How to Optimize Change Interventions Using Psychometric Feedback Data of Individuals & Organizations? Synthesizing Objectivist & Subjectivist views.

This Newsletter addresses the issues in enhancing the efficacy of using Psychometrics Instruments as a source of change Interventions.

This article is a humble attempt to highlight the methodological nuances in using psychological instruments and enhancing their efficacy. I saw clients who approached me with their challenges of making sense of data from psychometric tools and how to effectively use them as change Interventions.

Using Psychometric Instruments in providing behavioural feedback to managers/leaders is becoming very popular. We also observe Psychometric instruments are used in leadership development, management development, competency mapping, and organizational change interventions. Organizations invest time and money in providing behaviour data feedback through various psychometric instruments. Underlying premise, input about one's behavioural attributes can generate pull/pressure to change. However, the equation is more complex and not straightforward.

When we fill out a psychometric questionnaire, what seems to get captured is explicit and is based on what we think we know, but there is much more that manifests outside of our awareness, Implicit. We must exercise caution before we hand over a report on Psychometric data to a person/organisation, as ethical implications are involved in such work. There is a need for a process which integrates and synthesizes individual and organisational/group data. Also, appreciation. Individual psychometric properties are not just about individuals but a manifestation of personal & corporate climate interplay.

With the popularity of a method comes challenges of various kinds, from ethics of using, such as the risk of labelling, confidentiality, Privacy, adhering to the principle of Self determinism, Trustworthiness of data and issue of sustainability of change. In the history of psychology, 'Behaviorism' ( Between 1920 and 1960s) celebrated the accomplishment of 'Measuring' behavior. Even though there are scholarly debates & controversies about efficacy, even today, we see glory in many popular psychometric instruments.

As an HR & OD professional & change consultant for the last 35 years, my understanding has moved from a believer in psychometric instruments to that of a critical inquirer. I want to share some of my reflections and acute observations. My attempt here stresses the significance of integrating contrasting data sources to obtain a dependable and holistic picture of behavior.

I realized we cannot take psychometric measures as final. Behavior consists of transient & intransient dimensions compounded by implicit & explicit manifestation of motives through behaviours. Additionally, for many consulting organisations who take franchise of such knowledge tools, they would like to monetize. Hence, it is governed by commercial considerations. Like other products & services in commerce, such psychological knowledge products are no exception.

Let us dive a little deeper and explore what's at play here.

Usually, psychological instruments have certain assumptions about behaviour & personality specific to a particular personality theory. There are multiple such theories. A fundamental fallacy exists in studying behaviour as a clean set of components, characteristics or attributes as if such features are arranged as bricks in the wall awaiting rearranging. This reductionist view may help as a map to understand WHAT, just like a slow-motion movie or static photo. This map needs to provide details of the terrain, viz., HOW things happen. It's something like this: suppose humanity did not know about apple fruit. Scientists obtained a lot of pieces of its physical characteristics and even data on Apple's cellular structure, etc. However, this shall only inform us about its taste if our taste buds experience it. Especially when it comes to humans, such knowledge of attributes culled out as 'view from outside' falls short when actual change interventions are to be initiated by the individual/group.

Behavioral 'view from outside' essentially consists of objectivist perspective and derived from 2nd or 3 rd person lens (This position is linked to our belief that truth exists outside the human mind, or independently of what an individual may or may not believe). Instrument data-based interventions in organisations are widely accepted because we are conditioned over the years in the object of classical Newtonian sciences (the belief that there exists an objective and reliable set of facts, principles and theories that either have been discovered and delineated or will be over time). Hence, our appreciation of reality is skewed. One can go in-depth exploring this itself, but it is not the focus of this article.

