There’s been a lot of debate recently about whether AI changes what we need to select for to predict candidate success. But the reality is that most companies have needed to reframe how they select for quite some time.
At the end of 2022, Arctic Shores’ Senior Psychometrician Luke Montouri and Senior Applied Psychologist Sanchia Dennis set out to review a huge data set with one key objective –– to understand which skills, competencies, and behaviours would be most predictive of candidate success in the “future of work”. And to establish how psychometric assessment measures would need to evolve to select for them.
What they uncovered is as true today as it was back in 2022 –– and the advancement of Generative AI has made it even more urgent for talent acquisition teams to rethink how they select.
In this episode, Luke and Sanchia join Robert to unpack the research and science they used to update the Arctic Shores assessment model, and the wider implications of their findings for TA teams. Listen to learn:
📊 What the three factors most predictive of success in an AI-enabled workplace are –– according to an extensive analysis of data from the likes of McKinsey and the World Economic Forum; customer competency frameworks; and a decade’s worth of data informed by 3 million candidate assessments (including subsequent workplace performance)
💡 Why evaluating Skill-enablers™ –– the core human traits that inform our ability to acquire new skills, navigate change, and adapt –– is (mostly) mission-critical for any employer from today. And when you might not want to evaluate a candidate’s Skill-enablers™
🚀 A deep dive into what the Skill-enabler™ model is – and why evaluating traits that go beyond technical capabilities to assess interpersonal abilities, self-management, and decision-making is essential in the age of the AI-enabled workplace
🔍 And why we need to move beyond the traditional five-factor model to unlock new ways to understand and assess potential –– plus insights into why we need to rethink how we measure cognitive ability (and the issues with traditional approaches)
Dive in to understand more about the data that is shaping the future of talent acquisition and how orgnaisations’ should be thinking about identifying high-potential candidates in a fast-changing world.
We promise this will be the most valuable podcast episode you listen to this week.
Download The Arctic Shores Skill-enabler™ companion guide here.
Listen below 👇
Podcast Transcript:
Robert: Welcome to the TA Disruptors podcast. I'm Robert Newry, CEO and co-founder of Arctic Shores, the task-based psychometric assessment company that helps organisations uncover potential and see more in people.
We live in a time of great change and TA disruptors who survive and thrive will be the ones who learn to adapt and iterate and to help them on that journey. In this podcast, I am speaking with some of the best thought leaders and pioneers who are leading that change.
Robert: And today I am especially excited and pleased to be welcoming two psychometric experts, both of whom who work for Arctic Shores, Dr. Luke Montori, senior psychometrician, and Sanchia Dennis, applied psychologist. Welcome to the podcast. Why don't you just give us a little bit of background about what you do and your expertise in this field before we get going.
Luke: So I, as you said, senior psychometrician at Arctic Shores. A lifetime ago I did a PhD in behavioural neuroscience, sort of looking at how we can use behaviours to make inferences about sort of intentions in animals. Moved into industry at some point to work in psychometrics and then not long after that found in Arctic Shores the perfect blend of those two sorts of worlds. So the sort of use of behavior to determine what's going on in someone's brain and the use of psychometrics to measure that in an accurate kind of way.
Robert: Yeah, quite an unusual blend, that sort of behavioural and the psychometrics piece. So quite a unique set of skills in some way that you brought together there. Brilliant. Thank you. And Sanchia, tell us.
Sanchia: So my background, so I did my psychology undergrad I've always been really fascinated by people and obviously just the way we think and how that then reflects in our behaviour and the way we are. I decided to specialise in occupational psychology for my masters. I just thought, you know, we spend so much time at work that to do that research is just really interesting to look at people, how they interact at work and everything like that. So that's kind of where I started. And then coming out of my master's, I always had, like I said, quite an interest in personality. I did a bit of that for my master's dissertation. And so when I found Arctic Shores, I was just really interested in the approach that was taken, like with the task-based assessment. Thought it was so new and fresh and I'd never seen anything like it. I didn't even know it existed. So yeah, that really got me energized and interested in joining the company.
