I recently attended a Society of Industrial-Organizational Psychology (SIOP) Leading Edge Conference, which focused on People Analytics. Having been in the field of I-O Psychology for thirty-two years, one of the things I really appreciate in attending these conferences is meeting people who are new to the field of I-O and their careers, and having discussions about what they do in their roles and about the field in general.

At this recent conference, I met a young man who is working for an international consulting firm in an assessment development role. We began talking about the field of Learning and Development and he asked if I thought the field had changed very much over time. My response was that in terms of the content of the field, the understanding of things such as best practices, etc., I did not think there was very much change at all. Rather, that the changes over time have been more about technology. And, I believe a similar statement can be made about the other areas of I-O expertise, including selection, performance management, succession management, etc. When attending I-O conferences year after year, when there is a conversation about what is new in the field it is almost always about technology.

To some extent that should not be unexpected as I-O is a science and the scientific concepts behind selection, performance management, learning and development, etc., should not change very much over time. For example, we know that selection procedures need to be reliable and valid, no matter what technology is incorporated in the procedure.

As a field though we could push innovation and best practice more beyond the innovation that comes with technology. And, we should not let the changing technology be the thing that drives the evolution or direction of the field. That is the tail wagging the dog.

An Example of Skills-Based Taxonomies

An example of this was when skills and skills taxonomies became the focus in many organizations. Josh Bersin, a renowned expert primarily in the arena of HR technology, talks about this time in The Pragmatic Approach To Skills - Bonus Episode – JOSH BERSIN. He discusses his belief that the concept of skills became popular initially in the learning space when companies like Degreed created skills-based learning search tools in their LXPs. From there, the wildfire spread with skills-based recruiting systems, skills-based talent mobility systems, the Skills Cloud introduced by Workday, and the list goes on. Companies gravitated to what was viewed as a very easy way to accomplish things like identifying skills important to a company and to specific roles, matching candidates to skill profiles, or assisting people in career path planning. HR technology platforms were generating so much buzz and people enthusiastically jumped on the skills train.

Bersin comments:

“This particular topic has driven me crazy for the last two or three years because we have this enormous interest in skills-based hiring, skills-based internal mobility, skills-based development, skills-based pay… but in reality, if we are not focused on the business problem, we’re not going to be successful.”

Do you know what it takes for Senior Executives to be successful? Understanding and then refining these skills can have a significant impact on their future. Read our recently published Sr. Executive research report now to learn more about the skills and the critical competencies that are the biggest predictors of performance, advancement potential, and career difficulty. Download the report to learn where your L&D strategy and focus should be for Senior Executives.

MIT Sloan Management Review published an article in Winter 2024 titled “Leadership Development Is Failing Us. Here’s How to Fix It.”In it, they note that their review of leadership development programs (LDPs) at several dozen business schools around the world illustrated the typical shortcomings:

What makes mid-level leaders successful? What are their biggest challenges and barriers? Our latest research reveals the critical competencies that are the biggest predictors of performance, advancement potential, and career difficulty. Download the report to learn where your L&D strategy and focus should be for mid-level leaders.

We posted an article recently titled “Use of Artificial Intelligence for Assessments,” which you can reference here. It discusses the guidelines and ethical considerations for the use of assessments for selection or development. The current article expands on this and highlights the legal considerations in using AI in HR assessments. This article is not meant to convey legal advice, but rather to summarize information that HR professionals should consider when using assessments that integrate AI. They should also always ensure that they are consulting with their company’s own legal function about the assessments and assessment-related processes they are using for decision-making purposes.

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for assessments is a very popular topic today. Hopefully, the discussion will not only help people to better understand AI and its opportunities and potential risks but also brings more awareness to standards for assessment use in general.

Assessments in the Human Resources arena for organizational use have different objectives, but there are always guidelines to follow. The guidelines that most people know about are the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. Any assessment used for decision-making purposes (selection or hiring, promotion, or other types of decisions such as succession-related) should stand up to the scrutiny of these guidelines. If not, the organization is at risk of legal action and the sometimes very substantial costs that come with it.

Why should anyone be led by you?

In 2000, Robert Giffee and Gareth Jones published an article in Harvard Business Review (HBR) entitled, "Why Should Anyone be Led by You?" Five years later, they published the first edition of a book by the same name, subtitled, "What it Takes to be An Authentic Leader." The authors wrote about putting this question to the executives they encountered regularly in their business program classes and otherwise. When they did, a hush came over the room.

For decades now, I have conducted 360 feedback and coaching discussions with leaders at all levels, representing numerous companies, industries, and regions of the world. For the majority of these feedback/coaching discussions, I have worked with The PROFILOR® 360 assessment. I have also trained many HR teams in conducting feedback/coaching sessions, both in one-on-one and group format, using The PROFILOR®. In conducting these HR workshops, I have discovered that many teams have the same questions and concerns about conducting one-on-one feedback sessions. In this article, I will share more about the way a conversation should happen to facilitate the most productive and impactful feedback/coaching session. Future articles will provide additional information on conducting high-impact feedback/coaching sessions.

This job aid is designed specifically to help leaders and employees have strong and productive development discussions after a 360-degree assessment process. It is organized into three phases related to these development discussions: preparing for the discussion, having the meeting, and following-up after the meeting. The following sections are organized according to these phases.

This Leader’s Guide is designed specifically to help leaders and employees have strong and productive development discussions, across time and on single occasions. Having these kinds of discussions help to ensure that the leader knows what is important to the employee’s engagement and feeling valued by the organization. They also help to ensure leaders and employees have the information they need to explore various career directions and opportunities for employees.