / or 360-degree assessments (see below: multi-perspective) in addition to the interview .

2. Multi-perspective

Figure 2: Complement of multi-methodality (= three approaches of aptitude diagnostics) with multi-perspectives (= 360-degree assessment)

The approach of multi-perspectives on which the 360-degree assessment is based has been seen by many authors and HR managers for some time as an ideal complement to the multi-methodality approach just discussed , in order to also cover the assessments that are already present in an organization to make a person visible and also feed back ("truth in the plural"). The following expansion of the graphic representation of Schuler's model may facilitate the methodical classification of the 360-degree approach (see Fig. 2). The front triangle once again represents the model of the “three approaches to aptitude diagnostics”. It shows the methodological sources from which the diagnostic information comes (tests, simulations, interviews). The back triangles show from which other assessment sources (supervisors, colleagues, employees) such methodologically different information can also come.

360-degree assessments - Scherm and Sarges (2002) provide an overview - are becoming increasingly popular both as a stand-alone procedure (then mostly for the purposes of managerial development ) and in addition to other potential assessment arrangements such as assessment centers , management audits and individual assessments interesting field (Scherm, 2005 Scherm, 2014). This should not only increase the “ecological” validity (Pawlik, 1982) of the overall picture of a candidate, but also the prognostic one.

In addition to multi-methodology and multi-perspective, there are three other, but so far underutilized, options for increasing validity that Sarges points to. This means extended evocation and recording modes of personal suitability indicators through:

  • more ambiguous stimuli ,
  • more open response options and
  • stronger ego involvement of the candidates,

and that in all instrument areas, i.e. with tests, simulations, interviews and external assessments.

3. Stimulus ambiguity

Several important personality traits for management functions (e.g. initiative , power motivation, helicopter view, ego development ) only develop fully in rather weakly structured situations. For this reason, ambiguous (= weakly structured) stimuli make it easier to assess how well a candidate can help shape certain ambiguous situations than unequivocal (= strongly structured) stimuli - extremely important information for a valid management potential assessment.

Even if weakly structured situations represent the working world of managers better than detailed ones: The use of weakly structured situations actually runs counter to the efforts made by psychometrists to standardize, i.e. to keep the conditions constant. Against the background of the ecological validity of diagnostic statements, such situations are particularly important.

4. Response openness

In industrial and organizational psychology as well as in differential and personality psychology there has been a dominant tendency towards a "respondent" psychology for decades. Often the stimuli (questions in questionnaires, tasks in performance tests etc.) are kept clear and the reactions closed ( multiple choice or graduated scales = “respondent”). A major step forward would be if more and more ambiguous stimuli and open (= “operant”) reactions were allowed in behavioral simulations and in interviews and in the test area at all (see Fig. 3). According to Sarges, this allows diagnostic information to be obtained from a qualitatively much broader spectrum:

Instead of preferring S unambiguous - R closed , the combinations S unambiguous - R open , S ambiguous - R closed and S ambiguous - R open should also be implemented.

Figure 3: Stimulus-response combinations

5. Ego involvement

With ego-involvement , the concern of a person designated by significance of the stimuli for one's own self. In aptitude diagnostics, ego involvement is seen as a necessary condition in order to evoke diagnostic information that - in relation to the professional requirements - enables the structure and dynamics of the personality of candidates to be validly assessed (Sarges, 2008).

In diagnostic situations, the chances of only low ego involvement should therefore be significantly reduced from the outset - but this does not happen in many interviews, tests and assessment centers: The use of standardized verbal stimuli to describe the situation, for example - typical in common case studies in ACn, with many so-called guideline questions in interviews and with a number of questions in usual personality tests - often only produces a weakly subjectively relevant situation, which naturally reduces the validity of the "responses" evoked in this way. Obviously, the simple behavioristic S-R-scheme is preferred instead of the more adequate S-O-R scheme , which also uses the inner world (O for organism, ie psychological constructs such as here, for example, "identification with the task") as intervening Includes variable. In the case of low ego involvement, those affected tend to orientate themselves towards strong external stimuli or show stereotypical reactions because of the lack of subjective relevance. Due to the resulting restrictions of variance in behavior (intra- and inter-individual), the personality of candidates in selection and allocation contexts should then appear less contoured than usual in terms of breadth and depth.

