Exploring Behavioral Testing with Logi-Serve

Mike, you want to go ahead and introduce yourself? Tell us a few things. Yeah.

We now have the ability to add a really substantial library of soft skills tests or behavioral tests. And so with that, we want to turn it over to Chris to introduce himself. Chris Cunningham, PhD: Yeah, thanks guys. I appreciate that. Yeah. So I'm, I'm Chris Cunningham. I'm the Chief Science Officer at Logi-Serve.

And what that means is I use a background in industrial and organizational psychology to guide the development of our assessments and the ongoing validation and management of those different testing libraries the way that they're applied with our clients. And as Mike alluded to we are focused in more of a soft skill space with these assessments. We tend to focus on competencies, which you can think of as complex individual differences. They're more than just traits, but they're not states.

So what that means is they're fairly stable within individuals, but they can be developed with concerted effort, focused effort, and these particular competencies that we target tend to focus on behaviors associated with a person's underlying service orientation. And that's one of the reasons why this partnership is potentially so powerful.

We are a provider of talent management and assessment products that we have developed in house and are purpose built to help organizations take a more competency focused approach to their screening and hiring and developing of talent.

As you can see on this particular slide, we've developed a lot of big partnerships over the years, and we've become really well recognized for adhering to best practices and making sure that it's science first with a, with a heavy amount of attention on utility and utilizability by end users. So the company actually came into being after both my partner and CEO, Eric Krohner and I had spent a while working as a value added reseller. We used to package and market other vendors' assessments.

And we recognize that there were some, some gaps, some features missing and a lot of limitations on the usability of any of these other platforms. And so about a decade or so ago, we got together and thought, well, what if we were to re imagine this? How could we create an assessment that was more engaging for candidates and also easier to use for recruiters, hiring managers, etc? And that was really kind of the origin of Logi-Serve.

Hey, Chris, you, you mentioned traits, not states. And I, and I really like that. That's an issue that I think a lot of us who are not IO psychologists wonder about. You know, how, how do we know when something is a trait that is mostly inherent, but can somehow be developed versus some sort of aspect of behavior that's just happening in the moment or inspired by the situation, but not necessarily something that's a part of a person's personality?

Chris Cunningham, PhD: Yeah, that's a, that's a great question, and it is a, it is a difficult one to parse out because, you know, that distinction between trait and state is, is very popular amongst researchers and personality and individual differences, but in practice, it can be quite difficult to know or see the difference.

One way to look at it is that an individual difference that's more of a state or a kind of context specific difference is one that only shows up in reaction or response to specific stimuli or specific set of contextual factors. And as a result, that characteristic might disappear or show up in a completely different way if a different set of stimuli or different context is provided.

What you see then in an actual practice setting is that that aspect of a person's behavior might not be real consistent across different situations or contexts because it is a response or a reaction to aspects of that environment. In contrast, a trait, something that's a little more stable, is generally the type of individual difference that is a little bit more universal, a little bit more consistent, generalizable.

It's the kind of aspects of a person that you tend to see regularly across different contexts. And so usually when we think about who a person is, or like, what do they bring to a job? Especially we're really quite interested in the aspects of their personality and their individual differences that are more consistent because that's, that's more of a reflection of who that person is and what they're capable of. That's very interesting. I really appreciate you sharing that.

It's not something we kind of had on our bulleted list to discuss. But it's, it is definitely pertinent in terms of, you know, the recruitment situation. It also occurred to me as you were describing it, that is it is very, very much to me, at least a similarity between the hard skills testing that we do and the behavioral or soft skills testing that you folks are targeting.

We, we would love to wrap our minds around, you know, those things that are traits that, that we can depend upon the results of our testing. And so it's really great that as you sort of kick off this discussion that you're doing so in a way that lets us know that you're targeting these performance dimensions or aspects of personality that lead towards specific performance on the job that are more, more concrete, less temporary.

Chris Cunningham, PhD: So, yeah, yeah, I would say that that's a, that's a good way of kind of summarizing it. And I would also just add, you know, this, this idea of individual differences ranging from completely fluid or situational specific to completely static and fixed there's, there's quite a lot of variability in there.

And so that's actually one of the reasons why we got so interested in behaviorally oriented competencies in our own assessment development, because we, we really wanted to help organizations identify I guess the simple way to put it is individual differences that matter.