Robert: Well, you're both significantly more qualified than me in this sort of field of psychometrics. I am fascinated by it and obviously enjoyed setting up a business ten years ago now to think about how we might uncover potential. But I've always admired the experts and the evidence and the science behind how we've gone about developing task-based assessments and it's such a unique way to understand about personality. And many, many people struggle with that different approach to it. But at the same time, there's been a lot of change in the workplace too. So before we changed our model, did you do some, between the two of you, I suppose, did you do some research into what were other people saying about the way that the world of work was going to require from people in order to be successful in doing the different types of jobs because we've got huge amount of digitization, we now have generative AI, so future requirements of what we're going to need from people will be different from the past. So how did you go about looking at some of the academic research around that and what did you discover from that?
Sanchia: Yeah so as you've just said huge changes in the workplace happening. And we know that what we're measuring now might not necessarily be relevant for the future. And we wanted to make sure that our assessment is obviously keeping up with that changing workplace demand. So this initiated a comprehensive review of our assessment and our tasks to make sure that what we are measuring is gonna remain relevant and important for the future of work. So this included sort of our own original research, sort of thought leadership research, which I think Luke, you all sort of get onto in just a second. And then we also used obviously the vast amount of data that we have to create a very strong evidence-based foundations to then explore maybe like new measures or like how we can sort of evolve and further develop our current assessment. I don't know if you wanted to go into a bit more detail about the more thought leadership thematic analysis.
Luke: I think I would, I think I love talking about this. And I mean, you say the world of work is changing, but the world of work has always been changing. It's not, I mean, this has been a conversation for years. And so it's probably not unfamiliar to many people that we embarked on a series of literature reviews that would tell us something about what we need to be doing to be prepared for that future. Yes. And so we went through some of the thought leadership that was being put out by organizations like Deloitte, and McKinsey The World Economic Forum has lots of reports, yearly reports on sort of labor trends. The National Foundation for Education Research was a particular favorite of mine. They have an initiative at the moment called the 2035 Skills Imperative. They're looking at what we need to be doing in education for the next 10 years to be training people, what skills are gonna be important in the future of work and how do we train people.
And so we took all of those pieces of research and we sort of were looking for commonalities between them. We took the, as Sanchia said, the data that we have, but then also a lot of the data that we have from clients, such as competency frameworks, looking at what in the competency frameworks was already reflecting the changes that we were expecting to see about the future of work. So really taking as many different views of it as we could, what is everyone saying about the future?
what are we already seeing about what the future holds, and where are we either well placed for it or not as well placed for it, and what do we need to do to change that?
Robert: So from that, that sounds a really thorough approach, and so we've sort of taken the time after 10 years to get the data and be more confident and about the things that we measure and being able to describe it in our own terms and models rather than within the confines of the five factor model. But we didn't just stop there. We actually went out to see what people wanted to be measured, what they were talking about, how things were changing as well. And so then combining those things together, we've then come up with a new model that's evidence-based, on those three areas that I suppose you were saying, our own data on this, what we were seeing from engagements with clients that we've had over the years plus then what leading organisations like the World Economic Forum were talking about too. That's quite a bold thing to do to be able to break out from existing frameworks there.
Although interestingly, I see quite a few organisations starting to do that. You know, you've got, I saw recently SHL have now talked about 12 universal skills. We have, I think the universal skills framework, which is a UK government backed body that says there are eight. So there seems to be a lot of new models coming out at the moment to reflect this. future. Where did we end up and why?
Luke: So we ended up, we found the commonalities between those areas and what we were seeing with our own data. And what we saw was relatively simple. There are three broad families of skill, skill enabler that will be relevant for the future. As long as humans are involved in work at some point, regardless of the technological changes that are going on, people are gonna need one of, three things really, they'll need interpersonal skills.