When it come behavior change rules of the game change

However, when it comes to behaviour change, the rules of the game change. We shall be committing a blunder in equating objectivist' outside view' to subjectivist' view from within', especially in human behaviour. Though the person had filled out the questionnaire, it's just part of his cognition ( what a person think about himself) but not actual lived experience ( how he engages in a given situation). There has been a debate between Cognitive scientist and Phenomenologist over the years. Congnitivists believe behaviour is a function of structures in the brain. Also, the world of reality is independent of the knower, and Phenomenologist believes subjective experiences are the foundation of an objective world. It is similar to what our Indian scriptures asserted for thousands of years and which Ramanmaharshi, a saint, explained beautifully, the nature of reality (ontology) as follows,

1. "Shristi - Drishti vada" ( creation had pre-existed before we appeared on this earth ). Incidentally, it is the popular belief of many of us trained in classical physics. Also, the Western worldview.

2. "Drishti - Shristi Vada". ( Our perception is the foundation of reality around us, which means we construct our reality. In this sense, its foundation is 'Constructivism', similar to early development in Western social sciences ( Jean Piaget & John Dewey).

3. "Ajata vada" is another level of ontology which says Nothing exists. The ultimate reality is Brahman.

These are levels of consciousness, and depending on our levels of awareness, we take position and this operates at implicit levels unless efforts are put into exercising mindfulness and reflection ( contemplative processes). This is relevant for us to know where we are and how to transcend to a higher level of awareness . However, this is entirely a different path, we shall not be dealing here.

Coming back to our project of providing behavioural feedback obtained through psychological instruments (purporting to be objective, 2nd person view), it is one-sided, for the simple reason that a person who has to change, their complete 'view from within' is missing. Instead, it is the weight of scientific rationality, and the data with Individual & social statistical measures become compelling for the person. Unfortunately, we are conditioned to believe objective measures derived from the 'outside view' are more reliable than our subjective first-person viz., 'inside view'. We are unaware or don't give enough priority to our own experiences seen from a personal' view from within'. Many of us don't know how to get at the layers of first-person subjective experiences as they happen ( Reflexivity ) .

As a result, though a person has taken the feedback, it does not match their inner reality, the subjective first-person experience. We find it difficult because 'Cognition' differs from 'Experience'. Hence, many educational/training interventions aimed at awareness or knowledge do not result in a behaviour change. In addition, a person's ego is willing to accept differences, and usually, the ego takes a defensive posture. There are social pressures to change as it is part of the organisational agenda, group, or sometimes organisational dynamics. Usually, many need proper matching work from the subjective 1st person experience data.

Typically, an instrument is developed based on a construct or theory about Behavior or Personality. Also, some tools are based on observing behaviour in specific settings. Both these deductive and inductive methods are constructed by the researcher's objective lens, 2nd person's view from the outside.

Synthesizing contrasting sources of data

In contrast, 'view from within' is a first-person experience of lived moments by the person herself. Data from psychometric instruments is 'view from outside' and also objectivist. Such data fits poorly with an individual's view from within'. Because angles and sources of data are different, rather contrasting. Description of behavioural attributes from instruments represents outcome manifestations ( explicit ) as first-person subjective experience is process data or data in movement ( implicit). From the perspective of Development science ( Richard M Lerner,2012), we may say behavioural data from psychometric instruments is end description (ontogenetic), and the first-person behavioural experience is data in movement (micro-genetic) in nature. Therefore, for the person to accept data feedback, she/he must be able to see subjective first-person experience as micro-genetic ground of an outcome behaviour that the instrument has captured. Again, here, it is not a linear equation but organic. However, this synthesis is a process of self-discovery for the person and not a prepackaged solution directed at them. Most importantly, it is a growing awareness of how moment-by-moment conduct seems to crystallize into patterns, habits, or behaviours.(trajectory formation)

Let me take a simple illustration to convey: let us take the FIRO (B) ( Fundamental Interpersonal relation Orientation-Behaviour ) instrument by William Schutz (1966). There are three primary variables of behaviour: Inclusion, Control and Affection (conceptualised as Interpersonal needs). Data from instruments brings up specific numbers on each behavioural variable on 0-9 scale to show the degree or intensity of that particular variable or/need at expressed & wanted levels. A person shall know that his or her Inclusion, Control and affection are distributed on a 0-9 scale. It tells about the extant propensity of such interpersonal needs manifest. Remember, this is just what a person thinks he knows when he fills out the Firo-B questionnaire. While we try and validate with our own experience, it doesn't explain how these behaviours got inside the person and how one changes, even if one agrees with the proposed interpersonal orientation model!

