Group photograph of some of the men hired to work on the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway High Level Bridge. Men are sitting or standing on the scaffolding for the first span of the bridge.

(1908 - Galt Museum - FlickR Commons)

Intelligence testing tests the ability to crack “codes” and personality testing looks for “archetypes”.

We have been aware for a while that they are a so-so predictor of the effort a person will put in to prove their ability. After all, what they seem to ignore is the role of values and character in the general overall makeup of the individual.

A motivated character is an essential sine qua non of the successful organization and good talent management, where motivation is  correctly seen as effort + self-will generating a desire to reach a goal.

The goal is important and the effort is essential.

Effort is more important than smarts alone: Dr Carol Dweck of Stanford has proved that telling children they are smart was nowhere near as motivating as praising them for their effort.

Or put intelegantly: telling a person you admire their effort and ability to get the job done, rather than simply saying “you’re great” will be a greater motivator - and we all get that!

However, motivation theories are all too frequently tied to intelligence and personality testing. Especially when they are applied to organizations and work. In employee testing this is often used to see if it is possible to spot the best candidate, or even the high-flier.

A motivated and intelligent person with a given Myers-Briggs or Big 5 personality describes both a demonic psychopath as well as a morally centered and excellent worker. Both on paper would look precisely the same.

I would argue the case that one of the missing components is character.

There is currently the 16PF (Sixteen personality factor questionnaire). This is based on the enormous lexigraphic work of finding 17,953 trait names and by factor analysis reducing those to  4,505, of Allport and Odbert, and then formed into the 16PF questionnaire by Raymond B. Catell in 1956.

Catell’s work still holds good, but it is dated. Think how the world has changed - even if the traits that make a person resilient, friendly, likable, and successful haven’t. Note these have nothing to do with talk or charm or other deceptions. We are talking result-based interviewing for experienced workers and checkable certification and highly checkable letters of recommendation for both them and college leavers. (I always ring and talk to the professor and the college warden - with signed permission for the candidate, of course.)

There is a great story told in Sweden about an engineer who was impossible to work with. So they only way they could get rid of them was to leave superb job offers where the person would see them and then give them glowing, superlative, references. SOEP. Someone else’s problem! (So how would YOU check uncover that one?!)

So, what is character? One definition, albeit a deliberately loose one, might be  as follows: personality is inherited, character is what we show when times get tough.

This development is both intrinsic and extrinsic. It is both our internal interpretation (a cognitive process) and the environmental effect (behavioral). These are categorically not mutually exclusive, but rather blend and meld to temper and forge the personality.

However, how can we test for character?

What is character?

Is it a list of adjectives, synonyms?
Are they qualities that are universally recognizable?

If they are instinctively understood and recognized how can we test to see if a person possesses genuine character?  Will they keep going when the going gets tough?

There is a caution here: this should not mean foolhardiness.

The number one indicator is an emotional intelligence test coupled with solid testable work sills and results.

In a previous post I suggested ways to stop office politics; the same applies here: the Golden Rule is look at results not at talk.