Since psychology entered the world of administration and human talent, much has been done since then to offer the personnel-demanding units a set of candidates that fit the desired profile, as clearly as possible, through psychotechnical, personality, projective and many other tests that, properly analyzed, can help to visualize probable and desirable trends and behaviors.
But in addition to this type of tests, the implementation of the "role play" in assessment centers and other hypothetical activities have become increasingly fashionable to more accurately assemble the "candidate profile".
However, despite the fact that in some cases the results indicate that a person possesses the appropriate characteristics and the desired competencies for a position, his / her practice in the company, once hired, is little less than significant and, in some cases, completely sterile. But why does that happen?
It could be said that the reasons that motivate events such as the one described above have a lot to do with the famous imaginary experiment proposed in 1937 by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger to illustrate the differences between interaction and measurement in the field of quantum mechanics and which today is known as "Schrödinger's cat".
In "the corner of science", an interesting site on the Internet and published by MA Gómez in July 2001, can be read in relation to "Schrödinger's cat": "The mental experiment is to imagine a cat tucked inside a box that also contains a curious and dangerous device.
This device consists of a glass ampoule that contains a very volatile poison and a hammer held on the ampoule so that if it falls on it, it breaks it and the poison escapes, causing the cat to die. The hammer is connected to an alpha particle detection mechanism; if an alpha particle arrives, the hammer falls, breaking the ampoule with what the cat dies, on the contrary, if it does not arrive - to fall - nothing happens and the cat will continue alive.
When the entire device is ready, the experiment is performed. Next to the detector is a radioactive atom with certain characteristics: it has a 50% probability of emitting an alpha particle in one hour. Obviously, after one hour one of the two possible events will have occurred: the atom has emitted an alpha particle or it has not emitted it (the probability that one thing will happen or the other is the same). As a result of the interaction, inside the box, the cat is either alive or dead. But we can't know if we don't open it to check it. "
Source: eltamiz
If the previous approach is extrapolated to the world of work, we can find ourselves in a similar situation at the time of selection.
In this case, the "cat" is the chosen candidate or a new employee, the box is the company, the "triggering device" is its measurement results, and the "alpha particle" would be the "evaluation" carried out by the company..
Therefore, until the results of their work are obtained, the neo-employee is as potentially good as he is bad, he has both states at the same time, regardless of what psychological studies have shown and even his behavior at the assessment center. … Why?
Simple.
Some individuals have the ability to “decode” the psychotechnical tests and by orienting the results in such a way that they are favorable, this occurs at any level, since as the tests are usually very similar - and even the same - in some companies, just doing a simple memory exercise can correct what was done wrong in the other and offer a better image in which you respond to the moment.
Others have the "spark" of doing and saying what others want to hear during dramatizations, which together with certain experience and basic knowledge of the area in which they have performed, end up enchanting those who observe and evaluate them, since in in most cases the problems are hypothetical and are not always closely linked to the position, but to the profile of the position.
As I have already pointed out in other works, it is a responsibility of the Human Talent Management, or the Human Resources Unit, as it is still called, to ensure that the investment of time and resources in the search for personnel is appropriate, the cheapest and with the highest quality of results.
That is why it is necessary to “open the box” and know if the cat is alive or not, or, administratively speaking, if the candidate corresponds to the position or only seems to correspond.
Although it may seem impractical, I usually suggest that companies, instead of making hypothetical approaches, document real situations and subject candidates to situations for at least five days (with schedules - if applicable - pressure and resources). are occurring or have happened that required true expert guidance. The problem must be real, its content not necessarily; this so as not to leave the company in evidence, of course. But only in this way, seeing the candidate work in "real time" and in "real situations" is it possible to establish with greater precision the quality of the candidate and the degree of accuracy with which it coincides with the skills map, position profile or desired expectations.
One of the conclusions that the “Schrödinger's cat” experiment offers is that once an event is observed its condition changes, before observing it it has more than one possible state.
The time and resources of the company should not be subjected to the hunch of a few who hope to have chosen "a good candidate", to the action of crossing their fingers hoping that "that's the right one", or randomly, these actions that appear together or separately regardless of whether the tests that, in theory, support a hiring decision have been applied.
You have to open the box.
As long as nobody opens the box, both realities will co-exist: the candidate may be the correct one / the candidate is not the correct one; and to know it some companies take months. If it is correct, nothing will have happened, but if it is not, all the time, resources, training and even interactions that occurred during that period with the other team members will represent an expense that is almost never quantified, this without considering losses due to malpractice, unfinished business or poor quality work that occurred in that time.
But if instead of acting like Schrödinger's experiment, the candidate is subjected to controlled, but significant impact activities, there may still be chances of misjudgment, but to a lesser degree than when we only let ourselves be led by what we think is, or by what can be interpreted by the results of the tests we do. It is simple: the interpretation is relative; the result of an exercise, a decision, an activity is quantifiable and comparable. It is correct or not.
