The (uncomfortable) truth of HR and leadership development | Patrick Vermeren | TEDxKMA

The (uncomfortable) truth of HR and leadership development | Patrick Vermeren | TEDxKMA

Translator: Rik Delaet
Reviewer: Ivana Krivokuća I both love and hate
the business of human resources and you will soon understand why. This vivacious young girl was diagnosed
with schizophrenia at the age of 21. Like so many patients
diagnosed with schizophrenia, she did not want to accept her disease and she often refused
to take her medication. She became so desperate that she decided to put her fate
into the hands of a charlatan. Very soon he had convinced her that it was the medication
that made her feel ill. So he urged her
to abandon that medication, and he convinced her to take
his Bach flower remedies instead. Now, her condition soon deteriorated. And one late afternoon in 1996, I received a phone call from her boyfriend because she was standing
on the escape ladder of the apartment building
where they lived. And she was threatening
to throw herself off. So I rushed over, and we somehow managed to save her
by recklessly storming down the ladder and grabbing her tightly. And with the help
of her family and a lawyer, she was rid of the charlatan. But the damage had already been done. She tried to commit suicide
on several occasions. And this was, of course,
a turning point in my life and my career because I realized, because I personally witnessed how dangerous pseudoscience
and quackery could be, so I realized how dangerous it could be. And what has this got to do
with human resources? Well, at the start of my career, I had to attend training
in Transactional Analysis, and this theory states that during
the first three years of our lives we make our life script, including the diseases
we will have and try to conquer. And this sounded so very strange to me
that I decided to challenge the trainer and I asked her, “Is schizophrenia a choice too?” And she confirmed that it was! Now, in fact, the woman
I’ve been talking about was my sister-in-law. And we had been well informed by the doctors and specialized
patients organizations that this was total nonsense. She finally killed herself
at the age of only 36. And yes, I realized
how dangerous it could be, but I also – with a shock – realized that HR could be dangerous too. And I have experienced many examples. Take for example the case of Pete who had been a successful
manager for many years until the point
where he had to take a test based on an entirely crazy theory
called “Spiral Dynamics”. It offers an alternative explanation
for human evolution. And he lost his position as a manager and even got fired after a few months. And still today, five years later, he hasn’t been able to find a new job mainly because he often felt
too depressed. And he and his wife
had to sell their house and they now live in a small apartment. This made me very angry
and still makes me very angry if I see that desperate
or vulnerable people are lured in. So I decided to join the skeptic community
and like a Don Quixote, I set out on a mission to reveal the truth about the many HR models
and questionnaires. I consulted the scientific literature to see whether these models
were theoretically sound and what was the available evidence,
be it positive or negative. So of course I started looking
at the practices we used at the bank first, where I worked. There was the practice
of employee performance scores, giving people a score every year, and we even applied
a forced ranking on that. And we also created big pay gaps and paid individual bonuses, and we imposed top-down
performance goals on people. And in coaching I had to attend a training based on John Whitmore’s GROW model, and of course, Transactional Analysis. And I was led to believe in training that people have
four distinct learning styles. I learned about Maslow’s Pyramid of Needs. I learned about the so-called
Communication Rule by Albert Mehrabian. And our leaders had to follow a course
in Situational Leadership by Ken Blanchard or a training based
on the Stages of Grief model by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, and they applied this
as a guidance for change. I even had to follow a training
in speed reading. Now what did I find out
about all of these models when I applied these criteria? Well, all of these models
were quite simply wrong. Now this left me very confused
and sometimes angry. I felt confronted. And maybe by now some of you have
recognized some of these models and have the same feelings already. Because indeed, changing our deeply held convictions
can be very challenging. This reminds me of this famous quote; (“The truth will set you free,
but first it will piss you off.”) But I decided to search
for the truth, so I continued. In recruitment I came across practices such as graphology
or brain scans, allegedly predicting
your future performance or your honesty. And I found out
that a lot of the questionnaires used the ipsative format
or the forced choice format, basically making you choose