Robert: We're all working with other people, so clearly. I mean, some of this isn't rocket science.
Luke: Yes. Interpersonal skills, the ability to think, and many things come under that, problem-solving, decision making, and whatever else we can think of that fits under there. Many of the skills that you described from other organizations probably fit under there. And then also self-management skills. So to what extent are you able to direct your own behaviors to achieve goals and inhibit responses that might not be appropriate given the context. These sorts of, this family, these three broad overarching categories are-
Robert: Yeah, I liked your term on that skill enablers on this because there is a lot of confusion around what is a- skill and you have hard skills and soft skills and hard skills we all seem to understand as technical skills and soft skills now are suddenly a bit more confusing because is something like curiosity a skill or is it a personality trait? But actually when you were describing those those three broad families and I really like the term skill enablers on this, those are the things that I suppose everybody's going to need to some degree or another and there'll be different weightings across those three broad areas. But that will enable them to then pick up the skills that we're talking about and whether that be a leadership skill or a negotiation skill or it may be a software programming skill or a project management skill. We'll have elements of… What's your thinking style? How do you like to organise yourself and how do you interact with others? And those were the three, did you end up with those three or that was just the research from our own research was naturally pointing to those three and did you start off with, did you come across four or five and then, or was it just naturally when you were working through all of this, it became really clear there are just these three.
Luke: So it was actually really clear. The research was pretty broadly in agreement. Everyone differed a little bit in how they described these categories and what they put in these categories and so they had different focuses depending on the context. Obviously, McKinsey is gonna have a different focus to the National Foundation for Education Research. There was also, a lot of them had a fourth category which tended to be something like digital literacy or technical skills. And this varied far more than what we were seeing. And we weren't particularly interested in including this because technical skills are the kind of thing that we're seeing constantly change. And we're not interested in sort of trying to figure out what skill is going to be relevant for the next year. We want to know what is an enduring human characteristic that is something that we can measure that will be relevant for a long period of time.
Robert: And actually, you make a great point on that. I suppose the point of a skill enabler on this is that we will be constantly refreshing our hard skills or any type of skill that we might have to be successful in the workplace because it's constantly changing. Actually, the pace of change is faster. It's more technically driven than it has been in the past. And so those underlying human characteristics that enable you to adapt and to learn, refresh, acquire new skills are going to be the things that we want to know about, rather than specifically, you've got this skill, you can test that in different ways. And actually, you may not even worry about testing it because it's gonna change within quite a short period of time within the workplace anyway.
Luke: And just to sort of support that a little bit, we started this research end of 2022, this is all before chat GPT became a widespread phenomenon. Since chat GPT has come out, it appears as if this way of categorizing skills or skilled enablers has only become more relevant. So with the release of chat GPT and people using AI-enabled tools more and more frequently, it seems like interpersonal skills, self-management skills and your ability to think for yourself and make decisions is more relevant, they are more relevant than ever.
Robert: Yes, you're quite right and I think the interesting thing for me about the development of GenAI is lots of people talk about, oh, are we going to lose a lot of jobs because of GenAI's come out? Actually, I just think for me it's like the calculator, the human interaction with GenAI is just gonna mean that we can do different things and in many ways it will enable people, certainly my optimistic view of it is that if you haven't necessarily had the training or the background to do what previously has been a high-level knowledge role, and therefore you're excluded from that, now you can come in and have ChatGPT as a tool that gets you up to that knowledge base as somebody else really, really quickly.
And so I do to see some really nice positive things from that development too. But Sanjeev, you've been obviously working a lot in this too, in supporting this kind of development and thank you for sharing that, Lucas. Are you able to give us a bit more detail about those skill enablers then and those families and what they actually mean? It's nice just to come up with general broad terms, but. Yeah, definitely. How do they break down?
