More Robust Job Assessment - seems too short

Comments: 17

Oldest • Newest • Most likes • Fewest likes

• Add a comment
• 23 Oct, '24
  Alex Tompkins Admin

  Highlighted comment
  
  Thanks for the feedback. We presented the scientific validity of the New Short recently to all Elite and Premier partners. We have plans to add more in product guidance on what makes up the Job Assessment to help with education and change management. We have no plans to lengthen the Job Assessment at this time.

  Copy link to this comment
• 17 Jul, '24
  Melanie Wood Merged

  In running multiple job assessments in PI2, all of the results have come out as adapters. This is not going to be helpful to our clients, especially if user "match scores" given the fact those scores do NOT take factor combinations into account. I truly believe this output needs a revisit.

  Copy link to this comment
• 20 Feb, '25
  Alison Grizzle

  Just bc y'all mark something as "out of scope" doesn't mean it should not be voted on. The team may have presented the "validity" to the Premier and Elite partners, but I know of many Premier and Elite partners that have been doing this for many years that have major concerns about the new JA. It is not that it is short... It is that it is producing results that are not congruent to JA results that we have been getting for years. We are getting Maverick when we should get Captain... The C is too high on many of the jobs.... I actually got my first ever "collaborator" when doing a leadership position. AND when doing multi-rater it is harder to get consensus bc one box checked or not checked has too much impact on the outcome. i wish you wouldn't turn off people's ability to vote bc it has been determined "out of scope"...This would have 1000 votes if it hadn't been turned off.

  Copy link to this comment
• 20 Feb, '25
  Alison Grizzle Merged

  YES! and the JAs are creating results that are not congruent with what we have gotten for years. The Cs are too high; the patterns are too narrow; often the D is trailing when it shouldn't be...We are literally getting JA results that are contrary to what we have gotten for years.

  2 Copy link to this comment
• 09 Apr, '25
  Teri Kinsella Merged

  We just started migrating clients to PI2 and they are incredulous that the JA had gone from 3 pages to 20 lines. Patterns are coming out narrow and not consistent with the roles they are meant to profile. I was all for cutting the list of job responsibilities but to go from 90 (or whatever it was) to 20 is overkill. Clients even say the JA feels like it has been "dumbed down" and doesn't offer the nuance that the old JA had. WHY? I've seen the science stuff the Dr. Dana has presented and I just don't believe it based on what I'm seeing. THIS NEEDS MORE ATTENTION, not just "filed away for future consideration". Can we please stop giving clients reasons to believe that PI2 is actually a downgrade and not in any way an upgrade?

  2 Copy link to this comment
• 10 Apr, '25
  Colleen Edmondson Merged

  I have had clients complain and make negative comments to me about the JA only being 20 lines. From multiple clients (Legacy transferred and new PI2) I have heard, "I feel like I could check all 20 of these lines." and also have gotten from Legacy transferred clients: "How is it only 20 items; wasn't the old one 3 pages?" and "Both of the JAs I completed look like they are all on the mid point [Adapter], am I doing something wrong?". I agree this needs more attention urgently as it is causing my PI2 clients to lose faith in the JA.

  1 Copy link to this comment
• 29 Jul, '25
  Anthony Walley Merged

  Whatever we input, the pattern is very narrow. It would be very much appreciated if you could revisit this

  1 Copy link to this comment
• 29 Jul, '25
  Bianca Theron Merged

  The emergence of narrower targets, due to fewer items in the JA, is understandable. However, this reduction impacts the richness and reliability of the output, something we’ve observed across several recent projects. While greater precision may seem beneficial, it can create a false sense of accuracy. If users interpret these narrow targets as definitive rather than directional, it risks reducing the JA’s utility, especially for roles that require a broader behavioural range or adaptability.

  1 Copy link to this comment
• 04 Aug, '25
  Rae Merged

  In recent practice, there's been a growing trend of job assessments producing overly narrow behavioural targets.), it raises several concerns within the field of industrial and organizational (I/O) psychology.
  