between apples and pears even if you like them both. And in development I found out that Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
or MBTI was very popular – it’s a fad that never dies. And there’s also the ever-increasingly
popular Insights Discovery. There was the Herrmann
Brain Dominance Instrument, making us believe that we have
four distinct thinking styles and they’re located
in nice areas in our brain. And there’s the Enneagram,
and there’s the Belbin Team Roles. And in coaching I found out that Neuro-linguistic Programming
was very popular, or NLP. But also Alpha training, making you believe
that you can become more creative or be ever more intelligent
by plugging into the universe. And believe it or not,
but some people actually believe that you can become
a better leader of people (Audio: horse whinnies) by getting feedback from a horse. (Laughter) And what is it with human resources
that they so often follow the latest myth? Take for example the 70:20:10 model
by Charles Jennings. He is an Australian engineer
who claims to be an expert at learning. But the research sucks, and the true experts
in the field of learning say it’s total nonsense and some of them
even call it an urban myth. So maybe by now you can raise your hands if you have ever been subjected
to any of these models. (Indistinct chatter in the audience) Why doesn’t it surprise me? (Laughter) So I continued, and there’s many more, and the list behind me
is really very long, and this is evidence of the fact that human resources
and management thinking is really very problematic. Let me give some examples. In HR systems for example, there’s the practice
of giving people an annual score and applying a forced ranking. Some organizations even follow
the advice of Jack Welch, who was the former CEO
of General Electric, to fire, every year, the bottom 10%. Fire or yank – that’s why
they called it “rank and yank”. This is very strange,
because already in 1996, Kluger and DeNisi had conducted
a meta-analysis demonstrating that giving people a score
has a zero effect on performance. But only in the last few years have some organizations
started to abandon this practice. And take, for example, the big pay gaps
created by Rank Order Tournament Theory. It was a theory
invented by two economists. But this led to less information sharing, more fraud, lowered group performance, the best people actually leaving first, and a lot of people perceiving
the payment policy as highly unfair. This theory, in the US, led to the CEO to worker
average pay ratio explosion. In 1983, the average CEO
gained 46 times more. By 2013, it had already increased
to 331 times more. But if you compare it to the minimum wage, it’s even a staggering 774 times more. And it doesn’t need to be like this, because we know in HR systems
there are good frameworks and tools. Take for example the Productivity Measurement
and Enhancement System – ProMES: a meta-analysis has demonstrated
that it increases productivity whilst people keep their autonomy. And they can participate
in their goal setting and in the decision
about their performance indicators. And sometimes theories are really absurd and it doesn’t require
a lot of intelligence to understand. Take for example the Enneagram. It’s very old, it goes back several thousands
of years ago to a Sufi sect, but the most important
proponent was Gurdjieff. And he believed that we are
three-brained beings, here on this Earth to serve the Moon. Because we are forever in debt
towards the Moon, because the Moon was split from the Earth. Can you believe that? Or take Organizational Constellations where they put people in a room, and through a kind
of paranormal or quantum process, they solve their problems. The only problem is, quantum mechanics simply cannot operate
in a warm environment like our brain. And some believe in the paranormal. Few people realize that Carl Gustav Jung
believed in the paranormal and that tests like MBTI
or Insights Discovery are based on it. They prefer me to call it
a questionnaire but… He believed that in a far away
parallel universe information is stored. And this information contains
pre-existent psychological archetypes. And you can get access to them
through a paranormal process. Very absurd. Some theories are just dead wrong. Take for example LIFO,
Enneagram, or MBTI, that make us believe
that the distribution in the population looks a little bit like this:
a dichotomous distribution. If you compare it to other features
of humans like physical height, this would mean that we would
almost have noone between 1.60m and 1.80m. And that is, of course, simply impossible. And indeed, we know
that most human features and also our personality traits follow a nice continuous distribution. Like this. And this is something
that already Charles Darwin had told us. Because he explained
that evolutionary processes lead to variation, resulting
in this nice Gaussian distribution. And take the myth of NLP
or the learning styles. They are both based on the false premise that some people are more visual,
others are more auditory, and yet others are more kinesthetic. And this is entirely wrong,
