GRI General Framework

Introduction

This article presents the framework built at GRI to analyze the nature, use, and effect of assessment techniques on an organization's performance. Over the years, we have considered a variety of assessment techniques, including behavioral assessments and parallel techniques that we use ourselves privately, and observed the impact those techniques have on leadership, decision-making, communication, and, ultimately, on individuals and a company's performance. The framework was built in two phases over a 20-year period. During that period, we devised the GRI assessment and the adaptive profiles by removing the limiting factors uncovered during the first phase of the research. This has allowed us to deploy the adaptive profiles to individuals in executive positions and in operations, rather than uniquely to expert users in HR and consulting in the traditional way.

The framework includes variables on the use of assessment techniques (the independent variable), and the users, publishers, and the environment in which they are used (antecedent variable). The dependent variable of the model, the organization’s performance, is contingent upon individual performance. The metrics built at GRI with the adaptive profiles allowed for measuring and representing performance at those two levels. We could thus measure the gap between strategic intent and realization of group performance, as needed to be followed by management, and control systems informally or formally implemented in organizations.

After a brief history of the framework and its construction in two phases, this article presents and comments on its design and reviews a couple of its aspects.

First Framework

The first framework was built in the years 2002 to 2006 by Frederic Lucas-Conwell for his PhD thesis. The thesis demonstrated the positive effects of using personality assessments by managers on individual and group performance. The assessment techniques of the early 2000s were in constant progress. Software packages were providing increasing capabilities to analyze information and compute statistics. The building of the framework followed social research academic standards, notably those of Miles and Huberman, Wacheux, and Eisenhardt.

A large exploration field consisted of 1,116 people from 501 companies whom Frederic met from 1995 to 2002. The organizations were from varied industries, different countries, and of different sizes. It allowed the collection of information on the uses of assessment techniques, their users, and their effects. The framework was subsequently tested on two organizations, which are referred to as the case studies of the small testing field. The research process followed the diagram below. The arrows represent the interactions between the different fields.

The observations from the large field were from primary sources: direct observations of companies and their people, and secondary sources: testimony from publishing companies, consultants, journalists, and documents. The interaction between the large and small fields happened once the framework was built. Observations from the small field and between the two case studies stimulated new observations on the large field, and vice versa, by going back and forth between the large and small fields, but only after the testing phase started. The framework was successfully tested on case studies of the two small testing fields. The concepts, assessment techniques, and theories supporting the framework in psychology, sociology, social-interactionism, organizational behavior, leadership, and semiotics (the analysis and philosophy of signs) had been documented in the dissertation report.

2025 Framework

The first framework provided the groundwork for a second phase from 2006 to 2025. After the first framework was built, the GRI (Growth Resources Institute) was started in 2012, providing a platform for a new quality assessment inspired by the work on the first framework. Personality assessments had solidly confirmed the universality and nature of the factors about to be used. The Internet was available for collecting, using, and analyzing data to unprecedented levels.

Although the observations were saturated after the first framework, the advent of coaching and the use of typology assessment provided new grounds for the observations. The large exploration fields became more US-centric after 2005. The secondary sources included GRI consultants and their clients worldwide.

The new framework would include assessment techniques other than personality. The GRI survey was built by removing some limitations identified in assessment techniques during the first phase. The inclusion of new techniques allowed broader analysis and comparison of assessment techniques. As identified in the first phase, assessment techniques both compete and complement each other.

With an increasing number of techniques that can be built in no time with AI, it has become urgent to understand how those assessment techniques differ, how the differences reflect in their use, and what different impacts users could really expect from them. The new framework has helped to answer those questions.

Framework Representation

The most recent research framework is represented below. Different from the first framework, the number of usage categories is now nine rather than six. “Clinical” was added, reflecting the increasing use of personality type assessments by clinicians. “Coaching” became a new category by itself. With primitive techniques and techniques used during large events, the framework needed a category to regroup their use, which has been named “Entertainment.” The uses of the first and new frameworks have been analyzed and detailed in a separate document.

The social performance includes a “quiet diversity” index that didn’t exist before. “Environment" includes a company's general politics, which used to be a moderating variable in the first framework. It seemed more appropriate to consider it an antecedent variable.

Although the first framework discussed the parallel techniques, it didn’t include them. The new framework allows comparisons of various techniques, including new advanced techniques based on statistics, and more primitive ones.