During the first decade of this century, while working with a US Federal Government agency, Dr. Dawson developed a new approach to assessing the complexity and skill requirements of workplace roles and calibrating them to Lectica's developmental scale (the Lectical Scale). Today, we offer a suite of services that provide useful information about the complexity demands of roles within organizations. This information is used primarily to improve recruitment prediction, identify talent, and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of change initiatives and leader development.

A number of factors contribute to the complexity level of a workplace role. One of them, illustrated below, is the number and nature of the stakeholders and stakeholder groups affected by the decisions made in a particular role.

Role complexity ranges

Idealized ranges

This table illustrates how role complexity ranges for successive layers in an idealized organization would change from layer to layer. It also serves as a definition for Lectica’s Work Levels. We do not mean to suggest that these ranges would be ideal in the real world, in which boundaries between layers are necessarily much fuzzier. Think of this as a simple way to represent a complex reality—and a way to show you how Lectica's work levels relate to complexity ranges.

Using the PRCA in recruitment

The Precise Role Complexity Analysis range for most roles is around 15 points. This is the most common range we identify for individual roles. To interpret what this range means in practical terms, it helps to understand that it would take 4 to 6 years for an exceptionally effective learner performing in the 1150–1175 range and working in an organization that actively supports learning, to develop through 15 points on the Lectical Scale. At the other extreme, an individual who is not an effective learner and works in an organization that is not supportive of learning might not continue developing at all. 

PRCA results are used to calculate role fit scores. A PRCA fit score of 90 or above is an indication of excellent role fit. The logical coherence of an individual's thinking, as demonstrated in their assessment responses, is an indication of growth potential. Scores of 90 and above indicate a strong likelihood of relatively rapid future growth. This can be especially important when rapid growth is desirable.

For a new hire, the “sweet spot” in a role-range is usually in the lower end. This is because:

1. For maximum engagement, a new role should represent an interesting challenge, and a sense of challenge should be maintained throughout the period in which the individual is likely to remain in that role.
2. The new hire is going to be leading a team. The individuals they are leading will respond best to a leader whose skills they admire. In other words, ideally, they should perform at a level that is at least slightly higher than the level of performance of most subordinates. When teams are well-configured, the low end of the complexity range of the role being filled is usually a good fit.
3. The new hire for this role will also be a member of a team. It is generally desirable for a new team member to perform at a level slightly below the level of most existing team members. This makes it easier for existing team members to take on a mentoring role during onboarding.

Of course, exceptions can occur. For example, when an individual with a high score but low experience has been selected for fast-tracking, it may make sense for them to spend time in one or more lower-level roles before taking on a higher-level role.

Predictive validity

Lectical Level is an indicator of mental skill as applied in workplace decision-making. Mental ability is by far the strongest predictor of hire success, with predictive validities of .29 to .49, depending on the analytical method employed.* (See the figure below).

Role Fit scores should add to this predictive power by ensuring that people are placed in roles that are just challenging enough to ensure high engagement. However, there are a few things to keep in mind when using Lectical Scores and fit scores in recruitment.

First, single assessments are associated with measurement error. Someone can do well because they have cheated, or do badly because they are having a bad day. There is a risk that we will miss a great candidate or fail to identify a case of cheating.

Second, an assessment of mental ability should be used as a necessary but not sufficient criterion for making a hiring decision. You will still need to know about an individual’s experience, domain knowledge, specific job skills, etc. You will also need to get a sense of how well a candidate will fit in. If you think of good role fit as a precondition for consideration, you’ll be on the right track.

Third, a PRCA tells us how well the complexity of a candidate’s reasoning fits the complexity demands of a given role. It does not tell us anything about how well their skills will fit a particular team unless the mental skills of other team members and the team leader have also been assessed. It can be particularly important to know about the complexity level of a team leader’s mental skills. A mismatch between the complexity level of a leader’s skills and those of a direct report can have serious consequences.

*Schmidt, F. L., Oh, I.-S., & Shaffer, J. A. (2016). Working paper: The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 100 years of research findings. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274.