it’s entirely false, because just like all other primates, our visual sense is the most dominant
in literally everyone, as extensive research has demonstrated. Sometimes theories are wrong
in other respects like, they offer wrong measurements. Take again these forced
choice questionnaires: they often lead to entirely
opposite selection advice, compared to normative tests for example. Or take the MBTI again: it has many flaws, and the US National Research Council has calculated that if people
take the test a second time after only four weeks, then the median of people having
an entirely different personality type is a staggering 60%. Imagine what it would do
to your family life… (Laughter) if you had to wonder every four weeks what personality type
will your family members have? And again, it doesn’t need
to be like this, because in recruitment and selection, we know what kind of tools
are good predictors, like intelligence
and some aspects of personality. And indeed if you look at personality, there are theories based on that, like the five-factor model
or the six-factor model. And we have good tests like the NEO-PI-R, measuring the five-factor
model of personality or the HEXACO, measuring
the six-factor model of personality. And if you look at the real research data, then we indeed see that these traits
follow a nice distribution, like this in extraversion. So there is no such thing,
there are not four types like in LIFO or nine as in Enneagram or 16 as in MBTI. There are literally more combinations than the number of people
living on this Earth. Finally I also found out
that many people lie, not only about the so-called
scientific status of their theories, but also about their own degrees. I contacted several universities and they told me that a lot of people lie
about their PhD for example. So the problem
with all of this is, of course, if you put in garbage,
then inevitably garbage must come out. Nobody has ever been able to prove that you can take right decisions
based on entirely false information. And the burden of proof, of course,
is on them, not on us. And I know some people say
it’s only a tool, or only a discussion starter. Let’s consider this: imagine you are on a city trip in Paris and you’re lost and you ask
someone for directions and that person says, “Well you can have my map
because I’m going home.” And you gratefully unfold that map, only to realize it’s a map of New York. So you ask that generous
person what it means, and that person says,
“Well, it’s only a navigation starter.” (Laughter) Of course that’s silly. Like that city map – that wrong city map – won’t get you anywhere in the city, a wrong personality test
or intelligence test won’t get you anywhere,
for example, for your career decisions. So the best option we really have
is science and reason. And we don’t have to be
so negative about science because after all, it’s only a method
we have invented ourselves to overcome our biases
and thinking errors. It has allowed us to abandon practices like magic healing or witch burning, and it has given us many benefits like purified drinking water
and lately, the internet. So we don’t have to be scientists
ourselves but we can enjoy science. Would you accept having surgery
by a surgeon who never updates her skills? Would you accept taking a drug that doesn’t help,
but has a lot of side effects? Would you accept it if an engineer
lies about his degree as an engineer and builds an unstable bridge? Would you dare to fly with somebody who has never been trained as a pilot
and fly on this plane? I think the answer is a clear no. So if you don’t accept
a flawed blood test, you should not accept
a flawed personality test, and if you don’t accept
a bogus cancer therapy, you should not accept bogus coaching. Think of the damage it can do
if you use pseudoscience. So if we don’t accept bad practices
and lies in other fields of our lives, we should not accept them in HR. Especially not since there are
so many valid alternatives that often are cheaper,
easier to understand, and more accurate. And we have them in training,
and we have them in coaching. And we also have good explanations
like psychology based on biology, explaining things like why we both compete
and collaborate for example. So the list of valid alternatives
and approaches is very long too. So there’s really no excuse
not to use them. It’s high time to abandon
these bad practices, it’s high time we abandon
the gurus like NLP guru Emile Ratelband and Richard Bandler, and turn towards the Champions League
of biologists and psychologists instead, like Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker. I have made a choice to abandon the bad,
the wrong, and the pseudo models because they can do
possible harm to people. And I embraced the science-based instead, because they’re much more reliable
and they allow me to act morally. And that is, of course,
a choice we all can make. Because with knowledge
comes responsibility. I urge all the leaders
to critically question your HR practices. Thank you.