Sanchia: That's gonna be ironic, starting with the thinking, skill enabling family. So this sort of encompasses things like your curiosity, creativity, your ability to make decisions and problem solve and these types of things. And so I think through our assessment, we're able to really get to the core of, how is someone processing something and then coming up with a response in line with these sort of, I guess you could call them behaviours, tendencies, abilities.
And I think these are the things that someone possesses and then they can grow and develop them into skills. People will always say, we want someone with critical thinking skills that can make really good decisions. And so I think we're able to really measure that in a person. And that's something that someone has now and can present in the future and further develop. So that's thinking style.
Robert: And so just on that, a lot richer then than the old way, Luke referred to earlier, the traditional view of you have personality and you had ability. And I'd say never the two shall meet, but they were two separate categories. Whereas what you're describing here is, oddly enough, I think what we all probably feel intuitively is how we bring our whole self to the workplace.
It's not just a case of, oh, I'm good at numerical reasoning. Actually, it's the way I problem solve. It's the way that I process information. So it's a, I suppose what you're sharing there is a much richer perspective of the thinking style we bring to the workplace than just a straight intelligence style, cognitive ability, or IQ style.
Sanchia: And I think we kind of see that a little bit already when we look at openness to experience. That's kind of always been very closely linked to intelligence, you know, that sort of intellectual engagement and that curiosity to learn more about something. And so that's always kind of been there. It's almost just not been tapped into enough and that realization of that's probably because personality and cognitive ability are so closely intertwined.
Robert: Exactly, rather than separate.
Sanchia: Yeah, it's the way we're perceiving things in our environment. Our brain is processing things and producing responses, you know, like, that's like the core of it really. But then obviously through like the big five, we've obviously added a lot of language around that and descriptions, more of the behavior side. And so then I think the segregation's happened between the two, but yeah, I think with the thinking, skill enabling family, it's kind of bringing that together. I mean, across all of the skill enabling families really, but I think thinking where it is a little bit more. about the problem solving and the critical thinking, which is always typically associated with intelligence. Kind of just bringing that personality element in as well.
Robert: Nice. So that's the first one.
Sanchia: So that's the first one, yeah. So then we've got interacting with others. So as Luke said, you know, that's something that's not gonna change. People want people that can interact well with others. And within this skill enabling family, this is all about how someone can perceive emotions in others to then understand the nuances of a situation and respond in the right way back in social situations and building interpersonal relationships and these types of things. So I think you could probably link this with, like I've just said, interpersonal skills, but also I think in a leadership role, like leadership skills as well, I think being able to communicate effectively is really important and I think a big part of that is being able to pick up on the nuances in you know, situation, how someone's responding to what you've said, you know, adapting your behavior appropriately to get, you know, a desired outcome, which would be building a good relationship or, you know.
I think that's what you make a very interesting point there, Sanchia about, you know, adapting your behavior as to how you might lead or influence people. Because that's that's been a massive change in the last few years. You know, and I think back when I started many moons ago in the workplace I never saw leaders adapting their behaviour to what people expected or needed or required in order to be successful. It was, this is what I tell you, you do.
Sanchia: Definitely, I think being like attuned to how, you know, your actions impact other people around you is so important. And so I think with interacting with others, that's, you know, what we're trying to get out really is how are you able to you know, recognise people around you, respect different perspectives, respect how your actions are affecting other people, and then behave in a way that, you know, is gonna be constructive and, you know, promote team morale and proactivity in the right way, so.
Robert: And I suppose when some people will be thinking about this, too, about interacting with others, there are some jobs where you don't have to interact with others. So how will that work in this model then will you, is the way that we're thinking about this, that there'll be some things that we'll want to put more significance to. And actually if a role, you can be a software developer and not actually have to interact with people other than through Slack. And that's perfectly acceptable and you know, it won't change your performance in the role. Yeah, how might that work in roles where actually interacting with others may not be important?
