Skill For Profiling Potential Recruits?

[JCurwen3]

What skill is used for profiling which individuals out of a pool of potential recruits are most mentally and emotionally fit for a particular position?

For instance, a crime boss or warlord might seek people that are extremely loyal and utterly amoral (willing to rip babies apart if ordered or if it serves their boss). Or a school admininstrator seeking a particularly empathic, sympathetic, sensitive, approacable nurse or guidance counselor.

I thought Psychology, but wasn't sure. Any penalty to the roll, whatever skill it is? Thoughts on what kind of technique for said skill is fair and makes sense?

* I looked through Social Engineering but only found stuff about finding and hiring recruits, not hand-picking the most well-suited ones.

[Aneirin]

Could have the interview technique (just made it up!), defaults to administration at -2 or -4. I.e., adminstration (school), a principal should have a good school and be able to interview.

A war lord may not be as good at adminstration (rag tag army) and not as able to pick people out.

This would mean that people interviewing for one job would have difficulty interviewing for another (as they don't know what is required) and it would default to other jobs at anywhere from 0 to -8.

It would work like fast talk or diplomacy, giving a good reaction bonus, meaning they are more willing to impart truthful information, failure leads to a bad reaction (they lie or become nervous and don't tell you anything) or if you rely on reaction bonuses, could be randomn whether they lie, don't tell you what you want or tell the truth. A warlord may have rather bad reaction penalties as well! (if he is ugly scarred with a reputation as a sadist) meaning people will say what they think he wants to hear or be scared and forget to mention their good points.

Detect lies would be helpful as well to weed out the liars. And psychology could give you a bonus to your interview roll.

A critical success at interviewing gives you their disadvantages, advantages and 3 highest skills.

Or maybe treat the technique as a supporting skill, rolling it gives you a bonus to subsequent fast talk, diplomacy, intimidate to find out if they are any good or not.

Most would be just coming up with reaction results. i.e.

disastrous:- interviewee breaks under pressure, either sobs uncontrollably (if not suited) or gets fed up and storms outthe interview (if skilled). none will take the job if offered.
Very bad:- interviewee doesn't like you, will lie if unskilled, if skilled, will not advertise himself and wont be willing to say his good points as he does not want it. If offered will refuse the job. Unskilled will only take if paid more. permanent -4 reaction penalty.
Bad:- interviewee doesn't like you, will lie if unskilled, if skilled, will not advertise himself and wont be willing to say his good points as he does not want it. If offered will be reluctant to take on job unless paid more. Unskilled will do it at pay price. Both will have a permanent -2 reaction penalty (first impressions)
Neutral:- Interviewee may exagerate the truth if not the best for the job, those that are the best won't flaunt it (unless it is a very good job or jobs are hard to come by) and may appear just as suitable as those who exagerate, detect lies will assist in finding out. If offered will take the job
Good:- Interviewee reacts well. Feels guilty about lyeing (or else doesn't think he can get away with it as you appear to be good at interviewing!) and will try to be honest with less embellishment. Best candidates will advertise and more likely to appear better. All take the job.
Very good:- As above, but with a +2 reaction/loyalty bonus.
Exceptional:- As above, but they clamber for the job willing to do it for less pay!

[whswhs]

If what you're trying for is to get people who know the skills, you want to roll against the skill, I think. But if you want to get people who have the right mindset to be good workers . . . the core skills for managers and supervisors are Administration, Leadership, or Teaching, and I'd say either of the first two would be applicable. You might be able to use Psychology (Applied) as a complementary skill.

Bill Stoddard

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by whswhs

If what you're trying for is to get people who know the skills, you want to roll against the skill, I think. But if you want to get people who have the right mindset to be good workers . . . the core skills for managers and supervisors are Administration, Leadership, or Teaching, and I'd say either of the first two would be applicable. You might be able to use Psychology (Applied) as a complementary skill.

Bill Stoddard

Interesting. I always thought that Psychology (Applied) would be the primary skill, since it is used
'to predict the
general behavior of an individual or
small group in a particular situation'. And of course Body Language, because it can substitute for Empathy.

And of course Intuition is a good trait to use when you have X candidate and need to pick one (or several) out of them, without having a way to know which ones can cause trouble or be good for your cause.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Interesting. I always thought that Psychology (Applied) would be the primary skill,

Agreed. I'd think that selecting psychologically fit recruits is a facet of Psychology (Applied) and ought to be available as an optional specialisation for that skill.

Human resource managers learn Administration, Leadership, Psychology (Applied: Optional Specialisation: Human Resource Managment) and Teaching as their primary skills, with some specialising in one or more of these. Many of them are not particularly good at any of them, but that is mostly because they are very hard to test against or even estimate relative skill level by people who don't have them.

Perks like One-Trick Wonder and Hyperspecialisation are applicable for top-tier scientists or businessmen who are good at selecting their teams, but not particularly apt otherwise in reading people or predicting their performance ahead of time.

