BY TIM KAMAU NGOTHO
It is evident that modern legal practice has increasingly become more complex, with larger firms, new and emerging areas of practice and global reach. Whilst legal-technical skills are core, acquisition and management of diverse skills such as leadership, management negotiation, communication, conflict management and emotional intelligence are critical. These equip the lawyer to engage effectively in such a dynamic environment.
Complex times call for complex solutions. It is now widely accepted that decision making in the new workplace is a complex process must involve the interaction of many disciplines. A decision maker has to use knowledge from disciplines as diverse as law, finance, mathematics and increasingly, psychology. The latter has grown in significance because leadership and management are about people engagement whether. Intelligence, emotional intelligence, attitude, inclination, behavior and predictability are among others psychological concepts needed to select, develop, align, manage and influence, right from the trainee to the top executive or professional for the success of a firm.
The term psychometrics is a derivative of two words: psychology (psycho) and measurement (metrics). It therefore implies measurement of psychological variables in people. Psychometry as a specialisation is well developed in psychology with critical uses in clinical diagnosis, child development, counselling, neuropsychology, industrial and organizational psychology, etc. Use in the workplace and business is our focus for now.
A few years ago I sat with a non-lawyer administrator of a leading Nairobi law firm and proposed assessment for recruitment and promotion. She could not imagine that lawyer candidates would submit to testing or that law partners would adopt “new-fangled” methods. She had her blinkers on as I have since then tested many lawyers, more in the corporate world.
At the core of the hiring decision is, one, whether the candidate has the right talent, knowledge and skill, capability and judgment and, two, whether the person has the correct personality attributes for the job and the firm. For certain roles of high responsibility such as military, police, nuclear operators and pilots in which a seemingly minor lapse or misjudgment may cause great catastrophe, one may want to know the mental state, emotional stability or any mental sickness that may hinder learning, performance or discretion. Some general constructs apply to any work setting; R&D has also led to tools that assess more specific constructs such as integrity, leadership, work personality, critical thinking skills, emotional intelligence and even bouquets of tools that combine many of these. Further, otherwise universal tools have been standardised around distinct professions so that a candidate may be said to score overall 70% of the standard for an attorney, accountant, soldier, pilot, etc.
Assessments in one form or another have been around for literally thousands of years and were initially developed in China as early as 4000 years ago where they were used to assess in the hire and promotion in the civil service. By the Ming Dynasty, multi-stage local, provincial and national tests were conducted in the hire of civil servants. It is believed that British Christian missionaries returning from China brought home the concept of testing.
In England, Charles Darwin in his book Origin of Species discussed the differences between individuals within a species, a concept that was hitherto not readily acknowledged. He asserted that higher forms of life evolved partly because of differences between individuals within a species. Darwin stated that those who possess certain characteristics suitable to adapt do survive and propagate therefore passing a genetic pool with higher characteristics, on and on, until entire species improves to a higher, fully adaptable one. This triggered scientific interest in the measurement of differences between people.
We must ask if the differences can reliably be measured. A second question is whether such differences can relate to dimensions of work with any relevance and application to law. Thirdly, whether results of psychological testing can be rendered in simple practical ways for day to day use and yet retain the scientific credibility that must underlie them. That way we would be able to pick and use tools with assurance. This is not different from the fact that a car is a complex machine, or a system of machines that work together, for propulsion. We have come to accept and trust that the car concept works and have the assurance to just buy one without delving into the complexities and therefore limit our inquiry to just aesthetics and simple performance criteria. Some people even get into cars and trust both car and driver without serious inquiry into the performance of both! Surely the proof of the pudding is in the eating (thereof!).
Test concepts and development usually arise from the academy or test development institutions that are staffed with academics. Research establishes the dimensions of those concepts, down to questionnaire that can correctly and adequately probe and score individuals. They then undergo rigorous peer scrutiny in the academy, associations of test development and professional associations. Finally, they are commercialized for sale and use by a test administrator who in this case may be comparable to the eventual driver of the car. Training for administrators includes an understanding of the underlying concepts as well as recommended testing conditions and norm groups as well as how to interpret and use results for the purpose intended. Fortunately this information is easily distilled in the manuals and in non-technical language so that tests may be used without undue regard to technicalities and without undue delay! This gives the sort of assurance we have when we sit on a chair, drive a car, take medication, use a computer … or take a psychometric test!
One question often asked is: At what stage of hiring is the use of psychometric testing best? Like a lawyer a good psychologist will not have a simple answer. Usually, the purpose, time, cost, numbers, level of position and the test construct selected will help determine the best stage. Let us consider a law firm that needs to hire four or five interns or recently admitted advocates. The intention is to bring on board individuals who will shortly be invested with a lot of authority to face with and advise clients as well as be the face of the firm in court, meetings and society. The arduous task might be to come up with the twenty best who can then be interviewed. A low cost, low threshold psychometric tool that assesses cognitive ability will help rank the candidates and let us know how they reason and deal with new and unfamiliar situations. A second test to determine suitability for the position or how one would fit in the firm could then be administered to those who pass the first filter. This may help shortlist to any other number desired.
From the above example we have saved partner and staff time as well as introduced a known and objective construct in the hiring process. Secondly, we know which candidates have acquired the acceptable blend of necessary skills and personality attributes for the job. The process may be varied for the hire of a senior associate or admission of a partner which will usually involve fewer candidates but higher intensity in testing and interview.
Key to the process of test development and credibility are the concepts of reliability and validity. Reliability is the degree to which a tool produces stable and consistent results. Validity refers to how well the test measures what it is intended to. For instance: if we are assessing IQ, how well can we say that the questions indeed measured IQ and therefore that a person who scored 100 is average and one who scored 130 or 140 is exceptional? This data is always included in the test manual. Also included are norm groups in respect of which a test was standardized and therefore factors such a level of education, age, job categories a particular test is suitable for.
Cost is always a consideration in the hire process and will vary according to test and provider. Whilst it is important to compute actual expenditure, executive time and other opportunity costs are hardly ever included. It sure costs to get the right candidate but much more to hire the wrong one. At best a wrong hire will not engage or achieve expectations for role. At worst it may be team incongruence and disharmony, loss of a valuable client, wrong advice to a client, professional negligence claims or loss of reputation.
How can a tool developed in the West be considered suitable to assess candidates in Kenya? It is argued argue that many of the traits we would be looking for develop fairly similarly among human beings world over. Darwin himself acknowledged this. Secondly, after about 18 years of Western education and professional training, one would expect a lawyer in Kenya to be judged on similar qualities against any lawyer other in the world. Global moot contests, international cases involving lawyers exclusively trained in Kenya and achievement internationally by many leaders and academics of Kenyan birth and training working across the globe do not justify any imputation to the contrary. In addition, many psychometric tools have been standardized in Africa without much difference in results from the rest of the world. However, it is important to understand a tool, its validity and reliability before use.
Psychometric assessment is not intended to totally replace a good recruiter or interviewer. All work hand in hand to complement one another. Assessment reports often reveal points of inquiry or clarification at the interview stage. Assessment does not claim to give the perfect candidate: everyone has strengths and weakness. Knowing the weakness of a candidate who is eventually hired indicates development areas in an objective way and sets the scene for focused training, coaching and mentoring for new employees.
Beyond recruitment, psychometric testing is useful for other purposes. In work setting it is useful for coaching and mentoring, executive development, team development, conflict management, team social and emotional intelligence development, change management and training among others.