Sanchia: I think, I guess that's why we have three skill enabling families is I don't think we're trying to say that, you know, you need all of you need elements of all of these things to be good at your job. I think it is role specific. So some skill enabling families will be a lot more relevant for certain roles. Like you said, like a software developer, things in the thinking category or self management Family might be more appropriate. Yeah, so I don't think it's the case that you need all of it. I think it's about picking and choosing what is most relevant for performance in the role.
Robert: Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. So tell me about the third one then, the last one.
Sanchia: Yes, so we have self-management, which is the third skill-enabling family. And this is all about your ability to sort of control your emotions and your thoughts and how that can help you remain focused on what you're doing. It's also about your ability to overcome challenges, cope in those more pressurized situations maybe and how you deal with that. And then also your flexibility and your ability to sort of adapt to different demands or switch what you're doing to focus on something else.
Robert: Yeah, that makes a lot of sense and I can really particularly in the hybrid world that we work in now, where everybody has much more of a choice of what suits them in their style of working. But equally, that ability to, even if you're not in an environment, in an office, and you're working from home, your ability to adapt, I suppose, to that different working environment, still stay focused, still. get things done, means that actually that self-management piece is going to become much more important. In the past it was just when you turn up in an office and you're expected to be productive by just being sat at a desk. It's much more nuanced now because of the different ways that we're working and so understanding how somebody prefers to work and how that links to success in the role is going to be really important.
Sanchia: Yeah, and I think the complexity of roles as well. True. Having roles that might require you to shift between lots of different types of tasks, and they might be of different nature. You might be able, I guess people think of multitasking. I'm not necessarily talking about multitasking, but more being able to shift your sort of cognitive process from one task to maybe something that's quite different, and be able to do that quite seamlessly and effectively to then manage you know, complex projects and things like that as well. So I think self-management definitely plays into that.
Robert: It does. Thank you for sharing those. And that's really interesting to understand a bit more about that. Have, I suppose my final question around this and maybe you first and Sanchia - possibly, you might want to chip in on this, but where does that leave us with the five factor model now because we talked at the beginning that, you know, that was the lens through which everybody understood personality and psychometrics. We've now done all this research. We've come up with the three skill enablers as a new type of model to be able to understand and predict performance in the workplace. And do what's, what's our feeling now and take on the five factor personality model?
Sanchia: So I think everything we've just said, we're definitely not disregarding the big five factor model. I think we respect it. It's got historical significance there in personality research, psychometrics, and also in many applications, even our own. We kind of already said that we still use it to communicate what we're measuring in a way that most people are very familiar with and that's universal. So it definitely still has its value. I think we just stress the need to move sort of evolve from the big five in order to keep up with, you know, changing workplace environments, the future of work, all of these technological shifts. So we do need to sort of move beyond that.
So I think even when we look at our skill enabling model, we do still see elements of the big five reflected in, you know, self-management, for instance. We see that overlap with neuroticism and that ability to be, you know, like control your emotions and emotional stability. So we definitely see that reflected through, you know, the three skill-enabling families. To give another example, I guess, interacting with others, you know, that sort of being able to be considerate of others, consideration, compassion, that's probably more agreeableness. Could also touch upon extraversion, I guess, with, you know, the interpersonal style and being able to collaborate with others and teamwork and things like that. So I think that's still reflected through interacting with others.
And then we kind of already said with thinking style, it's always been a bit intertwined with openness to experience as well, that curiosity piece and intellectual engagement and things like that. So I think our model is broad because we only have three categories. I think we're able to then encompass more. Obviously the big five has five factors, but it kind of gets absorbed within the model. But then alongside things like cognitive ability, which as we've said, has always been treated quite separately and had its own models. So I think it's more bringing everything together.
Robert: Yes, there is another major part, so it's simplifying it. But it's also recognising that cognition, therefore thinking style, has a play in all of this, intertwined with the other things rather than just being separate.
Luke: The big five is a lens It's a lens through which we can interpret people's behaviours and it's a lens through which we have typically categorised the way in which we talk about the way in which people behave. But it is not the only way to understand behaviour. Yes. There are other ways that haven't been talked about and that's why we're here.
