The science of assessment

A skill is defined as the speed of accessing the subconscious memory to follow the instructions of the brain without any hindrance of the conscious brain to perform an activity is called a skill.       

                

There are two types of quotients that are crisp in a definition and separately measurable through basic gauges. One is the conscious brain and sends off the subconscious brain. IQ and EQ are quotients of the conscious brain.  The science of assessment lies in calibrating which quotients is you working on, to begin with. Knowledge sense or skill resides in totally different parts of the brain. Knowledge can only be tested through testing memory. Which schools do by taking exams. That's why kids are not functional human beings when they come out of school. Conscious Memory doesn't at all contribute to any skill. And mostly it's the skill part that's tricky for most trainers or companies since they treat it through conscious brain quotients like IQ or EQ parameters. The science of skill assessment lies in two parameters

1) the existence of subconscious memory of any skill to begin with

2) the speed at which it is accessed during the performance of an activity.

These are ironically never ever measured in the corporate. If the skill was existing we have to validate it through testing the professional at the time of requirement of the skill and the speed of accessing the skill needs to be measured pre and post training. Now if the trainer has successfully completed this process then the quality parameters like completeness, accuracy, and appropriateness of the application of the skill determine the standards of the training.

As you can see, these can be tested very easily by determining the existence of the skill parameter which will be a Boolean matrix, either yes or No.

Rest of the skills can be measured through a grading scale from either very low or very high depending upon the requirements of the skill.

After knowing this a trainer cannot put the blame on the trainees of not being responsible enough since it's the practice of the conscious memory enough to transfer it inside the subconscious brain that he is getting paid for. That's the whole point of training           

            

Let me give an example, take for example the toughest skill training like leadership training. A trained person can be easily tested through the decision matrix. the speed of decision taken by the person in any given situation in a test environment and check whether he took a decision or not, took it in time or not, took the appropriate decision or not, also to check why he didn't take the second choice or third to record the quality of the decision from the list of the implications he recorded or kept in mind, the accuracy of the decision through weighing the stake, and the consideration which he took in terms of repercussions on  people, finances, or any related risk that was involved.

Mechanical skills can be tested through the quantitative measures on the same parameters.       

                

If an OD unit rolls out these parameters, to begin with, it will help to determine the quality and even the direction of training and will help determine even the content for training. But a cold RFP for leadership or any other training just goes to show that the measure is left on the opinions of people only. Which is too relative, and some people who aren't even skilled, to begin with, pass through training programs and even internal appraisal systems as a high end, to begin with.                       

Hope this helps everyone in the group to set processes and systems for people development rather than just poorly constructed feedback forms by TRAINERS who 8 hours ago didn't officially have that skill, to begin with, and are now qualifying the teacher of that skill on that program

*BY TRAINERS I MEANT TRAINEES