So we were less interested in abstract trait labels that are just maybe, you know, general descriptors of a person and more interested in aspects that could be closely linked to a motivation or a likelihood of engaging in a specific performance related behavior, and especially when we target a domain like service or interacting with others on a regular basis, there's an opportunity to think really concretely, as you said, about what does good service look like?

Like, what does it take to demonstrate service on a day in and day out basis in a variety of roles? If we can fixate and focus on those characteristics, what's what's really interesting is we can assess a person's underlying sort of propensity or likelihood of engaging in that.

We can also give hiring managers and other talent leaders a chance to see sort of the bench strength of their team and to understand, you know, where might we want to invest in a little training and development to help shore up some of these different behavioral tendencies and skills that are needed.

So I think maybe an even simpler way of thinking about how these two general products support each other is if you've got this underlying propensity or competency, it really helps explain that motivation, that intention, that attitude toward demonstrating these these different behaviors. But to do that effectively, you also might need skills to be able to demonstrate these underlying competencies in a way that comes across as aligned with the specific performance requirements in the job.

So this is sort of like a one two punch might be a simple way of thinking about. Great. Yeah, that's, that's very, very interesting and very helpful.

In a Logi-Serve assessment, we target a number of competencies that we've identified through careful study and review of the evidence base, the literature that's out there. In the domain of service, there's close to 60 or 70 plus years of really well done research looking at what is it that explains an individual's ability or propensity to serve others well.

And we've consolidated that and boiled that down to nine core behavioral competencies that you see listed around the outside gear in this particular graphic here. These competencies include things like communication, adaptive problem solving, interpersonal skills, motivation to serve, self efficacy, so on and so forth. But what makes the assessment unique over and above that focus on these generalizable competencies is the way in which we assess them.

So unlike maybe a more traditional form of assessment where you might see, you know, a lot of items all in a, in a set and you have to rate each one on a scale of maybe strongly disagree to strongly agree or something like that.

We have broken the assessment into three different sort of activities, and the first one candidates are asked to reflect on past experiences that they've had in life and in work settings that would have allowed them to build competence, build proficiency and mastery in these different domains.

And then we ask them some questions about different attributes of their personality that they tend to display or show on a regular basis that are ways that these different competencies might surface or manifest to others on a day to day basis. And then the third protocol or component to the assessment is a series of situational judgment or scenario type questions.

And these are designed in a way that partners the sort of written scenario, the text, with digital art that illustrates and represents the actual work environment that a assessment is being used for. And with this particular last piece of the assessment, individuals are now not just telling us like who they are and what they've done, but they're actually showing what would you likely do.

It's a way of getting into the intentions and the actual capacity somebody has to make a proper behavioral choice in the actual work setting. The way the assessment ends up wrapping up is that the data gathered across all of these different prongs is then incorporated, integrated together to generate scores that reflect a pretty deep understanding of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each candidate with respect to all nine of those targeted competencies.

So in this situational judgment phase the test takers presented with a scenario and they're asked, you know, how would you respond in this particular situation, which I think is pretty typical.

One of the things that I really like about your product, and I sort of suspect that this might be a big part of the secret sauce is that there's a follow up that says how is the caller or customer or, you know, the, the, the operative person that you're dealing with in the particular scenario going to respond? Or how are they going to understand your response or take your response.

I'm not probably not using the right word, but it seems, you know, one is directly what's the best way to operate in this scenario. But then when you put this other aspect of it, it seems to be really more of an empathetic type of situation. You have to respond the way that you're supposed to respond, but how is it going to make that person feel? Am I right about that? Is that, is that a big part of your secret sauce.

Chris Cunningham, PhD: Well, you're right in recollecting that that's a big component of these scenarios. And, you know, it's interesting because all of these prongs that I just reviewed a minute ago, they're all so deeply entwined that it's kind of difficult to tease apart what the real secret ingredient is. But I will tell you that it's definitely a big component of it. The reason is, as you've described, Mike, there's there's kind of like a two stage process to our scenarios.

Okay. So with this type of scenario based testing, it's really common to see items where you're presented with a scenario and asked, what should you do or what's the best response or what's the worst response? That's not the way we approach it. Instead, we ask, we give individuals a scenario and then we give them four choices and that the behavioral choices or the options have all been graded in terms of appropriateness that situation. So it's kind of the good, bad and the ugly responses.