Robert: Yeah. Great. No, thank you. And just on that sort of cognitive piece, we have we re-evaluated how we measure cognitive ability now? Because that… that for me is another area that hasn't had a lot of change for a long time. And I know that's a particular area of interest for you too as well. So yeah, share with us as to where do you think cognitive ability and how we understand it can and should be going.
Luke: Cognitive ability has always had sort of pride of place amongst the psychometric measures for a variety of reasons. I guess we in this model don't really put it on a pedestal in the same way. It is just another thing underneath the broad families. But it's one of those funny. It's a very funny one because it's historically been used because of its supposed validity, its predictive validity, its ability to predict workplace performance very well. But obviously, there are issues with it.
It introduces a source of disparate impact in selection pipelines. It certainly degrades the candidate experience which has some effect on some of these disparate impacts. And the predictive validity piece actually is currently under fire. So there are people discussing the extent to which it is actually predictive. Or as predictive. As predictive, yeah, you rightly point out. It's really a question of how much rather than if it is at all.
And I think we at Arctic Shores have the advantage of being able to look at this and say, right, how are we gonna do this differently based on the fact that we use task-based assessments? And so as you know, we recently, say recently, it was about a year ago now, we revamped our cognitive ability solutions and we use that as an opportunity to really sort of start exploring how we can do things differently through a task-based approach. And I think our abstract inductive reasoning task order is a good example of this. Traditional assessments like this, typically multiple choice, you select from one of multiple options, which is the correct answer.
Robert: And by the way, one of those is meant to be a distractor, which I always find annoying because I always get caught out by the distractor.
Luke: Yeah, you can do a lot of fancy things with which distractors are there and whatnot. But well, the problem with multiple choice in this context is that… There's a large literature out there that shows things like people using different strategies to complete these tasks. So you can complete that task in one of two ways. You can look at the multiple choice questions, sorry, the distractors in an attempt to figure out which one is the right one. Or you can look at the puzzle and figure out what rules are determining the answer. That latter point is actually the one that we want to tap into more. It's the more sort of valid approach to the measurement of inductive reasoning in this context. And so for us, the solution was simple, to use what is referred to as a construction task, which allows people to actually fill in the puzzle the way in which they see fit.
And it might seem like a simple change, but I think it really highlights some of the advantages of this sort of new approach, because all of a sudden, everybody has to use the same strategy. So it's actually more valid than a multiple choice questionnaire. You have people, so it's not as working memory dependent because now you're constructing the task as you see fit, rule by rule, element by element, you don't have to hold it all in your head at once. And you also get better data. So rather than what used to be a binary zero, one, did you get it right in the time or not? It's a distribution of responses. Some people, if there are 10 possible correct responses to an item.
Some people will get 10, lots of people get five, but you won't get zeros. You get a distribution of responses to each item. That's really interesting for us because it gives us richer data with which we can potentially extract more insights about people. And it has lots of interesting future implications because there's also a lot of research out there that shows that different rules and the extent to which, well, the preference that people might show towards particular rules might be an individual difference that is worth exploring. And so there's, I think this just illustrates that by taking the task-based approach, you can start to do things that are difficult to do if you sort of stay in a traditional world.
Robert: Yes, no, I really like that. And the bit that I remember when you and the team were first sort of presenting this as a way forward that I really liked was that it's effectively like we've done in education for some time, which is looking at people's workings out and giving them credit for the way that they come to an answer and as you say, construct or build that answer rather than just that binary, did they get it right or wrong within that timeframe? And if they just ran out of time by a fraction and then they get zero, you've just missed out a load of data about that person that they were pretty close to it and they're not being given one of the highlights is being able to get a measurement of intelligence that was task-based and move away completely from the old format.
So an exciting development. And I know that there are other areas that you're looking at maybe just quickly because I know we're coming to the end of our time here, but you're interested in, I know, implicit learning too and other ways that we use our intelligence, I suppose, to… you know, acquire skills or perform in the workplace.
