Episode Summary:

In this episode of DEDx, Anna and John are joined by William McKee to discuss the relevance and validity of psychometric testing in the workplace. They explore whether psychometric testing is a DEDx, an idea worth binning, or if it has redeeming features that justify its use.

What are we talking about?

• Overview of psychometric testing and its intended purposes.
• The distinction between psychometric tools and simple surveys.
• Where can this go wrong - the criticisms and limitations of psychometric testing

What are the challenges when using psychometrics?

• There are instances where they can be unethical - recruitment being a good example
• The system can be gamed - who’s going to answer questions accurately if they know it might impact the chances of a job?
• Commerciality can get in the way of ethics

Is there a viable alternative?

There is. The Big Five Personality Traits are a way better way to make predictions about behaviour:

• Measurement of these is the best tool available: Statistically derived and widely researched, the Big Five is considered the most reliable psychometric tool, despite limitations.
• Have application in Leadership Teams: Understanding personality traits can foster empathy and better collaboration among senior leadership.

Conclusion:

Overall, psychometric testing is not a dedX, we’re not binning it today. That said, William suggests calling for a temporary halt to current psychometric practices to eliminate subpar tools and revisit the field with a more rigorous and evidence-based approach.

John and Anna balance this by suggesting a more skeptical and objective approach, focusing on improving and accurately measuring psychometric tests.

Special thanks to William for sharing his extensive knowledge

https://www.linkedin.com/in/william-mckee/

If you have any Dedx suggestions email us at team@samsas.one with the subject line Dedx Idea. We would love to hear them!

John: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jadm/

Anna: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-wesson-54989929/

Music credit: by Yevhen Onoychenko from Pixabay

Disclaimer: The ideas discussed in this podcast are intended for entertainment purposes only and should not be taken as serious business advice. Listeners are encouraged to do their own research and seek professional advice before implementing any of the ideas discussed.

Meetings: Hub of productivity or waste of time?

Quote of the Episode:

"Why spend 30 hours a week in meetings when you could be using that time to actually get work done?"

Call to Action:

Have a look at your own calendar—are there meetings you could cut or optimize? Share your thoughts on what makes a meeting truly valuable by tagging us on social media using #DEDxPodcast.

Episode Summary:

In this episode of DEDx, John and Anna dive into the contentious topic of meetings—are they a necessary evil or an outdated practice in need of overhaul? They explore the history of meetings, and their role in the modern workplace, and share insights into what makes a meeting effective or a complete waste of time.

Key Discussion Points:

1. History of Meetings:

- Meetings have been integral to human communication since ancient times, but the concept of formal business meetings as we know them began in the Industrial Revolution, spurred by the need to organise large numbers of workers.

2. Evolution of Meetings:

- Meetings have become more frequent with advancements in technology (like video conferencing) and organizational growth. The pandemic further accelerated the frequency of virtual meetings.

3. The Role of Meetings Today:

- Meetings often signal status within an organization—those who call meetings are typically higher up the corporate ladder.

- Despite their prevalence, many meetings are seen as unproductive, especially if participants are unclear on their purpose or feel pressured to attend out of fear of missing out (FOMO).

4. Ideal Meeting Structure:

- Preparation:

- Engagement:

- Content and Decision-Making:

- Reflection and Takeaways:

5. Challenges with Current Meeting Culture:

- The tendency to invite unnecessary participants.

- Lack of psychological safety, which can prevent people from contributing honestly.

- The inefficiency of large meetings with too many attendees.

- The paradox of seniority: higher roles often mean more time spent in meetings, at the expense of actual work.

6. Proposed Solutions for Better Meetings:

- Limiting Participants: capping meetings at 6-8 people.

- Time Management: Consider a meeting allowance (e.g., 6 hours per week) to prevent meeting overload.

- Meeting Content: Share as much information as possible before the meeting,

- Storytelling Approach: Replace traditional updates with brief, engaging stories to capture attention and make meetings more interesting.

---

Please share this episode and leave a review if you enjoyed it!

If you have any Dedx suggestions email us at team@samsas.one with the subject line Dedx Idea. We would love to hear them!

John: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jadm/

Anna: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-wesson-54989929/

Music credit: by Yevhen Onoychenko from Pixabay

Disclaimer: The ideas discussed in this podcast are intended for entertainment purposes only and should not be taken as serious business advice. Listeners are encouraged to do their own research and seek professional advice before implementing any of the ideas discussed.

Episode Title: DEDx - Meritocracy: Dedx or not!

The idea that a meritocracy exists is a contentious one. Certainly it is a seductive idea, to suggest that the best people rise to the top in any field. But is there any evidence that it truly exists? This podcast features an intriguing discussion about the relevance of the idea of meritocracy in today's world.

What are we talking about?

• Meritocracy is defined as the practice of judging and rating individuals based on their performance, with the belief that the most meritorious should rise to the top.
• It’s not clear cut though, since there are challenges in measuring merit, especially in complex organizational structures where success often involves teamwork and external factors.

Challenges to this idea:

• Does past performance truly predict future success? How much of success can be accounted for by factors like luck, social status, and demographics? These are questions we must ask.
• There is inherent bias and unfairness in meritocracy, since it perpetuates inequality and overlooks potential systemic barriers like class, race, gender etc.
• Meritocracy gained popularity, particularly in business contexts, as a means of justifying success and maintaining a sense of fairness where often none existed.

What about in sport?

• Do sports, with their clear metrics for success, represent true meritocracy? In some cases they might, but luck and external support systems are key to athletic achievement.

The Illusion of Fairness:

• Meritocracy can serve as a facade for fairness, masking deeper issues of privilege, discrimination, and power dynamics within organisations.
• It is a flawed concept that fails to account for the complexity of human potential and the influence of external factors.
• There is the need for a shift toward assessing potential rather than past performance, acknowledging the role of luck and systemic advantage.

Conclusion:

Has there been a clearer DedX? Not in this series. Anna and John conclude that meritocracy is without merit. It is a great idea, but in practice, when the start line is different for everyone, merit is not the only influence on success. Meritocracy is firmly binned!

Resources - The Tyranny of Merit. - Michel Sandel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Sandel

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/sep/06/michael-sandel-the-populist-backlash-has-been-a-revolt-against-the-tyranny-of-merit

If you have any Dedx suggestions email us at team@samsas.one with the subject line Dedx Idea. We would love to hear them!

John: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jadm/

Anna: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-wesson-54989929/

Music credit: by Yevhen Onoychenko from Pixabay

Disclaimer: The ideas discussed in this podcast are intended for entertainment purposes only and should not be taken as serious business advice. Listeners are encouraged to do their own research and seek professional advice before implementing any of the ideas discussed.