And we look for the likelihood that each candidate would respond to that situation in each of the ways that are outlined. So right off the bat with our item sets, you're not just learning what somebody thinks the right answer is, you're actually getting a more complete profile of what the person would would likely do and would not likely. Okay, so that's that's stage one. We get a more complete picture of what we would expect to see out of that candidate in that scenario.

And then the second stage is let's see if this person is able to think through consequence of their action. So here we get a chance to kind of explore or peek under the hood of their decision making capabilities. And in a service provision context, that's so critical because so much of providing good service is about maintaining a relationship with the other individual. Even if it's very short term, there's this development there of a connection.

And if if an individual is not able to kind of think through, okay, well, this is what I said I would most likely do of those options. Now, what do I think the consequence or the reaction of the customer is going to be or the patient or the client or the guest is going to be on the other end that allows us to see a little bit further. So we refer to this as like service forethought or the ability to sort of anticipate. Where does the story go from here?

And so at times we've also referred to our scenario portions as like a storyboarding activity, because in essence, that's what it feels like to the candidate is there's a little snippet. Mhm. Of a story unfolding here, and they're getting a chance to jump into that role for a minute, kind of explore it. And then they move into a different story that targets a different competency. Yeah, that that is really very much based upon the response that they choose.

However, they're reacting to the situation. So it, it to me seems like it shows a degree of competence, but then if you also are able to understand how someone's going to respond, it, it probably tends to suggest that they're going to be better at continuing that storyboard throughout time. Yeah, yeah, very, very, very cool.

Chris Cunningham, PhD: And I'll also note that this, this approach to testing, I got to remind everybody that we designed the whole test also be the kind of an assessment that a candidate would actually finish because one of the other problems that plagues assessments right now is that many individuals will start, but not everybody will finish. With our assessments, we generally see completion rates above 90 percent and some of our clients is 98%, which is really high in this industry.

And part of the reason it's so high is that everything is structured in a way that it kind of grabs the attention of the candidate, pulls them in, and they want to see what happens next. And before they know it, they're done. Because the whole assessment, I mean, it only takes most people on average less than 20 minutes.

Usually it's around 15 to 20 minutes, and that's that's a really kind of focused assessment that yeah, it requires more than two seconds, but you're also getting a lot of information out of it. And the candidates feel it like they can see the relevance of the questions. It's not abstract. It's not way out there in the ether somewhere. They can, they can understand why you want to know this about them before you make a hiring decision. Yeah, absolutely.

And that, that face validity is so satisfying for for, for, you know, job seekers versus, you know, the traditional personality tests. I think the classic isn't it at the combine they ask whether the players prefer hot dogs to hamburgers or some, some, you know, silly things like that. Do you like to be in crowded movie theaters? Or do you like to go to, you know, parties where there's lots of people and loud music? You know, what does that have to do with this world?

And there might be some strong corollaries to behavior, but it doesn't feel really satisfying. Whereas this feels incredibly satisfying. And I think that's such an important aspect.

Chris Cunningham, PhD: So, you know, and you bring that up, Mike, and, and one of the ways we explain this to a lot of our partners and clients in the past is, is using a graphic like this, and we try to help people understand that when you talk about the, the validity of assessment, what you're actually talking about is the ability of that assessment to inform your ultimate decisions so that your decisions are good.

So this is what's meant when people say validity is a, is a, is a property of inference, right? It's not actually something that's baked into the test. It's what happens after the test. Well, for that to work, you know, not only do the candidates have to appreciate why they're being asked what they're being asked, because then they're likely to respond more honestly and truthfully and completely.

But your hiring managers and recruiters also have to believe that the test is measuring something relevant. Otherwise, they're not going to use it. You know, and then you also want to make sure that the test is indeed measuring what you say it is. And that's where that cold construct validation comes in. And that piece is completely absent from a lot of the other assessments on the market.

And then, of course, you need to be able to show that scores on the assessment do predict or explain variability in performance outcomes. And that's that criterion part. So what we've done over the years is we've built a glass totally full approach here to this challenge. And we know that that's not. Necessarily required in all contexts, and we also know it's not necessarily the norm.

But again, one of our goals is to try to help people appreciate the value and the importance of assessment science. And that's, that's really been one of our guiding principles from day one. It's very impressive. We have some experience in the past with an office and interpersonal competence test that we created and we decided to do, you know, very high fidelity video situational judgment where we filmed the scenarios and such.