Ultimately, the purpose is to strengthen the agency.

My assertion is unless the person can establish for himself how moment by moment first person conduct (view from within) seems to crystalize into a variable called 'Inclusion' or 'Control' or 'affection' as viewed from outside, one cannot be confident of one's agency to make a difference. The ultimate purpose of such an effort is to gain confidence in one's agency to effect change oneself. Lest this entire data feedback given as view from outside or a piece of expert advice needs to be more sustainable or at best it leads to dependency on expert.

Therefore, the challenge in teaching, studying or even applying theories of human behaviour. When a person cannot relate his/her experiences to such behavioural descriptions as measured through objective instruments, we meet with implicit or explicit reluctance or suspicion. At most, 2nd person or 3rd person feedback ( view from outside ) is perceived as how others think, but it does not necessarily match with a person's subjective experiences or from their view from within.

When we observe closely this interplay of perspectives, we hit upon a significant insight! Conventional science, when studying external phenomena, uses objective tools like observations, data sources/instruments, and hypotheses and tries to validate them through objective measures. When an individual attempts the same to study through his or her first-person lens, then the same tools may not be relevant; one needs a different set of tools to inquire into one's lived moments ( inner view) to illustrate data about oneself, such as reflection, journal writing, the skill of 'bracketing' one's judgments ( Husserl), perceptions, and getting to the lived moment as it happened, in its purest form (learning to access pre-reflective layers of experience), learning to be a witness of one's behaviour etc.

We wish to make the point that the tools needed to comprehend the phenomenal world ( external ) differ from those required to understand the internal subjective world. These two sources must be reconciled and synthesised for feedback to be complete. Merely data about behaviour viewed from an objective source shall be incomplete, meaning all our attempts to generate input to invoke self-initiated change become a failed project or unsustainable. The good news is that recently, there have been developments in the field of Human sciences that can help synthesise the micro genetic happening into macro genetic manifestation, i.e. how our subjective inner dialogic activity can be traced to manifest object phenomenon as behaviour. Such effort requires our integrated appreciation of Inner Dialogic activity ( Dialogic Self theory {DST},Hubert Hermans) as a moment-by-moment movement and genetic progressive casualty as the framework from the domain of Development Science ( Baldwin J M& Valsiner J ) needed to help synthesis.

This is why many efforts of using psychometrics instruments in leadership development or, 360-degree feedback instruments or competency mapping exercises do not give the expected outcomes. At best, they provide an outside view, which may or may not tally with a view from within. The Individual may accept data of 2nd or 3rd person with a bit of apprehension ( it has the power of social validation - cultures like India, where importance is given to social perceptions, further marginalise the value of individual first-person experiences ). They had not felt or experienced internally; at best, such data remains as other's perspective. For true acceptance, we need our internally validated experiences, which match first-person subjective and instrument-derived data.

Therefore, we need a process to synthesise cognitive understanding and subjective experience by the person. For this, we may have to engage in the process of enabling the Individual to explore the inner experiences with the inward-directed tools and help explore and reconcile (intersubjective experiences) externally oriented data. This enabling process is a process of true discovery of a holistic picture emanating from the synthesis of opposing perspectives of second-person and 1 st person experiences as they happen in the phenomenal world of the living.

The implication for the practitioners is to design a feedback process such that the person can exercise his or her tools of internal inquiry of the subjective layers of first-person experiences and simultaneously juxtapose the inter-subjective data, viz., the objective instrument data. This way of iterating the inner frame to the external frame together has the potential of emerging new synthesis for the person, which can potentiate self-initiated actions. A more significant gain shall be the power it can catalyze or invoke the urge for self-initiated change ( volitional change).

NB: This article is about appreciating the technical nuances behind psychological measuring instruments. Coverage of the contextual conditions for feedback to be adequate is a different focus. Also, it does not cover facilitative conditions for interventions to be effective in organisation.

#competency mapping # Psychometric instruments # Individual change # assessment # organizational change #change interventions