In practice, this is not hidden from many diagnosticians. In order to increase the behavioral variance, attempts are therefore often made to intensify the stimuli, for example by:

  • Use of presumably "more complex" cases in the AC,
  • “Unexpected” questions in the interview and
  • "Unusual" item contents / formulations in tests and questionnaires.

However, ego involvement cannot be forced “from outside”: A stronger subjectively relevant activation, i.e. higher ego involvement, is brought about less by physically than psychologically more intensive stimulation. And in order to achieve this, according to Sarges, the focus should be modified, for less stimulus orientation and instead for more subject activation. Therefore, verbal scenarios should not be given and related reactions evoked; It would be much more productive to relive scenarios that you have experienced yourself and to wait for the more ecologically valid reactions.

Limitations of management diagnostics

Sarges (2014) sees a lot of catching up to do when it comes to capturing information-capable indicators of suitability for management talent. He points out three areas that are particularly deficient in practice: 1. neglected data sources (implicit motives, external judgments, probationary period), 2. neglected diagnostic skills, 3. neglected candidate groups (women, people from weaker social classes) and power Suggestions on how to reduce these deficits.

In addition to improvements on the predictors side, there is also a need for further meaningful validation studies with criteria that are suitable for content and psychometrics . The usual success criterion “Appraisal by superiors” is not necessarily satisfactory when measured against these requirements, because appraisers tend to make global assessments of properties when assessing behavior. In any case, there is broad consensus in aptitude diagnostics that individual parameters are not sufficient for valid measurements of professional success. Rather, bundles of characteristic values (= multiple success criteria) are required, which represent the target systems relevant in practice .