And as always when modelling real life, most people have some of their GURPS skills as Optional Specialisations relating to their particular professional field, not as the unrealistically broad 'adventurer ready' skills in the Basic Set. Yes, Leadership covers both managing a team of fractious research-scientists and motivating new recruits to fight in the rank and file of pikemen, but that doesn't mean that every person who can do one of these is going to be just as good at the other task.

[SonofJohn]

To judge proffience in a skill, is only acomplishable by knowing the skill in question. No psychologist how skilled ever can judge the the scientific skills of a chemist with out knowing chemistry, physical skills and combat skills may be an exception, they can only determined by physical demostration. Psychology maybe applieable for a few social skills and personell disadvantages.

The judgement of things like university degrees and letters of recomendation could be handled by either knowlege of the issuing person or institution (a broad knowlege of these things maybe part of the speciallisation administration: acessment) orknowlege of the subculture that exist around a skill wich comes imo with the skill (being a swordsmen will give you knowlege about swordmasters for a example).

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by SonofJohn

To judge proffience in a skill, is only acomplishable by knowing the skill in question. No psychologist how skilled ever can judge the the scientific skills of a chemist with out knowing chemistry, physical skills and combat skills may be an exception, they can only determined by physical demostration. Psychology maybe applieable for a few social skills and personell disadvantages.

Psychology can't tell someone's skill level, but I don't see how Administration can tell someone's future behaviour, mindset and the like. Psychology is the skill for figuring how a person will behave.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by SonofJohn

To judge proffience in a skill, is only acomplishable by knowing the skill in question. No psychologist how skilled ever can judge the the scientific skills of a chemist with out knowing chemistry, physical skills and combat skills may be an exception, they can only determined by physical demostration. Psychology maybe applieable for a few social skills and personell disadvantages.

It can't tell you exact skill level, but it's good for telling a lot of things that correlate with high skill levels at things, such as the work ethic, willpower, reasoning ability, intellectual flexibility and dedication of the person.

When recruiting supposedly elite people for jobs that require not only particular skills, but also psychological fitness, large organisations with plenty of money usually employ a combination of people with much the same skill set to test their skill levels and psychologists (whether formally trained or just experienced at that aspect of Psychology skill) to evaluate their mental suitability.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by JCurwen3

What skill is used for profiling which individuals out of a pool of potential recruits are most mentally and emotionally fit for a particular position?

Psychology springs to mind and has already been mentioned.

Detect Lies might work if you're looking for honesty.

Administration might work if you're just shuffling through resumes.

Leadership might include some ability to judge a person's likely character under stress.

Other than that, roll against the prerequisite skill for the job - Teaching to choose teachers, Streetwise to choose thugs, etc.

Obviously, advantages like Talent, Empathy and Intuition all help.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Psychology springs to mind and has already been mentioned.

Detect Lies might work if you're looking for honesty.

Administration might work if you're just shuffling through resumes.

Leadership might include some ability to judge a person's likely character under stress.

Other than that, roll against the prerequisite skill for the job - Teaching to choose teachers, Streetwise to choose thugs, etc.

I'd largely agree with those choices, with a few extra notes:

• If it's mental and emotional suitability (lack of disruptive mental disadvantages) that you seek, or if you're trying to identify an aptitude (presence of a Talent), then Psychology is definitely the front-line skill. It's the poster child for developing aptitude tests, intelligence tests, personality inventories, etc.
  
  
• I might allow Teaching to assess aptitudes (Talents), but none of the rest. An important role of any trained teacher is recognizing students' gifts. Not being able to do this is a hallmark of somebody who is assigned to teach but not a properly schooled teacher.
  
  
• Leadership would be useful for determining "Will this person fit into the team?" and "Will this person obey orders?" It wouldn't test for specific traits, just deliver Y/N answers to those specific questions. It may well reveal relevant Code of Honor, Fanaticism, and Sense of Duty traits, though.
  
  
• The specific job skill sought is essential if you're trying to assess training (points in skill) rather than aptitude (Talent) in an interview or a test. A psychologist or a teacher could tell you "This guy is good at math," but not, "This guy is an above-average particle physicist."
  
  
• Administration really isn't the go-to skill here if you're directly interacting with the candidate. It's the skill of checking references, reading résumés, and going through the reports of people with the above skills. If several of mental suitability, broad aptitude, team compatibility, potential loyalty, and specific training are desired, then this would become the primary skill used, as long as the interviewers had those other skills.

Detect Lies is a bit of an odd man out. Any direct interviewer using Leadership, Psychology, Teaching, or a specific job skill could roll against Detect Lies to determine whether they're getting the truth or a ruse, but I don't think it would be useful all on its own. If you're trying to assess general truthfulness ("Does this person have Compulsive Lying or Truthfulness, and if so, at what level? Does he have Easy to Read? None of the above?"), then that's still Psychology.