  Pros of Narrow Job Assessments:
  Perceived Precision: Narrow targets may give organizations the impression of greater clarity and decisiveness in candidate profiling or performance expectations.
  
  Simplified Decision-Making: Hiring managers may find it easier to make decisions when there is a sharply defined behavioural profile to compare candidates against. Focused Role Alignment: In technical or highly structured roles, a narrow behavioural profile may help ensure close alignment between the role’s requirements and the individual’s behavioural tendencies.
  
  Cons: Excludes Nuance: By limiting the behavioural range, assessments may overlook valuable traits as well as risk of misapplication of jobs

  Copy link to this comment
• 05 Aug, '25
  Chantal Walley Merged

  This is the most essential source of data for all Predictive Index applications. We will be loosing clients at a rapid rate should this be the "answer" to creating a Job Target. It is too lightweight, it is ineffective, it isn't accurate and the fact that the users and the outcomes are CONTROLLED BY:
  * Very limited options to select
  * Heavy bias to the Hi C and Hi D activities
  *A minimum number of statements to select.
  These CONTROLS force the user to select Hi C and Hi D statements regardless of the role. If the role is New Business Development, (as an example) there are not sufficient Hi A and Hi B statements offered to ensure the minimum number of activities are selected. Therefore the user is FORCED to select Hi C and Hi D statements which are not relevant to the job.
  This is the most damaging change to PI's integrity and reputation in my 33 years of being a Predictive Index Partner.

  Copy link to this comment
• 21 Aug, '25
  Alex Merged

  I find the new PI 2.0 job target selection and process to be far inferior to the prior job target selections. I am in the same role as the last time I completed this job target from a couple years ago on an assessment and got WIDLY different results now vs in the past. I have been a significant user of PI including having done multiple job targets in the past few years, this is the first time I have disagreed with the output of my own submission.

  Copy link to this comment
• 29 Aug, '25
  Laurie Merged

  I agree. It’s difficult to tell which suggestions come from which contributor, and with the reference profiles being removed while the target is adjusted, it’s challenging to guide clients through the experience. I may be missing something- but the 2.0 job target feature is disappointing.

  2 Copy link to this comment
• 26 Sep, '25
  Melanie Wood Merged

  I think it will be critical to have a MUCH MORE CLEAR explanation of what the survey takers should be focused on when choosing job descriptors. For example, I tell my clients that they should only select job duties that are MUST HAVES, not nice to haves, and that they should focus on job duties that the person will be responsible for 65-75% of the time. Another question I ask is, "would that be in the actual job description of daily task expectations?" The clarity of why someone is choosing can get us a bit closer to more accurate profiles.

  1 Copy link to this comment
• 29 Sep, '25
  Teri Kinsella Merged

  I understand the impetus to simply the Job Assessment, but to go from 3 pages of job responsibilities to 20 oversimplifies it and makes many of the results generically the same. There has to be a happy medium! Job Targets are a differentiator for PI and if they are not reliable, they are useless. I have heard the explanations from Dr. Dana and, quite honestly, they do not bear out in real life usage.

  Copy link to this comment
• 08 Oct, '25
  Shawna Myers Merged

  Now that we’re using PI 2 across multiple roles, both individual contributor results and combined targets are clustering around the midpoint, with all drives touching or crossing center. Contributors may not understand how to make trade-offs or that they don’t need to select every item, so the system interprets their input as balanced and every target looks the same. This is starting to undermine confidence in the tool’s accuracy and usefulness. Clearer guidance for contributors and facilitators, along with weighting adjustments to preserve meaningful differences, would make the results more credible and actionable.

  Copy link to this comment
• 09 Mar
  Caraline O'Brien System

  "Job Target - 2.0 - too simplified" (suggested by <Hidden> on 2025-08-21), including upvotes (40) and comments (4), was merged into this suggestion.

  Copy link to this comment
• 09 Mar
  Caraline O'Brien System

  "Job Assessments are coming out far too narrow" (suggested by <Hidden> on 2024-07-17), including upvotes (45) and comments (7), was merged into this suggestion.

  Copy link to this comment