Author: Kennedi Daugherty

100 thoughts on “The (uncomfortable) truth of HR and leadership development | Patrick Vermeren | TEDxKMA

  1. you can poke holes in any assessment or process. You have to take it with a grain of salt, consider the context,and use common sense. These are tools not binding chains that limit us. Also, to point out how ridiculous past philosophers are for people use to think the earth was flat.

  2. The USA from its inception, is built upon a foundation of lies made of bricks formed of Feces, you Spew propaganda & brainwashing to maximize greed driven corporate profit. The USA is a 500 year old PIRATOCRACY

  3. In some respects, the world today lacks ''balance''. Models purport to describe a portion of ''reality'' but general liberal arts-like scepticism and curiosity are probably more serviceable in long term?

  4. Excellent presentation. Having worked as a scientist at a major corporation for many years, I was constantly amazed at the lack of science, critical thinking, and professionalism in our HR department. Over the years, I saw the cycling (and sometimes recycling ) of faddish people management programs that usually had a demoralizing effect on employees rather then motivating better performance (the Jack Welsh model was popular for many years). Being naive, it took me many years to realize that our HR department was not really there to help employees but as a tool for upper management, and often to serve just as a stop on the rung for management types as they climbed the corporate ladder. Because of the turnover in HR management, the emphasis was on bringing in new HR programs, but not staying in the department long enough to determine if they actually worked.

  5. Good presentation. Would it be possible to obtain a list of these better alternatives so people can use these and move away from the old ones? That will be very useful.

  6. Bach therapy might help someone… might not be something for schizophrenia but it is not a problem of Bach therapy. Quite a weak and offensive argument used.

  7. This guy is dangerous. Presents ridiculous fads, horrible traditions, along with some superb proven models/tools and unilaterally dismisses them all with no proof. We should believe him simply because he says so? This guy has an agenda, his business is "evidence based HR," so he cherry picks the smallest flaws in valuable tools/models to serve his own interests.

    I certainly believe HR needs reform – especially as it relates to measuring and rewarding performance. But this was a sloppy, unfocused mess of a presentation with his deep bias at the core (ironically given his comments about bias). The Seinfeld of TED talks, a talk about nothing. I want my 20 minutes back.

  8. awesome talk. as a psychologist, I love the way he deconstructed fals beliefs and theories that doesn't serve the human. Sir, I am your great fan

  9. Too bad he doesn't address the asinine nature of most often-used HR hiring and recruiting models- Applicant Tracking Systems, "unicorn" job postings, outdated interview techiques and resume requirements, and those ridiculous "psychological" questionnaires in the clunky and inefficient online application software people have to use to even get a conversation with someone. This entire general subject matter is one of the core reasons that a) companies have a hard time attracting and retaining "top talent" and b) a huge majority of people under 40 are choosing not to enter corporate culture at all, instead working for startups or becoming entrepreneurs themselves.

  10. At the end, fads replaced by lesser known fads, and junk replaced by scientific looking junk… why not throw both of them out? He touched a vast topic, and to be fair on presenter and others he contradicts, he should ask for a open debate, the way Dawkins does, although Dawkins is also considered a pseudo scientist by some set of fact based thinkers 🙂

  11. Studying HR at this moment and I am frustrated with all the contradictionary theories I have to learn. I have a huge interest in evolutionary theory, I think it's a great tool to understand humans, however I have not seen anything in books about evolution theory or anything. I think I am going to quit as I don't get any value out of the study… It's a shame really…

  12. Blaming Bach flowers for the unfortunate suicide of his sister-in-law sets the tone of this personal vendettta against a wide range of theories, some helpful others less, claiming his opinion is based on real science to try to validate his presentation. This personal critique doesn´t merit the status of a TED talk. My personal opinion , of course.

  13. HR should be simplified. lots of nonsense and ridiculous questions they ask below iq level. Just go for police verification and ask questions required for finishing the real job, that's it.

