Building Commitment

Building Commitment

The IRC in its current format is less ideal for:

Selection

For selection purposes, any given competence should be assessed by at least two different methods – for example, self-assessment PLUS simulation or structured interviews. Also, in selection contexts, self- assessment questionnaires tend to have fairly low validity compared to other methods. Last but not least, the IRC is a self assessment tool, relying on the individual’s opinion of herself, and so the individual’s motives for answering IRC items will influence the results. This means that a respondent who fills in the IRC in a selection context should be compared to a large group of people who also filled it in such a context. We have some initial data on this, which should be consulted in any case. If the IRC is combined with a battery of additional tools in a professionally developed assessment centre, then it can be used to gain additional information. But no selection decision should rest entirely on the outcome of the IRC assessment.

360° assessment

We are sceptical in general about 360 feedback, that is, feedback for one respondent from upper, lower and same levels in the organisation. People who evaluate somebody else also have their motives for giving certain evaluations, so just because somebody else evaluates us does not mean that the evaluation is more objective. What we do recommend instead is to ask respondents to invite up to five people whom they trust in terms of competence and neutrality and to have them provide an observer assessment. Note however that we have not conducted tests yet that may be required for ensuring that the IRC functions under these conditions as well. Our statements regarding reliability and validity are based on self-assessment. In an observer assessment context, the IRC at this stage should only be used – if at all – as a structure for an interesting and hopefully insightful dialogue.

(Visited 1 times, 1 visits today)