Observing CIP to Judge Curent Potential Capability

Glenn Mehltretter In a short period of time is to talk a little bit about this instrument and actually let you get a feeling of it or a flavor for it and then talk about some of the we've had discussions about when is it appropriate to have an outside practitioner? A number of us, and I have the people up there and you'll recognize some of the names, what's a list of things. And this is not a final list. This is not like a set of rules about things we consider inside versus some foundation. I'm going to hit some basics that most of us understand, but I'm not sure if everybody understand.

The foundation is each person possesses a maximum ability to deal with complexity, which corresponds to a specific level of work and which defines the maximum level of work a person has the potential to perform. And there are a lot of implications. What we're concerned with is how do we develop people to work up to their potential potential. But here we're talking about a tool for also. So we're aiming at the same thing.

Quick definition. Complexity of information process is the current terminology, the reason the hearing itself. Complexity of mental process is a term you'll see in a lot of Elliot's literature. What happened is he was issued right up until left and he made a change formally information process. He said, I can't see into a person's brain. I don't know what the mental processes are. And his philosophy was to look at the total entity organism and the behavior in the society. I can look at the information by the way you see. So that's why he makes current applied capability is what could I do at work today? Current potential. Notice the word is current for both of them, says what could I do? What could I do if I had required skills and knowledge I may not have if I hadn't? What could I do if I value the work and if I were free to make temperamental, hindrances or other things that would keep me from working? So, in effect, current potential capability is equal to complexity. Looking for some pattern in speech, and I'll be explicit about that, that is a direct relationship to the work.

Now, what I found is I think it's critically important that we do more and more work on helping managers understand levels of work. But what I've also found is when they understand thinking process or information process, they begin to relate that to the work. Human Capability was a study on the consistency of judgment. What he did is he looked at two people and it was being did interviews and then did assessments of those interviews and they did so we had two outside observers or two people using a technique that is the basis conduct. Then they had the manager once removed make a judgment about the subordinate once removed manage the accountable place. That's what it really needs to be made in the organization. They had the manager make a judgment about the subject and they had the manager and the make a judgment about the subject. They did it with this number of people. So there's a sample size. And it was two organizations that were using reckless organizations. There was two organizations that had experience that they were record organizations. We have data to show that the organization not record correlations. Those kind of correlations are phenomenal. They're the kind of things character.

So there are two things that we have to deal with a little bit of complexity. One of them is the process or the way by which the information is compared. And then the second one is the complexity of the information itself. Now what we found is these processes. It's pretty easy to teach people the process and get agreement on passage of what processes show. So I would say that's kind of a settled fact. But when you come to the complexity, it's much more complex. There's art involved. In fact, before Elliot passed away within the last month, michelle and I were on the phone with him and he was still struggling with the formation of complexity of the information and trying to get a crystal clear image of what we're looking at. Now those of us that are doing this work recognize that you can make these judgments and it gets pretty clear. But it takes some practice. And there is somewhat of a tendency that the person making the judgment be of a similar capacity. In other words, differentiating strategy. Four and five is particularly difficult. What we find is somebody strap four can learn how to do that, but they're not entirely stable. They tend to drift somebody strapped into that differentiation.

What are mental processes? What are information processes? Grouping and comparing of education. There are four. First one is called fire logic. What happens is the person just speaks individual standalone statements. We can do that because it's the right thing to do. Now they may also speak statements that are something like that. If you do that, this is going to happen. But together that one set. If you do that single declaration, those declarations kind of just stand out. The next step is the person on purpose accumulates the information so that it's very clear to the listener that I need not just I was late for work because I lost my keys. Well I was late for work because I got caught in traffic. Okay, that's independent desire type statement. But if the person came out and said, you know, I was late for work because I lost my keys and then this was serial. In order for us to get to this final place, it's going to take a number of steps. It's not just if we do this will happen, but if we do that then this will happen. It's got to be at least three. It's got to be a series of things. And then in parallel, we're dealing with a series of things, another series of things connection together. Now, what's interesting is these are strategy level of first level manager. I can accomplish my job if you force me to set priorities on those lists that are causal type priorities. That doesn't process. One of the things about parallel, parallel trick a little tricky. The first three are easy. They have parallel tricky because kind of a textbook will say it's nice parallel speech and see if it's going to be a head shape. You see another series of things down here and that's not quite it. You might think of it this way. Parallel has the ability to take an idea, suppress that idea, put that idea on the shelf, go over here and take another idea and sell that idea. Now take and remember what I was saying before. People start to say things like from the perspective of typical, by the way, that's a flag. That's a flag that says look here, but it is not the expression itself, but you look and you see a flag. Now, what happens is as we mature, we go through these four things and expressions in their recursive. So you get four things at one level of language and then you move through each of the four properties. And then what happens is you cross into another level of language. Now, this is what takes place between stratum four and five change. This is why it's such a major change. What we're finding out is just before you get to stratum one similar kind of thing and we're starting to see that this huge similarity between but there's really a big jump from zero to one and the jump is very similar, you get more complex information.