  14. All of these subjective "assessments" are called out for what they are, a road map to nowhere. The main problem with these "tools" are that instead of creating so called talking points, many HR professionals believe the results of these tools as gospel of employee behavioral characteristics and form biases in decisions on promotions, project assignments and performance evaluations, very dangerous indeed.

  15. This speech may be a good wake up call, but not the solution. I am an assessment tool developer, and I agree that higher standards are needed around understanding and utilizing psychometric tests. However, the speaker himself in this talk exhibits the same shortcomings he claims to fight against. When he says research proves x, or debunked y, he doesn't say exactly which study is he referring to. Among others, he attacked the MBTI and Belbin tools, Maslow and the Transactional Analysis and Situational Leadership models, and promoted OCEAN, HEXACO, and NEO-PI-R (these are the ones I am familiar with). There is a lot to discuss about these tools and models, but instead he simply labels one group of tools and models as fad, pseudoscience; the other group as valid, scientific. He seems to miss the point, that "validity" and usefulness is as much a property of a model as of the application.

  16. I am MBTI certified Admin! I myself took this test 10 times and all I found was that , type was changing and it was based on belief than reality! Agree forced choices make these tests much less close to understanding our personality. This can be just a discussion starter! Good presentation!

  17. Old talk but quite alarming. Patrick makes huge assumptions on the HR practices but not about the scientific models; which at times are an ever changing method/practice itself. How about putting more time in summarizing the positive in each side and comparatively showing solutions? Didn't see the connection in his storylines either ! WOW I'm glad it took me this long to hear his TEDx Talk.

  18. he forgot the suicide cases due to taking pills and all the damage caused by western medicine. it's amazing how scientists forget their scientific epistemic standards when it comes to viewing stranger theories and methods. That is not to say bach treatment helps schizophrenia

  19. I can't help but conclude that this person has another agenda going on. One could argue the complete opposite to some of his espoused scientific data yet he positions these as absolutes. Understanding human behaviours is indeed complex – I do feel there is so much more to the human story (both very sad and clearly personal to Mr Vermeren) that he uses to evoke our emotional response. Science can be a great source of information but there are many 'absolutes' (once considered constants) that we now realise are not as we thought just a couple of decades ago. Examine all data, remain curious and open; think both critically and creatively. If we are in an expanding universe, where things evolve and change we need to experiment with new frontiers from many sources. It is always good to listen to different perspectives. I can't help but think there are other bias's and issues at play on this talk.

  20. Totally agree – evidence based decision making should be the source of our practices, however, this individual provides NO evidence at all at what he found to disprove all the 'theories' he listed, therefore not applying his own dictum to his own presentation. Therefore where was the evidence for his unsubstantiated recommendations? Practice what you preach. Consistent evidence always outweighs beliefs, even Patrick Vermeren's beliefs.

  21. He made a choice to abandon the pseudo-science models (e.g. Myers Briggs personality test etc…) and opt for the reliable science-based methods instead. Never gives an example of what those methods are…

    Just saved you 20 minutes.

  22. While he's such a big advocate for reason and science, he hardly gave any proof for what he said.
    An argument like "NLP is wrong because it doesn't work, which is because it is a bad practice and Richard Bandler should be abandoned." gives ZERO proof besides personal opinion, which he did not explain and specify either.
    Besides that, in my personal experience I've seen NLP, Jungian pyschology and "paranormal practices" work just fine (that is in a personal, not a professional environment, but he also attacked these theories in general and not as a HR practice – or if he did, he did not give any examples to illustrate his points).

    He presents a couple of very good points, but strawmanning theories he doesn't seem to quite understand put me off too much to focus on the valid points he was making.

  23. He simply says some things are wrong and some things are right but never explains why. He just tears down but doesn't build up.

  24. The point is, to accept that models/tools are conversation starters not gospel truth – they might not be fads on the one hand, nor will the save the business world on the other hand. They are there to be wrestled with, experimented with by using and analysing the results (and accepting that at first glance, the data may not be telling you the real story). Overall, Patrick Vermeren's talk is a decent conversation starter with some useful insights in my opinion

  25. I don't think he is right to simplify this much. He mixes many concepts and makes claims without proving them in any way.