Even so, shortcomings will remain: sometimes - v. a. for higher hierarchical levels and when looking at individual cases - the qualitative evaluation also plays a role. Management success is then less a question of measurement (“search performance”) than a question of interpretation (“determination performance”, Hofstätter, 1986). Sarges points to the dependence on power groups and / or zeitgeist: Many a “Manager of the Year” was later discreetly dethroned. But at the latest after the recent scandals in the upper and top management of a number of companies, significantly more emphasis should be placed on the right selection (Bellmann, 2013): In addition to the question of suitability , the focus on the fit ("concern for fit") is one of the factors urgent efforts - in practice as well as in research.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Werner Sarges (Ed.): Management Diagnostics. 4th, completely revised u. exp. Aufl. Göttingen: Hogrefe 2013. ISBN 978-3-8017-2385-9
  2. ↑ Pierce J. Howard & Jane M. Howard: Leadership with the Big Five Personality Model . Frankfurt / M .: Campus 2002, ISBN 978-3-593-37076-7
  3. ↑ S. Spörli & FW Schmid: The individual assessment as a component of management development. In: Hans-Christian Riekhof (Ed.): Strategies of Personnel Development. 6th edition Wiesbaden: Gabler 2006, ISBN 978-3-8349-0114-9 , pp. 103-112.
  4. ↑ a b Werner Sarges (Ed.): Further developments of the assessment center method. 2nd edition Göttingen: Hogrefe 2001, ISBN 3-8017-1447-0
  5. ^ John L. Holland : Exploring careers with a typology. What we have learned and some new directions. In: American Psychologist , 51 (1996), pp. 397-406.
  6. ↑ a b Klaus Moser: Consistency of the person . Göttingen: Hogrefe 1991, ISBN 978-3-8017-0428-5
  7. ↑ Werner Sarges: Aptitude diagnostic considerations for the management area. In: Werner Sarges (Hrsg.): Management Diagnostik. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Hogrefe 1995, pp. 1–21. Article for download (PDF, 282 kB)
  8. ↑ a b c Werner Sarges: Management Diagnostics . In: Franz Petermann & Michael Eid (eds.): Manual of Psychological Diagnostics. Göttingen: Hogrefe 2006, ISBN 3-8017-1911-1 , pp. 739-746. ( Article for download (PDF, 258 kB) )
  9. ↑ Heinz Schuler : The riddle of the feature-method-effects: What is “potential” and how can it be measured? In: Lutz von Rosenstiel & Thomas Lang-von Wins (eds.): Perspectives of the assessment of potential . Göttingen: Hogrefe 2000, ISBN 3-8017-1283-4 , pp. 27-71
  10. ↑ CE Lance: Why assessment centers don't work as expected. In: Heinz Schuler (Ed.), Assessment Center for Analysis of Potential . Göttingen: Hogrefe 2007, pp. 109–125.
  11. ↑ Werner Sarges: Why assessment centers often fall short and also usually try to measure the wrong things. In: Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organizationpsychologie , 53 (2009), pp. 79–82. ( Article for download (PDF, 104 kB) )
  12. ↑ Klaus Wübbelmann (Ed.): Handbuch Management Audit . Göttingen: Hogrefe 2005, ISBN 3-8017-1883-2
  13. ↑ Rainer Bäcker & Stefan Etzel (eds.): Individual Assessment - New Processes for the Selection and Development of Managers. Düsseldorf: symposion 2002, ISBN 3-933814-79-0
  14. ↑ Werner Sarges: 360-degree assessments of a person: more “truth in the plural” through more suitable evocation and recording modes of external assessments . Lecture at the 9th workshop of the specialist group for differential psychology, personality psychology and psychological diagnostics of the German Society for Psychology, 24. – 26. September 2007, Faculty of Psychology at the University of Vienna.
  15. ↑ Martin Scherm & Werner Sarges: 360 ° feedback . Göttingen: Hogrefe 2002, ISBN 3-8017-1483-7
  16. ↑ Martin Scherm (ed.): 360 degree assessments: diagnosis and development of leadership skills . Göttingen: Hogrefe 2005, ISBN 3-8017-1406-3 .
  17. ↑ Martin Scherm: Competence Feedbacks - Self and External Assessment of Professional Behavior. Hogrefe, Göttingen et al. 2014, ISBN 978-3-8017-2455-9 .
  18. ↑ Kurt Pawlik : Multivariate Personality Research: For the introduction to question and method. In: Kurt Pawlik (Ed.), Multivariate Personality Research . Bern: Huber 1982, pp. 17-54.
  19. ^ Muzaffer Serif : The psychology of ego-involvements, social attitudes and identifications . New York: Wiley 1966.
  20. ↑ a b c Werner Sarges: Ego-Involvement - a neglected principle in aptitude diagnostics. In: Werner Sarges & David Scheffer (eds.): Innovative approaches for aptitude diagnostics . Göttingen: Hogrefe 2008, ISBN 3-8017-2182-5 , pp. 17-30. Article for download (PDF, 361 kB)
  21. ↑ Werner Sarges : Deficit fields in the practice of management diagnostics: data sources, diagnostician skills, candidate groups. In: reportpsychologie - magazine of the professional association of German psychologists, 39 , May (2014), pp. 202–214. Article for download (PDF, 276 kB)
  22. ^ Ansfried B. Weinert : Organizational and Personal Psychology . 5th ed., Weinheim: Beltz 2004, ISBN 3-621-27490-1 , pp. 320–334
  23. ^ Peter R. Hofstätter : Group dynamics . completely revised u. exp. New edition, Reinbek: Rowohlt 1986. ISBN 3-499-55430-5
  24. ^ Matthias Bellmann : filling top management positions. In: Werner Sarges (Ed.), Management Diagnostik. 4th, completely revised u. exp. Aufl. Göttingen: Hogrefe 2013, ISBN 978-3-8017-2385-9 , pp. 897-903.