Yes,

 he's correct. What the fine point is that if I use a word like total quality management shotgun approach. Shotgun approach. Okay. Shotgun approach. That can be at it can be at one level or another level and it depends on my ability to unpack the word, not your ability as a listener. And this is one of the challenges in trying to learn how to do this method, is to not read into it. When I take high stratum people through this, they overrate people. Well, of course they meant that well, tell me exactly what they said concerning what they meant. So there are techniques or guidelines that say, okay, when I look at the information I need to look through certain filters. Event you also find that it's actually deep on the much broader okay, I'm going to say no, but I think I know where you're going. Because one of the questions or one of the things is what does mode mean? What's the jimmy, they may not know what mode is. Mode is the path that you're on. So a mode three individual is going to end their career at six individual end there. We don't fully understand what mode is. I think the bias people probably understand a lot better than I do from some of the things I've seen written. We think myself, Captain Katie thinks that higher mode, when they process information, the young, high potential. If you have two people who are at the same stratum on the chart like this, and two different ages, which places them on different modes, you got 23 year olds stratum four and 45 year old stratton four. My experience is that the 23 or four year old has an awfully scattered argument, and it's just all over the place. And the 45 year old had this crisp, Poutch argument. But when you analyze the structure, there's still a strategic yeah, I think mode was invented to explain precociousness. This person wasn't at level three, but we were talking can we know questions? I would suspect that with the younger four, you might hear much higher language popping out, much more strategic, much higher straight, but it doesn't have the evidence that makes you rate it that way anyway.

The right hand side is kind of the regression of the four steps. The left hand side are the numbers, which are the best way to identify the information, and then the middle is one of the set of terms. This is the one I use because it kind of works for me, but it doesn't entirely go together. It's useful. Self explanatory justice. I'll push you off the boat. Specific. He pushed me off the boat. Planted shipping, boating boats. Abstract concept actually should have been probably an abstract concept. There's a gentleman here, John Morgan, just did a dissertation on high level leadership and Kurt Kabulis, and I did analysis of Pope John Luther King and the editor. And what we found is that we could kind of when they were down at six, seven and eight, we could identify it, but then something happened and it was like, I don't live up there. I can't tell that language. But there was some evidence that, yeah, this is what this high level language looks like. Going back on that slide one. Are you suggesting then that there is stratum 16? Elliot suggests that I wouldn't have brain power. Suggest, I guess, why we stop at 16? I'm kind of looking at this kind of wondering why we try to get to 100 or something. One part of the population. I guess from a practical standpoint, when we look at it's difficult enough to find five in this world. And I believe Elliot mentioned one time he met a Nine Chinese man. He had predicted some numbers that put him in the life and behavior of living organisms. He had a jar in there about what he thought of the distribution. The reason I did is I'm not sure that abstract concept doesn't include everything above it. Well, then you have to find a Nine to prove your purpose of general principle. You have to find the eleven. Excuse me, a 13. We got a mode eleven. We got that punishment both on the same path that King was and was on the same path as the public. If you recall the way Elliot consultant response to questions, first, let me help you understand the general principle. He was operating at level ten and he was framing the body of knowledge or the model, conceptual model that it's her talked about this morning. And then he went to the abstraction, and then he went to the concrete specific application. As I said, the thing I think we've contributed is we've experimented with a way of doing this that seems to get good, reliable results. Now, you notice my words, because we don't have anything like the background. Now, as far as I've been able to track down, there's kind of documented maybe 1200 people. Daniel Kruger works with both and what was the name? And when I checked with them about a year ago, they had done a couple hundred of them. I've done four or 500 of them. Kind of the order of magnitude of how much you think is about there. What I recommend people do is we interview people and we interview them with a protocol of problem solving type questions. One of the concerns is, can you get the person fully engaged? They have to be fully engaged in the problem solve, not in talking down to you, but in the problem solve. And what we found is that there are certain questions that work better, but we find we also want multiple checks. So a question as simple as what do you see as the most serious situation facing? Organization usually gets their highest response. The trouble is sometimes get company talk and you're not quite sure whether they have originated the conceptual or whether they're talking buzwords. Now, all the other questions were both questions they had to do with drug use, legalization drugs, things like that. I have found this is that we have asked questions like talk about something that's particularly important to you and tell your position on that. And that question has worked as well because my interviewers sometimes move over into the emotional side and they say, I want something to feel really strongly about, really strongly about. I really want something you're very engaged in and you can quite solve the problem solving anyway. We do the interview and the interview four questions, something you add over a number of times, you get checked somewhere between. We have a kind of a set up way to transcribe. Four pages is acceptable. Sometimes we get six or seven pages. That kind of we review it by two, compare results, and whether the results agree or not, we do a consensus review of why each other said what they said. If they were different, we look for what they different results. What I found is that at strategy four, one of the things you're looking for are connections where they connect different parts of their argument together. And what I found is it's exceedingly difficult to read a document. You're much more likely to be able to pick those up.

The first major piece of work that we did was that involved. What we found was that we were trying to differentiate primarily four and five. Then we get a comparison. And then what we did in the formation of this is we rank order one of the and then we looked for breakpoints where it seems to make sense that there were breakpoints and then started to be our library, and that's now a benchmark library that we evaluate them, and then we link it back to benchmark. What happened is we had a training session on this, and these are the folks that were at that session last September of 2003. And we said, okay, what should control our behavior and the use of this thing? And these were things that we thought about. Anybody doing this work should maintain their training and experience. They should ensure that there is at least minimal conditions of trust in the organization doing an interview. If the interview is an employee, they should ensure that the process is voluntary. They should explain the process to the interviewee. Explain all who would have access to the results. Ensure that it's offer four to six questions of which they would want Joel curveball. Give them a question that pretty sure that they don't know from somebody else. Seek to have the interview last at least 20 minutes. Give the interview permission, record the interview and transcribe it. We actually get that on Facebook. Have two blind raters for each interview. Use at least two sources of rating transcript, resume, rear history. Ensure that your data is from different sources, that they converge when appropriate. Feedback, the results. Keep a library of innocent images of collecting data. Place each transcript where it belongs relative to other transcripts of what you see is more or less complex. You're using the rigid structure, but then you're also using drug reading that says, yeah, this.