  26. As a seasoned HR professional, as well as someone who sold pre- and post-employment assessment tools for years, a few comments: 1. I agree with much of what he has to say about HR and its need for change. 2. I agree with what he has to say about the flaws of SOME assessment tools. That said, some of his assumptions and assertions are dangerous and unfounded as he appears to be throwing out the baby and the bathwater. Also, as someone educated by Industrial Organizational (I/O) Psychologists on the important tenets of assessment validation and the fact that all assessments are not the same, this is lacking in his presentation. Additionally, it is VERY important to get information on assessment theory and validation from an I/O Psychologist. From the appearance of his Linkedin Profile, I do not see that he possesses this. As such, though an interesting piece with some merit, some of his assertions about assessments fall on deaf ears.

  27. 35 years having to deal with HR daily both government and Fortune 500 companies. Watching the HR industry morph, change it’s name, struggling to be relevant. HRs purpose is to keep the corporation from being sued. I find the gushing endorsements of today’s HR organizations come from inside the HR industry by those with little experience and little historic perspective. Try this on for size, require HR to be accountable and “prove” they do more than occupy space.

  28. To counter the speaker´s anecdotal example, I knew of a woman with Alzheimer who got better when she got off her psych meds, and then got worse again when her doctor convinced her (with all of his medical authority) to retake the pills. Therefore, using the speakers "logic", the doctor is a charlatan.

  29. The reality is that medical science is filled with industry controlled corruption, and there is not a single pharmaceutical drug that can cure or even significantly slow down Alzheimers. At best a very few can delay the final end by a few months, and at the cost of side effects. If medical gods of establishment medicine had all the answers, then Alzheimers and dementia would simply not be a major problem because drugs would take care of it. They do not.

  30. Sorry Patrick- I’m going to put you in the same category with all the kooks you just called out.

    You had me until you mentioned Richard Dawkins.

  31. Knowing how challenging it can be to synthesize and compress years of research and thought into a short time frame and then present it for the world to dissect, I respect the speaker's willingness to challenge the HR status quo. That said, this talk failed to make a coherent argument for why we should trust his findings or what the alternatives are.

    I agree that we ought to question our assumptions and acceptance of many of the tools people use to assess employees. People don't fit into nice neat categories. However, if the outcomes of those frameworks are used to provide a starting point for conversation and self-discovery, there's little harm in considering them.

    My main objection with the speaker is that he completely dismisses legitimate psychology as being useful. It's admittedly an inexact science, but it is rigorous in its own right. It's irresponsible to label all attempts to distill it for practical application as fraudulent and nonsensical. His bias and ax to grind discredits his opinion. And I am completely confused by the fact that he is a coach, yet he lumps coaching in with the pseudosciences he so vehemently opposes! It's just one example of the way he contradicts himself. He throws out some methods/frameworks while embracing others, while not offering his criteria for deciding what's valid and what's not.

    Overall, a disappointing talk on an important topic.

  32. its a bucket of demagogy and some facts intermingled and he keeps talking about what made him angry…maybe talking to a mental health professional would help more to get it out? Instead of attacking well-proven psychoterapeutical methods without giving us a claim. Also this self-importance and priestish attitude dont help…

  33. Give me my 20 minutes back !! This guy just crushes all the HHRR Tools but doesn´t give any evidence of why they´re not good. I only finished the talk to see if anything of the video was worth the try.

  34. He trashes certain tests and towards the end started recommending some other.
    A talk that touched a great topic but fell short.

  35. 70/20/10 model of on-boarding is horrible. How many mistakes do we and our associates make during their experiential training?

  36. I can find zero evidence anywhere that Transnational Analysis ever said schizophrenia was a choice. Similarly, he over-generalizes and wildly conflates NLP related material. Definitely has an agenda. This is a sales pitch

  37. This video is just proof of someone with an AGENDA… I bet he gains from the people and methods that he supports. It's like Nike talking about how bad Adidas and Reeboks are.
    Like BMW talking about how bad Mercedes and Audis are… It's all good, just take it for what it is. At the end of the day, all these tools can help people if used as they were intended. The problem is not the tools (that's all they are, tools) the problem is the user. They are not the end all. I can take all the tools mentioned and get people to learn a little more about themselves AND others with the goal of learning to appreciate on another vs. instant judgement or negative criticism. Live curiously, I welcome all feedback, feedforward and slander – make it a great day!

