Anticipated Conclusions

Introduction

Based on observations of the use of an assessment technique by its user and measurements of the variables’ indicators over time, it is possible to validate or reject the hypotheses. The validation conditions for the hypothesis are specified below.

To test the general framework, the antecedent variables must be specified and measured, such as the user's role, the technique used, the company, and the publisher's distribution model for the assessment technique.

With the first framework, the focus was on leaders and managers; the assessment technique used was a factor approach, in the same category of techniques assessing social behavior as the GRI technique. The tested environments were two companies called Qualibank and Posini.

Other hypotheses can be added using the same methodology, leveraging the variables and indicators already defined. The hypotheses and anticipated conclusions presented below for the general framework apply similarly to the first framework designed in Step 1.

Practical Use

Hypothesis 1

Reminder of hypothesis 1. The correlation between using the assessment technique and organizational performance is more likely if the technique is used in organizational development.

Hypothesis 1 validation. We can conclude that hypothesis 1 is verified if we can note an evolution in the same direction, positive or negative, of the following variables at the same time:

• Use in an organizational development (O-)
• Strategic Performance (P-)

Hypothesis 1 invalidation. Hypothesis 1 would be invalidated in the opposite cases:

• Greater use of the assessment technique in organizational development and a decrease in strategic performance suggest that, despite its use in this application, there is less concordance between the social behaviors people exhibit and those expected in positions and teams.
• A decrease in the use of the assessment technique in organizational development and an increase in strategic performance suggest that social behaviors, as shown in the Effective profiles, are closer to job expectations as expressed in the PBI (job profile), whereas the assessment technique is less used in this application.

Hypothesis 2

Reminder of hypothesis 2. The correlation between the use of the assessment technique and performance is stronger when the technique is applied in leadership and people management.

Hypothesis 2 validation. We can conclude that hypothesis 2 is verified if we can note an evolution in the same direction, positive or negative, of the following variables and indicators at the same time:

• Use in leadership and management (L-)
• Social performance (Q-)

Hypothesis 2 invalidation. Hypothesis 2 would be invalidated in the opposite cases:

• Greater use of the assessment technique in leadership and management, and a decrease in social performance, suggest that, despite its use in this application, there is increased adaptation and reduced engagement.
• A decrease in the use of the assessment technique in leadership and management, and an increase in social performance, suggest there is increased engagement and decreased adaptation, whereas the assessment technique is used less in this application.

Hypothesis 3

Reminder of hypothesis 3. The correlation between the use of the assessment technique and performance is stronger when the technique is used in coaching.

Hypothesis 3 validation. We can conclude that hypothesis 3 is verified if we can note an evolution in the same direction, positive or negative, at the same time for the following variables:

• Use in coaching (G-)
• Social performance (Q-)

Hypothesis 3 Invalidation. Hypothesis 3 would be invalidated in the opposite cases:

• Greater use of the assessment technique in coaching and a decrease in social performance suggest that, despite its use in this application, there is increased adaptation and reduced engagement.
• A decrease in the use of the assessment technique in coaching and an increase in social performance suggest increased engagement and decreased adaptation, whereas the assessment technique is used less in this application.

Hypothesis 4

Reminder of hypothesis 4. The correlation between using the assessment technique and performance is stronger when the assessment technique is used in recruitment.

Hypothesis 4 validation. We can conclude that hypothesis 1 is verified if we can note an evolution in the same direction, positive or negative, at the same time for the following variables:

• Use in recruitment (S-)
• Strategic performance (P-)

Hypothesis 4 Invalidation. Hypothesis 1 would be invalidated in the opposite cases:

• Greater use of the assessment technique in recruitment and a decrease in strategic performance suggest that, despite its use in this application, there is less concordance between the social behaviors people exhibit and those expected in positions and teams.
• A decrease in the use of the assessment technique in recruitment, and an increase in strategic performance, suggest that social behaviors, as shown in the Effective profiles, are closer to job expectations as expressed in the PBI (job profile), whereas the assessment technique is less used in this application.

Hypothesis 5

Reminder of hypothesis 5. The correlation between the use of the assessment technique and performance is stronger when the technique is applied in clinical settings.

Hypothesis 5 validation. We can conclude that hypothesis 5 is verified if we can note an evolution in the same direction, positive or negative, at the same time for the following variables:

• Use in a clinical setting (N-)
• Social performance (Q-)

Hypothesis 5 Invalidation. Hypothesis 5 would be invalidated in the opposite cases:

• Greater use of the assessment technique in clinical settings and a decrease in social performance suggest that, despite its use in this application, there is increased adaptation and reduced engagement.
• A decrease in the use of the assessment technique in clinical settings and an increase in social performance suggest increased engagement and decreased adaptation, whereas the assessment technique is used less in this application.

Hypothesis 6

Reminder of hypothesis 6. The correlation between the use of the assessment technique and performance is stronger when the technique has a medium effect.

Hypothesis 6 validation. We can conclude that hypothesis 6 is verified if we can note an evolution in the same direction, positive or negative, at the same time for the following variables:

• Use of the medium effect (D-)
• Social Performance (Q-)

Hypothesis 6 invalidation. Hypothesis 6 would be invalidated in the opposite cases:

• Greater use of the assessment technique for medium effects and a decrease in social performance suggest that, despite its use in this application, there is increased adaptation and reduced engagement.
• A decrease in the use of the assessment technique for medium effects and an increase in social performance suggest increased engagement and decreased adaptation, whereas the assessment technique is used less in this application.

Hypothesis 7

Reminder of hypothesis 7. The correlation between using the assessment technique and performance is even stronger when the technique is applied simultaneously in organizational development, leadership, and recruitment.

Hypothesis 7 validation. We can conclude that hypothesis 7 is verified if over the observation period:

• Hypotheses 1, 2, and 4 are verified. (O-, L-, S-)
• Hypotheses 8 to 11 are all verified. (T-, U-, E-, B-)

Hypothesis 7 invalidation. Hypothesis 7 would be invalidated if only one of hypotheses 1, 2 and 4 were not verified, and hypotheses 8 to 11 were not all verified. Hypotheses 3, 5, 6, and 12 do not require verification. Additionally, economic performance need not be achieved to verify hypothesis 7. Depending on whether economic performance is achieved and on the verification of hypotheses 1, 2, or 3, we can conclude regarding several types of performance: ideal, lagging, under pressure, and lack of .