 |
 |
 |
|
Re: Thursday, May 5, 2005
Oddly enough, I don't think I've ever had my "IQ" come up in a job interview. The closest was probably a thought experiment that I was asked to do as part of an interview, which involved visualizing a 3d object and then rotating it in time, then describing the configuration. (I failed.) But that was very job-specific, and was measuring a specific talent that was highly relevent to the work. We've known for decades that "IQ" doesn't correlate with job success or life success. Because of that, I'd say that any company relying on "IQ" testing for a hiring sieve isn't particularly smart as a company. What would be far more interesting, and produce better results, is hiring based on measurable talents. Everyone has strengths, and they vary widely - Gallup has identified 34 of them. Because skills can be taught and talents can't, it makes far more sense to hire for talents and teach the skills. This, of course, requires identifying which talents successful people in that particular task have. While a bit more involved, a system of this type meeets the business needs Friedman identifies, while avoiding the IQ pitfalls you identify. Beyond that, education that works towards identifying and strengthening inherent talents would lead to a happier and more balanced population, as well as a more productive one. And that, really, is where the rubber meets the road in this discussion. By the time someone is in the "labor pool" they've already been through an "educational track" and probably had their "best career choices" laid out for them. (I was supposed to be really good at accounting or farming. Unfortunately I hate accounting, and got bored with raising plants. And coding wasn't a "viable career option" in the mid 60's.) Elevator pitch: Educate for the "everyday genius", and hire for the best talent fit for the task. There are responses to this message:
|