  38. Simply fantastic. It’s seldom that I see so much clarification in such a succinct presentation. He not only dispels many myths — some which I’d believed myself — but he also provides information on proven alternatives. Thanks Mr. Vermeren for a fine presentation.

  39. This is a very useful Ted Talk about HRM.  Taking my 1st course right now.  I've learned so much. Thank you

  40. I feel really bad for the speaker. He's obviously a very intelligent and sincere person. I could see his struggle with trying to find a blame for what happened to his brother and sister-in-law, without fully understanding how his own cognitive dissonance influenced his perceptions.
    Rationalization and Intellectualization are defense mechanisms that are often used by intelligent people to shield themselves from painful truths. This man is severely broken.

  41. My company uses long debunked 'personality' questionnaires. Waste of time, as they still hire some incompetent, horrible candidates.

  42. It took me way too long to realise he wasnt getting to what I was hoping to hear… the connection to hr was off for way too long for me sorry

  43. A good speaker will never miss what to say about a given topic. Attaching old and weakened theories and once up on a time dogma helps in nothing.

    HR is social, so nothing new in finding darksides and things not so clean, which do not mean that is useless!
    Set up a company and cancel that department and see the results. Don't just be theoretical, analytic and rhetoric , be a part of action and you can then analyse.

  44. Totally bogus chat, TED sometimes is use as a platform to launch a personal business, and objectivity gets lost with this pseudo and opportunistic consultants or egomaniacs that just want their TED moment. To connect his suicidal sister-in-law on a clear miss handling of a mediocre psychiatric with faulty psychometrics or HR fads was rather confusing and desperate.

    I'm sure somebody coached him and told him that to build impactful image, brings attention, and this fellow went too far exposing her family sensitive hurdles, shameful!. And then that closing talking about Emile Ratelband and Richard Bandler, yes two NLP mercenaries and clowns – particularly Emile – and then suggesting Richard Dawkings and Steven Pinker is totally missing the point. Nothing that this writer and scholar handle and defend (Atheism and Linguistics) fall into HR world or potential methodologies to improve what he criticizes.

    He has a point, yes HR tools need calibration and objetivity, there a lot of great systems, assesments and tools that are very assertive and help, it's always a mistake to consider those as exact science or definite sensors. For me this is not an HR professional, but just a new consultant with a "bogus point" trying to get an extra dime with his consultancy launching firm. BTW he's now working developing Leadership and consulting business with similar "appreciation" and unperfect methodologies. I'm still awaiting for genetics with a perfect solution, meantime current and existing tools, with proper handling and internal training, can help and guide great professional HR processes.

  45. Totally bogus chat, lately TED – mostly on new/small sites – sometimes is use as a platform to launch a personal business, and objectivity gets lost with this pseudo and opportunistic consultants or egomaniacs that just want their TED moment. To connect his suicidal sister-in-law on a clear miss handling from a mediocre psychiatric with faulty psychometrics or HR fads was rather confusing and desperate.

    I'm sure somebody coached and told him that to build an early and "impactful" image in the audience, brings high attention. For me, this fellow went too far exposing her family sensitive hurdles, shameful!. And then that closing, talking about Emile Ratelband and Richard Bandler, yes two NLP mercenaries and clowns with spiders and burning charcoal walkings – particularly Emile – and then suggesting Richard Dawkings and Steven Pinker is totally missing the point. Nothing that this writer and scholar handle and defend (Atheism promoter and Linguistics) fall into HR world or potential methodologies to improve what he criticizes.