And it was it's, it's been shocking to realize what the shelf life is on something like that, you know, you can spend an awful lot of money creating something like that only to find that, you know, the hairstyles and the fashions change so quickly that it's maybe the juice isn't necessarily worth the squeeze to go very high fidelity.

And I think that I would admit to you that I've tended to be a little snobbish about the avatar style testing because to me it always seemed a little cartoonish in comparison to strict video situational judgment but it's not. It's it's not that way at all. And moreover, I think that it's abundantly more updatable.

And in fact, you have instances where you're able to as, as you can see, in some of these examples here, you're actually able to customize certain elements within the scenario for, you know, marquee clients. I'm sure that's an upgrade. But. But that's really some spectacular examples of, you know, what, what it is that you can do here. So, yeah, thank you for toggling through, Chris Cunningham, PhD: yeah, I just want to share.

I mean, and one of the things I want to share with you is we, we took years actually figuring out whether we were going to go video, whether we were going to use digital art, whether we were not going to do any illustration at all. And in addition to the cost issue that you outlined, Mike, there's also a speed issue. You can't update video as fast as you can update digital art. There's a major cost issue. There's also a delivery issue.

So like this assessment platform is meant to be optimized for mobile delivery, meaning over a mobile device, which, you know, in some parts of the world, there's still not widespread broadband access. So delivering a video can really slow things down and create a barrier. But with these images, you know, they can pop up and they look consistently good on any kind of device. I'll even share one quick kind of funny story with you.

One of our very first clients, when we configured the scenarios for them, they were a larger retail operation. We got everything set. They loved it. And then about a month later, they did an org change. And one of the biggest things that happened is the color of the uniforms changed from blue to red. And they're like, we can't have blue shirts in these images. Like, Oh my gosh, I think we're going to have to stop using the assessment, but we really love it. We're like, well, wait a minute.

Like, you just need the shirts to be a different color. And they're like, yeah, that's, that's what we need. And we're like, Okay. Give us a half an hour. Like, and that was it was done. And so it's, it's not hard, you know? In fact, that's why we built it this way was to be able to work with, create partnership with our clients. Give us a half an hour at a hundred thousand dollars and we'll take care of that for you.

Chris Cunningham, PhD: That was actually one of the inspirations for it was the old choose your own ending storybooks, right?

Yeah, but the other thing we're doing here and you know, it's again We're not trying to trick people but the other thing you should know about this format is when we are conveying images like this or like this or these we're able to actually not just tell people this is the kind of environment you'd be in loosely we're able to render these exactly like the work environment. So this particular illustration here this comes exactly from a client call center.

Like we, we took, this is a high customization, obviously, but we got, we went in, we took photos, we rendered it. So the posters actually reflect cultural cues. The technology on the desk is the actual technology that the person's going to use. The color scheme is the color scheme. And so. And so what's happening is you're also getting a chance to queue and send signals to the individual, which helps improve the relevance of what they're about to say response wise.

So it's good for the candidate, but it's ultimately good for the client because you're getting a higher quality piece of data coming out the other end. That's fascinating.

But it's interesting when you're clicking through the examples that you have there of some of the different characters and scenarios, it's very easy to see these nonverbal cues, you know, to the same extent that you would be able to see them in video.

And ironically, I, as I'm thinking about them, I realized, you know, that we really, you know, paused on that person, almost in the same way that that your static screens are in order to be able to be sure that we were properly conveying that that feeling or sense. And, and so at any rate, again, that's just, you know, my way of, of really, you know, complimenting the process that you folks have invested so much into because it's very, very effective.

Chris Cunningham, PhD: Yeah, I appreciate that. And I know our team does too. And I will tell you on that last comment you made, it's interesting. We really struggled with that for a while until we realized, listen, you know, it might be neat to capture the nuance of nonverbal expression in a video. But when that gets reduced to the size of an image on a smartphone, you're not going to see it.

And so digital art allows us to, and you might notice like some of our graphics are, they seem a little like exaggerated when they're blown up to full screen, but when they come down to the level of a graphic on your smartphone, it looks natural, it looks normal. And that's, and that was part of the control that we could get with this digital art approach. So yeah, a lot of thought went into it. I can't, I can't say enough for our digital art team and their ability to capture the essence.

Like we would draft items along with descriptions of here's the emotions that need to be conveyed. This is how these emotions are generally conveyed in a universal way. Let's capture this in the images. And we went from there.