Luke: Yeah, yeah, that's a particular interest of mine at the moment. Again, an advantage of the task-based approach, when we say we wanna measure something, we don't just say, what has everyone else done? We get to say, well, why is that thing predictive? And so with cognitive ability, we did do some rethinking and we've gone down that path and we continue to go down that path. But we also say, okay, well, why is cognitive ability something that is interesting in the workplace? And...
the literature's clear, it's because it's a proxy for learning ability. Right. And because we're in the task-based world, we don't simply say, let's do a survey item that measures learning agility. We say, right, how do we build a task that measures individual differences in the ability to learn? And implicit learning is sort of the current world in which we're trying to build.
Robert: I'd like just to end up with something that's always been really important to me and interesting when Safe and I set up Arctic Shores right at the beginning, nobody was giving candidate feedback automatically after they completed assessment. I still tell people that and they find that extraordinary because now everybody does it. But when Safe and I started, if you wanted to get a feedback from doing a psychometric assessment, you had to be sat in front of somebody who had been certified by that psychometric provider and it had to be done face to face because the language in it was so confusing or academically driven that they felt only a trained person could possibly A, interpret it and B, then explain it to the average person.
So Safe and I just said well that's mad, why do we just make the language simpler and help people understand it in a way that they're much more comfortable with, and then give everybody feedback that doesn't require training. So how have we evolved that too, and what does the new framework mean for that? Because giving people feedback about where they, you know, have good skill enablers and where things that, you know, that they feel they understand about themselves, that they can help in their career journey, for me is an incredibly important part of our work. So...I know you've been working on this, Sanchia, so what changes have we done?
Sanchia: Yeah, so I'm very passionate about our candidate feedback, and it's something like you've said, I've been working on over the last couple of months around the new skill enablers. I think it's really interesting to compare our type of feedback that we give with maybe other providers as well. Thinking of self-report, again, it's all based on self-insight, your perception of yourself and how you've responded in that assessment then will reflect the feedback that you get.
So I think it's very easy then to miss out on really important things about yourself that maybe you don't even recognise in yourself because the feedback can be quite subjective in that sense. So I think with the nature of our tasks, because we're able to give a bit more of an objective view of a person, we can make that feedback really valuable, I hope, to all candidates to then maybe realise potential in areas that they were not aware of to then aid their development. I think..
part of understanding yourself more is so critical in then harnessing that flourishing in something you're really good at, or maybe something that you might take a very different approach, just recognizing that and then thinking, okay, how can I use this in the best way? So I think through our feedback, we've tried again not to categorize people as good at something, bad at something. I think that's just not very helpful for anyone. So instead, we've tried to recognize that, you know, there is individual differences. People do take a different approach to things.
and providing feedback that is constructive. If someone has taken a very different approach, giving some tips on how they can utilise that better, where someone is thriving and it's a strength, it might be an untapped strength that they're not aware of, giving a few tips on how that might play out in more applied behaviours that they might recognise that they do in the workplace or even in their everyday lives. So I think...
our main goal is to help candidates realize their potential and maybe even pursue careers that they might never have thought of. Not that our feedback is career focused, but I think it's so applicable across different contexts when you read through the feedback. If we're saying that someone is really great at, I don't know, problem solving, you're really good at interpreting data, I think you can take that and then think, okay, I'm really good at this thing let me have a look at some careers that, you know, where this is really valuable, yeah, and this is a requirement. So I really hope that the feedback that we've provided will support candidates in that professional development journey and personal development journey as well. I'm sure it will, Sanjia, and all the more so for the careful thought that you've put into it as well. Well.
Thank you both. It's been fascinating talking to you. Lots of great insights in there and been really brilliant understanding all the careful thought and hard work that you've put into this new very exciting model, the Skill Enablers that we've got coming out. And it'll be interesting to see what the next decade brings for Arctic Shores. But thank you both.