    He has a point, YES: HR tools need calibration and objectivity, there are a lot of fads indeed and mostly too many tools making unneccesary noise. Regardless that his example from horses although it was exagerated, since normally is not used to asses serious HR processes but rather promote introspective conversation in teambuilding efforts, YES, there are several examples as bad fads. However, there are also a lot of great systems, assessments and tools that are very assertive and help. I think Mr. Vermeren (an obvious late comer to HR arena) got his onboarding to this area from the wrong people or angles.

    For an HR professional, a rather good one, it's clear that is always a mistake to consider those tools and systems, as exact science or definite/final sensors and base your employees and teams development, just on those mechanisms outcomes. Most of the time these tools results, are not even refer or directly used with employees, but just to give a common, standardize reference for a rather more assertive and well trained feedback session with clear observations from direct managers or a group talent review session with other real, objective, serious and consented team (360 angled) inputs.

    It's clear that this gentleman is a new consultant with a "bogus an rather stretched point" trying to get a catch with his recent consultancy launching firm. BTW he's now working developing Leadership and consulting business with similar "appreciation", non-perfect or not exact scientific methodologies. Still today, human behaviors and learning processes, are not easy to handle as exact science or common/global systems and solutions may vary along people lives inside a dynamic society and organizations.

    Finally , I'm still awaiting for Genetics (Human Genoma studies) and other breakthrough new science fields with THE perfect solution. Meantime current, existing and cohesive-complimentary tools, with proper handling and internal training, can help and guide great professional HR processes and YES!, support companies, teams and individual development.

    C'est Tout !.

  46. HR has been mismanaged for years, but often driven by leadership that is not a part of HR. I had different expectations of this talk but overall it was good. I think that HR professionals need to be stronger, they need to be leaders and push for change.

  47. 11:30 not true. Quantum tunneling and entanglement is suspected to occur in microtubules or neurons. Similar sort of misconception might be that a hot wire (electrically) is not also actually hot; when in reality the surface temp is 100s maybe 1000s of degrees C°. Cool to touch, but at a scale imperseptable to touch it's hot asf.

  48. He's misleading the audience by confusing the audience with concepts. I agree with some points and disagree with a whole lot of this ted talk. I suppose he's doing this to sell his concepts. In short, disregard everything and hire his services. Ha ha.. salesmanship it's all about the packaging.

  49. MBTI is actually awesome when you don't take it way too seriously. The types, bla bla, but if you look into cognitive functions and learn to spot people's dominants it can help you work/communicate with each person "in their own language" and make your life easier. If you only use it to pigeonhole people, then it's no better than the zodiac.

  50. "Human resource thinking is highly problematic." Ya don't say!? Is this just a nice way of saying that they are a f*&king joke and they are decimating the workplace?

  51. Brilliant!!! Still so very current, Patrick. Thanks again for providing intellectual leadership in this space.

  52. 20 minutes of telling us why all the standard personality tests and techniques are all wrong. Enneagram, Myers-briggs, NLP….literally 19 minutes of how silly it all is and how wrong they all the researchers were. And now we need to follow Dan Pinket. Save your time and go straight to Dan.

    He’s dismissive without logic and without solutions. I really was looking forward to a useful talk about HR.

  53. was he making a point during all of this BS? other than HR is fundamentally flawed and leadership is always shooting in the dark?

  54. I know some things about TA, and it seemed an interesting approach for some situations. However, I never read about TA stating diseases are you own choice, which is a sick idea. However, nowadays stress on succes (making failure our dominant theme, few people realize) seems to drive people easily toward sick ideas. The relative uselessness of these approaches (which lies more in the application and rigid exageration and extrapolation than in the original ideas) is demonstrated by the fact that people ( especially managers and HR-employees) after having been enlightened, don't apply them to theirselves to become succesful, but start preaching and diagnosing their subordinates, which entails mainly (victim-)blaming. If their insights are that good, why first start practicing on others, preferably on ( often weak) guinea pigs already in your power (with less free choice)? Most practioners rely on a partners with a steady income, or run one-man-businesses that last only a year or two. The only succesful preachers are those that teach aspirant preachers. It's mainly exploitation of hope and despair.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *