The High Society*

It's All About Branding

 

Let's see, where was I?  Oh yes, I was trying to inject some levity into our professional lives.  You know, getting us to laugh at ourselves.  Well, I'm back, this time to stay.

I've read where some people are getting a little tired and cranky that despite all our meta-analytic research on the value of g, the practitioners in the real world of personnel selection have yet to jump off the high board into our parameter-laden pool.  In case you are not up on this latest saga, in condensed form it goes something like this.  Based on a sample size equaling the world's population, the empirical evidence indicates that general mental ability (g) is the best single predictor of job performance.  That is, g predicts success in every job ever invented.  It is just a question of the degree of predictability as a function of job complexity.  For example, take a low level job.  I mean real low level, something like a human speed bump in a parking garage, or one of those jobs where you dress up in a hotdog suit and wave at passing cars.  That's right folks, according to our research, you need a teeny weeny bit of g to perform even these jobs.  If you had any more g in you, you would be smart enough not to take a job like this in the first place.  Not much room for upward career progression.

The higher up the food chain we go (I'm at the "goalie on the dart team" level now), you need even more g to be successful.  Moving right up the line, it doesn't matter if you are a butcher, baker, or candle-stick maker, you need g.  When you get to the stratosphere of job complexity, like brain surgeon, rocket scientist, or correction formula applicator, you had better  measure your g by the tonnage.

As airtight as the empirical evidence is, the people who actually make hiring decisions haven't exactly jumped on our bandwagon.  And this makes some of us sad.  Is our far vision so clear we have become blind to what is under our nose?  The solution is not more research.  It's about selling and marketing.  We invented the product, now we just have to turn it over to the people who are into S&M.  Fortunately for all concerned, with my new-found entrepreneurial spirit, I now happen to be an authority on S&M.  Here is what we need to do.  We need to take a product that is inherently dry and boring, and sex it up a bit.  Trust me, the world is not going to throb over a two-digit decimal we call a validity coefficient.  We have got to inject some life into this thing.  It's all about branding.  Contrary to our expectations, the world did not beat a path to our meta-analytic door.  So we will have to go to it.  We need some catchy, can't-get-them-out-of-your-head hooks.  Simply put, when the world thinks of personnel selection, we want them to think of g.  I'm here to help in this seamless global initiative.

First, we need to get the ball rolling with some more-flash-than-substance stuff.  I'm talking about our own theme song.  Maybe something like "g-Whiz".  For the musically inclined, it will be written in the key of g.  How about something like a high school pep rally cheer?  "Gimme a g.  Gimme an o.  GO g GO!"  Okay, but sooner or later the public will see through this fluff for what it is.  Sizzle but no steak.  We also need to produce the beef.  Once again, I'm here to save the day.  This is a billion dollar idea, and I'm just going to give it to you.  It will satisfy both the scientists and practitioners.  I'm not kidding; it is that good.

We have our top scientists calculate exactly how much g you need for every job.  The O*NET indicates there are about 10,000 identified jobs.  OK, I admit this task will take more than a long weekend to complete.  But the end product is straightforward.  We have a list of 10,000 jobs, each with the corresponding amount of g needed for success in the job.  It is not hard to visualize.  The waving hotdog job is at the bottom of the list, and the correction formula applicator job is at the top of the list.  The other 9,998 jobs are somewhere in between these two extremes.

We develop a universal test of g.  Culturally fair, unbiased, not prohibitively expensive, available in 157 languages, it has multiple forms, and is available in both paper-and-pencil as well as computer-based testing formats.  Your score on this test indicates the job you were destined to fill.  Your score is entered into a global data base.  And now the stroke of genius (on my part).  What name do we call this score?  No, it's not going to be the passing score, the cut score, or the entrance score.  We already tried those.  We couldn't draw flies with them.  No, we need a name as bold and arousing as the concept itself.  Ladies and gentlemen, your score on this test of g will be known as your "g-spot".  Not only will everyone have one, we will all know what it is, and where to find it.  We will staff jobs with flawless precision.  When is the last time words like "passion", "breathless", and "rapture" filled your head while thinking about personnel selection?

What is the biggest lament of I/O psychology?  "Nobody knows who we are and what we do!"  Those days will be gone forever.  I promise you that after our top journals publish articles with titles like "Parameter Estimation of g-Spots" you will see us on the covers of those magazines that are placed at the checkout lane.  Like I said, it's all about branding.

It's great to be back.  Just like those Oldies radio stations, the hits will just keep on coming.

*Disclaimer.  Any association between the author of The High Society and Psychology Applied to Work is strictly intentional.