So in other words, if I if I have these underlying competencies that I'm more likely to actually do the right thing behaviorally in the work environment and in the service context, the way this might look in practice is something like what's represented on the screen right now, where, if I've got employees that are competent under an underlying way, and they're doing the right thing behaviorally, then that positively impacts the customer, the guest, the client, the patient experience.

And that's really good for business. Okay. And then the other thing is when my employees are doing the right thing behaviorally, it also improves the operational efficiency of that organization. And that has an impact on the bottom line. So a simple value chain argument like this helps to illustrate for many decision makers and stakeholders in an organization why we want to understand the underlying competence of our workforce.

From this, we can then expand that conversation and say, well, listen, you know you can't probably just hire top competency people because your, your labor pool, your, your applicant flow probably isn't strong enough to allow you only to take top scores. So you're going to have more variability within your team.

Wouldn't it be neat if you could figure out where they're stronger, where they're weaker, and then direct some development initiatives at those individuals to see if we could strengthen their overall level of confidence.

And so for post hire applications, that's often one of the ways this assessment is used, is we'll generate a report, you get to see the profile of your individuals, but you can also aggregate and see group level sort of summary statistics and breakdowns of scores, and then you can work from there to develop training plans. Here's an example of some of the reporting that comes out of a typical assessment. And you can see we've also put a lot of time and effort into making this really simple.

So this is not one of those assessments where, you know, your users have to go through six months of training and get certified before they can do anything with the test. Like we've actually done studies where we've gone to HR conferences and we've set up a little computer lab and we brought in HR managers and said, Hey, you know here's here's access to the platform. Now make a good decision and justify how you made that decision in about five minutes.

They can make a good decision because people understand that gold is better than silver is better than bronze. Okay. But they also understand that from a medalist perspective, even a gold medalist has to keep working to stay strong and a silver medalist has room to grow, but they're still potentially really valuable. And a bronze medalist also there might be worth seriously looking at, especially if they've got some competencies that are in a stronger territory.

So we use this type of reporting methodology also to keep the focus from day one, not on screen in screen out that kind of dichotomous decision, but we use this kind of reporting to always get our talent managers thinking, okay, this is what I'm about to potentially employ. And I want to be able to work with this individual from day one until the day they leave the company to help them reach their full potential. Why? Because if I invest in my talent, they create value for the organization.

So that was always part of the plan, you know, from the beginning and all the reporting is designed this way to kind of facilitate that thinking. That's also why sometimes this test is very popular to be used to identify potential for promotion because you're looking for people that are showing maybe growth or a potential area for achievement. And then you can put them on a track for development or some rotational program. Sometimes it's helpful in that way too.

So it's very easy to have that dichotomous situation that you described where you can clearly have the skills and abilities necessary for success. Or maybe you clearly don't. And so it's really easy to make these decisions when we're looking at these soft skills aspects, I love the bronze, silver, silver because everybody's a winner.

The question is, is what's the attributes that you do possess at this point in time that will dovetail nicely with your bevy of hard skills that you've already shown to possess. So I really like the way that these, you know, two really different aspects work together towards the same result, which is recruiting people who are going to "A" - be successful in the job and "B" - hopefully continue to be successful there for many years to come. Chris Cunningham, PhD: Right, right.

And I'll show you to like in a more general sense. This is how that scoring context gets broken out in most reports. And so you'll see that our middle range, our norm, if you match the benchmark, so to speak, for a given assessment, then you're going to land squarely in the silver territory. But if you see a gold medalist or a high silver person, somebody has a score above 500, that's likely a very strong candidate with respect to that competency.

And so the, the, the gist or the guidance for a user is quite simple, like aim high. Okay, but don't feel like you have to wait for all of your applicants to test so you can rank order them at the end of the process because we know that's not feasible for most organizations. So instead, you know, look for people that land in that silver and gold territory and give them serious consideration.

And if your applicant pool is not strong enough, and all you end up with is a lot of bronzes, but they might have some strengths in the silver gold area take a close look at them and ask yourself, are we prepared to work on building some of these bronze competencies? Because if we are, then it might be a really great candidate. Yeah. And again, especially if you have other, if they possess other hard skills, at a very high level.

And you know, there are certain tests that help to measure the trainability aspect, you know, your comprehension and those kinds of aspects. And so if you have somebody, you know, who like in your example is a high bronze, has good skills and abilities appears to be trainable, but would be a great addition to your team then it makes it a lot easier to take a chance or, or maybe dip the ladle a little bit lower into the different tiers that you have among your candidates.

Chris Cunningham, PhD: Absolutely. Absolutely. And, and the one thing I just wanted to add with this particular graphic, I'll just throw it up on screen here, is you'll you'll notice and this actually comes from an actual client. And so this is a representation of how an assess how this assessment can differentiate between strong performers and everybody else. And you'll notice that it's not always the case that all nine competencies are equally influential in determining who a strong player is.

So that's another piece that has to be taken into account for any given client any given users Like maybe they did have a bronze in this example here. Maybe they had a bronze in proactivity, which is down the lower left corner. Well, you know what? That was not a strong differentiation point. So I wouldn't lose sleep over that.

On the other hand, if, if we have an individual with a bronze and motivation and interest, which is just to the right of proactivity, you notice the gap between the top performers and everybody else is massive there. I would be really worried at that point. If, if they were bronze medalists, I only want silver and gold when it comes to motivation and interest.

So my point is people using the assessment have a pretty good understanding in their organization of what what is critical, what is not so critical. And the beauty of this assessment is it gives you that ability to make that more nuanced decision because it isn't pass fail like you're saying, like, but it does give you guide rails, right? And it makes it pretty easier, easy for you to kind of figure out. Okay, what is the balance trade off risk? We're willing to take with this candidate.

And the, it's, it's beyond our scope today to talk about exactly how these scores are generated. But I will say to you that these scores are, there are individual scores for every competency. And there are composites that combine them in certain weighted fashions, and then there's an overall composite. And by and large, most of our users first look at the overall score to do some initial filtering, and then they go down to the nuanced breakout.

And you can even see in this mock up here on the screen, this particular candidate is not a strong player. But they happen to be okay, a little okay with proactivity. So I could look at this and say, well, you know, I, I would consider this a higher risk person, but if they, if they have productivity, then that's a really great attribute, especially if I'm willing and able to invest a little bit in helping them see gaps that they need to address.

And so I don't know that I personally would take a risk on this particular candidate, but if I got into a bad situation, I might.

And so you have a good idea of what type of efforts going to be necessary in order to, to bring them along. You know, to that end, Jenny asked you about post hire. And I know that for a lot of positions there are preceptor or trainee. Or sorry, trainer to trainee relationships, and there you go. That's one of your aspects here.

Do you find, or do you recommend that having the preceptor or trainer go through take the test and then trying to, you know, match behavioral types between those would make the training slash onboarding process more successful because you're matching like people together? Or is there any research that you've done on that?

Chris Cunningham, PhD: I am following what you're outlining, and I think there probably is some evidence that that approach might help, especially if the, the training and development model is, is kind of a mentoring forum where you're trying to match people with you know, with, with that sort of mindset and approach. I can't tell you that we've done research on that particular model yet, because most of our clients.

Have wanted to use this to help make better decisions about new talent or talent. They want to develop. There's some that have started using the assessment to guide promotion decisions, but we haven't seen a ton of interest in using it to pair partner employees together. So I think it's, I think it's a great illustration of another way in which this competency approach is so flexible and is really designed to support good talent management. It's not simply a pre hire selection tool like that.

That's one point I think we just need to emphasize is that there's a lot of opportunity here to use this both pre and post hire. And that was by design. So we'd really love to see clients use it for all of its richness. Excellent. Well, you know, if that comes up down the road, then you know, maybe that'll be a great opportunity to have you back and talk a little bit more about that. I know that, like in nursing, for instance, that preceptor trainee relationship is super important.

And so you know, because people do learn differently, there could be a benefit and, you know, sort of matching them up style to style. But at any rate, it was just something that was that I was curious about. Jenny, do you have anything that you wanted to bring up now?

And I don't have a graphic to add here, but I, I will share with you because we've actually done some direct testing of candidate experience and reactions and a lot of times what we hear is that more than 90 percent of our applicants describe the assessment as fun, and 90 percent or more actually describe it as easy, and people have tried to tell me at times that an assessment shouldn't be easy and then I say to them, how's that working for you?

Because the thing is, like, if our goal is to trip and trick and, you know, make people feel stupid. Then as an industry, we've done pretty great. But if our goal is to learn about people and make better decisions so that fit is ultimately accurate, then we need an assessment that people are going to be willing to take and actually give their best selves too. So, so I think that that's really really helpful.

The other interesting metric I would just share with you all is we've also tracked sort of a net promoter effect with this assessment and in some of the engagements we've had with clients, we've asked people, "Hey, you know, now that you've had this assessment experience how likely would you be to recommend a friend of yours to apply for a job here as well?" And again, more than 90 percent of users would recommend that company because of their assessment related experience.

And I don't think we spent enough time talking about that in this industry because you gotta understand like if we create a front end experience that's abysmal we're also damaging our ability to recruit talent because thanks to the power of the internet, right? Like if one person has a bad experience, the rest of the world knows about it. So having a good front end experience like this, having a good internal experience like this, I think it really matters now more than it probably ever had.

How can we improve our situation so that we get, you know, a little bit of momentum going in our, communities, you know, towards, you know, bringing more people into here? It's, it's become a more and more challenging situation. And you know, I, I do tend to kind of come, you know, from the side where at least on the hard skills we've got to be able to ask them some tough questions.

And, and to a certain extent, you know, if you can't like to, to use Jenny's example, if you can't work Excel to a very high degree and the job requires you to work Excel to a very high degree, then, you know, you shouldn't feel as though you, you passed the test with flying colors if you failed it. But when you're dealing in the, this behavioral soft skills realm, you know, that's really kind of an opportunity. People are what they are, you know, to a great extent at this point in time.

And so to have an opportunity to really sort of feature yourself and, and do so in a way that that is affirming and positive is, is really is really great.

And, and actually what it sort of leads me to think might be a good best practice when we're putting tests together within within our platform, including your tests, you know, that we may want to, to recommend to people that they go through and they put the hard skills tests first and let people finish with something that's a little more fun and is going to leave them with maybe a little bit better memory of the testing process.

Chris Cunningham, PhD: So yeah, yeah, that's something that would be interesting to explore because you know, the other the other approach is to warm them up with something easy, right? And they get them excited about well, okay, they've asked me good questions so far. So let's let's go a little further.

But, you know, what I think is important here to to point out is, you know, worrying about the look, the feel, the experience, the assessment, this is not like meaningless conversation for an academic audience. Like, we got to also remember that unfortunately, assessments have also had a pretty bad history of maybe discriminating against certain groups and not really leveling the playing field as much as they're supposed to.

And that's something else that we've spent a lot of time working with in the development of our tool especially is making sure that it does level the playing field. And we've actually seen some really strong evidence of this in a number of studies. And what I mean by that is that this test does not show preference to any group. So if you're a member of a minority or protected group, you have just as much chance of scoring well on this as somebody who's a member of a majority group.

It's not a cognitive test, first of all, okay, and it's focused on competencies that you could have developed in a variety of different life domains and experiences.

Why I'm emphasizing this is that we really do, as an industry, need to do more to think about how we package together these screening experiences and really just keep asking ourselves, like, are we asking questions that that get at attributes that need to be present day one, week one, or are we focusing on things that we can actually build over time?

And I know this is a, is a hard challenge, especially when you're working with skills testing, but I know you guys have done a lot to tease that apart with your clients and make sure they understand that when they're putting these assessments in place as well. Definitely.

We have we haven't talked much about the structure of your assessments in terms of the library itself, but you have a sort of a service focus, and then there's a sales focus, and then there's a managerial leadership potential focus. And then you have many different industries or verticals that are represented with each of those particular areas. And then you can drill down further and you can choose specific job titles that are very standard across the country, or maybe even around the world.

All told I think that we have about shoot 220 or so of the Logi-Serve tests available in our library to our clients who have that particular add on service activated. So the, the new almost every new client that comes on board since the integration has been done will be getting this particular service. And then those clients who signed on prior to it have the opportunity to upgrade their subscription to include it.

But it's a very, very robust library that you've you've made available and very impressive. Did I leave out any of the details about the library or anything that you'd like to add? Chris Cunningham, PhD: No, I think that's a good summary of an explanation of the value add that this brings. And you all already have a wonderful product that can really help companies make better decisions.

And we're really happy and excited to become a partner that can help you take it to another level with your clients. We've we've seen a lot of success using this product as a standalone. So we know that when it's partnered with another well designed product, the impact will be even greater. And we're just excited to kind of see some of these impacts happen. Excellent. As are we for sure. One of the things, areas that I reflect upon is the, the leadership side of it.

And I don't know if you have any particular insights on this, but having grown up in, in sales very often organizations will, you know, promote their best performing salespeople to sales managers. And sometimes that can have good results and sometimes it can kind of be disastrous. Sometimes the best salespeople aren't the best sales leaders. And sometimes the best sales leaders aren't the best sales people either.

So being able to add something to the conversation that gives you some insight and, and intelligence into, you know, deciding who it is that you promote into these situations can be, can be very, very helpful.

And some of the smaller organizations of which you know, most of the businesses in America are you know, making the wrong decision in this regard, you know, especially for instance, promoting a really good sales person to sales management and having them fail can be disastrous to, to that particular organization. Chris Cunningham, PhD: Yeah, yeah, that's so true.

And, you know, to add a couple of layers on this, I mean when you take a very strong individual contributor like the examples you've been giving Mike and you put them into a managerial role, even if they are effective as a manager, you've lost the value of their performance as an individual contributor.

So it's a real big gamble and we have to be careful because sometimes the characteristics and attributes that make individuals powerful as an individual can actually hinder them from being good at working well to support others. It's, it's a different competency set to be a leader and a manager than it is to be a sole contributor. So that's exactly the rationale behind why we built that, that vertical out.

And you know, in that particular, assessment we've also seen it be used a lot to help organizations increase diversity and their leadership potential and their leadership development programs. Because the problem with the model that you shared before, Mike, that is so common, is when we get in the habit of identifying our current top performers or we ask managers to, you know, identify talent, it tends to happen through a similar to me process.

Like, you know, the manager says, Oh, well, yeah, Joe reminds me of myself 20 years ago. I think He's the one to tap. And of course, the problem with that is that that automatically creates homogeneity. And it really damages an organization's abilities to go in a different direction or to really open that door for more people to consider it. So I mentioned leveling the playing field before.

It, in leadership, we see that as a really big need in many organizations because they just don't have a process in place that's scalable to figure out who do we want to fast track for development? Who do we want to put on that leadership track so that we're ready when those roles open up? Yes, very, very good points. Well, I, Jenny, don't have any other questions. I'm looking through my, my list of reminders that I had that I wanted to ask Chris about.

So, Jenny, do you have any other questions that you'd like to ask or comments you'd like to make?

I think for this conversation, I mean, I definitely have other thoughts that I'd like to ask you sometime Chris about AI and we kind of touched on this in a previous conversation, but that's not for today. That's a, that's a whole different, street that we'd be driving down, but I, I just am so grateful that you joined us today. And I've thoroughly enjoyed this conversation. Any final thoughts from either one of you guys?

Chris Cunningham, PhD: I'm just appreciative we have the chance to have these types of conversations. A lot of times what holds other clients back is lack of awareness of some of the complexities and nuances that operate under the hood. And then just being able to talk about some of these topics, it may not be something that was on somebody's mind, but then when they learn about it, they're like, yeah, you know, that was on my mind. I just didn't know what to call it.

So it's important to have these types of discussions and to raise these types of issues. So thank you both for putting this together. And I'm always happy to, to take that trip down those other streets when you guys are ready,

And you know, when you have, you have somebody that's a chief science officer, I mean, it sounds like you, you started in Star Trek and, you know, you've just kind of graduated to where you are right now, but it's, it's really great to to be able to pick your brain and and hear your opinion on a lot of these things. As I mentioned, we've been in conversations with Eric for many, many years now.

When we first started talking about integrating our products, you know, we had an installed product and it wasn't something we could do at that time. But we've persisted in the conversation. And so, you know, now we're here. We've launched we've got the generic off the shelf products available. We're going to work together to create a market killer product for, you know, the 911 EMS police and fire space. And we're super excited about that as well.

And so anybody who's listening to this if you're interested, I'm sure we'll have a form or, or some sort of call to action available at the end of the video here. If you're an existing client and you'd like to, you know, upgrade and add this incredible line of testing to your subscription. You can reach out to us and we'll be happy to get you set up. We can literally get that launched for you in about five or 10 minutes.

And if you're not a client and you'd like to talk more about being one and being able to take advantage of this incredible Logi-Serve product along with our hard skills tests we'd love to chat with you about that as well. Again, Chris, thank you so much for being so generous with your time today. We really appreciate you you know, sharing with us. So thank you very much for that. Chris Cunningham, PhD: Likewise.