executive briefing (white paper) - invite change in most things naturally and those who don’t....

Executive Memorandum Taylor Protocols 1

Executive Memorandum

THE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE CORE VALUES INDEX™ AND THE

TAYLOR PROTOCOLS™ FOR AUTOMATED PRE-EMPLOYMENT PRIORITIZATION

OF FUTURE TOP PERFORMERS FOR BUSINESS OPTIMIZATION

By

Lynn E. Taylor, President

Taylor Protocols Inc.


CONTENTS

THEORY AND RESEARCH ................................................................................................................. 3

The Individual .......................................................................................................................... 4

The Organization ..................................................................................................................... 7

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CVI ........................................................................................................ 11

LONGITUDINAL STUDIES ............................................................................................................... 14

Effectiveness of the Taylor Protocols Pattern Identification and Pattern Matching

Algorithms— ......................................................................................................................... 14

Foundational Premises Derived from Research Projects ..................................................... 16

Top Performers Have Unique Core Values Energies –.......................................................... 19

Test Retest Reliability Validation by Third Party Analysts .................................................... 22

Methodology for the Twenty Year Research Project ........................................................... 23

ROI Analysis of People in a same position in a given company ............................................ 26

Longitudinal Study – APPLICATION AND RESULTS ............................................................... 28

SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 40


THEORY AND RESEARCH

There is a major trend occurring in business that is attracting the attention of researchers in the

field of Organizational Psychology: Simultaneously, organizations and individuals are

demanding more from each other. Organizations are demanding higher productivity and

performance while individuals are demanding greater purpose and personal growth and

fulfillment in their work.

Are these goals opposed? The research says that they are not. And this Executive Memorandum

provides significant evidence in support of this claim.

Most research has addressed this issue from two vantage points:

1. From the vantage point of the individual

2. From the vantage point of the organization


THE INDIVIDUAL

Abraham Maslow, a respected research psychologist who dedicated his life to the study of

“peak experience” said this about human talents:

“Capacities are clamoring to be used, and cease their clamor only when they are well used. Not

only is it fun to use our capacities, but it is necessary for growth. The unused skill or capacities

can become a disease center or else atrophy, or disappear, thus diminishing the person.”

Arguably the most prolific researcher of work and life satisfaction -- FLOW -- over the last three

decades, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi summarized his work by saying:

”…there is ample evidence that work can be enjoyable, and indeed, it is often the most

enjoyable part of life.”

Csikszentmihalyi developed the term “flow” to describe what he and Maslow observed in

individuals who become so absorbed in their work that they lose complete track of time and

“self” to concentrate effortlessly and productively on their work. Some researchers have named

this phenomenon “vital engagement”.

Workers, especially younger ones, are becoming increasingly intolerant of workplaces that fail

to recognize the importance of their need to experience their jobs as meaningful. They want to

feel as though they are making a significant contribution to something greater than themselves.

The conclusion of many of these researchers is that this vital engagement can be taught

through ways of interacting with the tasks that are being required. Although people generally

believe that training can help, Taylor Protocols disagrees that people are divided into those who

engage in most things naturally and those who don’t.

Taylor Protocols Client Validation Study

In longitudinal studies of human capital audits in 367 key functional positions in 133 companies,

those individuals who were identified as low performers and who also had a significantly

different core values profile were offered jobs in the same company that more closely matched

their core values. Top Performers in the jobs they were offered had been profiled also. A

success rate of greater than 85% was achieved—meaning the D performance individuals who


accepted the new better core values energy-aligned jobs were consistently rated as a good or

strong employee in their new positions.

This work involved the full methodologies of the Taylor Protocols Top Performer Profile™ and

pre-employment prioritization of the Core Values Index™ automated hiring software solutions.

In direct individual conversation interviews, each client was asked the following questions,

three weeks past the hiring date and again at 90 days past the date of hire:

Is George (subject employee) performing well?

Is this performance equal to your A and B performers in this position?

Is he doing the activities that were identified as crucial in the TPP job description process?

Is he getting the results or progress you expect from measuring other A and B performers?

We believe that because of this study Taylor Protocols has identified an important missing piece

of evidence. Most people are capable of experiencing “vital engagement”, but only in positions

in which there is a significant match between: 1) The individual’s core values nature™ (core

motivational drivers and value based energy capacities) and, 2) The human energy that is

required to perform the actual tasks that are required in a given position in order for success to

be achieved.

When individuals receive training that reinforces their natural connection (engagement) with

the job, the training is useful, increasing the conscious and subconscious connection.

Unconscious connection is deemed to occur when an individual exhibits engaged behaviors and

describes themselves as being engaged in the work of their jobs, but the individual cannot

describe why the engagement is occurring.

When training is applied to persons for whom there is little or negligible connection between

the work of their jobs and their core values, then the training experience demotivates.

Individuals with strong self-esteem are given clear evidence that the job just doesn’t fit them.

These people quickly move on to other positions, seeking a better alignment between the job

tasks and their core values, usually without knowing how to cause this alignment, without know

where in the world they belong.


Individuals with low self-esteem tend to remain in their current position until their employment

is terminated, all the while receiving a constant message that they are not good employees,

that they are failing, and that they cannot even be trained to do a better job.

It is critical then, that all individuals placed into training programs by their employees must set

up the following inter-related fundamentals: 1) Each individual must take the Core Values

Index™, which is the most repeat-score reliable instrument known and is therefore able to

claim that it measures the individual’s innate unchanging Core Values Nature™; 2) The job of

each person must be carefully designed and precisely described in human energy terms at the

task level, percentage of a person’s day-- that may be correlated to the Core Values Index™

scores of the individuals in training; and 3) The curriculum for each training session should be

tuned to the core values based learning styles of the strongest performing individuals in each

position so that high level engagement and highest achievable learning may be realized.


THE ORGANIZATION

Multiple studies in this field clearly demonstrate that the well-being of the employee is in the

best interest of the organization. To be more specific, research from a variety of sources has

uncovered a strong correlation between individual job satisfaction and job performance.

The question is “How can job satisfaction be improved”?

Authors (Harter, Schmidt, and Keyes) who summarize the research say,

“Most employees have a need to contribute to an organization….In most situations, their needs

and that of the organization can be filled simultaneously…the most important element of this

contribution is …does the individual employee have an opportunity to do what they do best in

their current roles?”

Taylor Protocols adds to this summary that the most important and often completely ignored

issue is whether the individual is applying his or her skills, talents, competencies, knowledge,

energy, passions and interests, in a job that makes the kind of contribution to the company –

and through the company to society – that honors and needs the kind of core values energies

that comprise the essential innate human nature that exists in the person.

Without the CVI and the Taylor Protocols TPP processes, this judgment can only be made by the

individual themselves and is often made at the non-conscious level. By injecting the CVI and the

TPP hiring process into the picture, the existence of a strong match between the energies that

exist in the individual, and the human energies needed in the fulfillment of job functions and

tasks can be placed into significant alignment. The CVI and the Taylor Protocols TPP processes

then, offer the most objective scrutiny of the existence of this match, requiring objective

metrics regarding outcome and task activities and accurate measure of the essential

unchanging nature in each individual. This allows performance based metrics to be equated to

specific core values energies that exist at measured relative levels of capacities in the

individuals who are doing the greater portion of the work accomplished in a given position.

Studies have consistently documented the benefit of selecting the right people for the right job.

With the labor shortage forecast to continue for at least the next decade and with the

enormous weight of responsibility being placed on the modern day “knowledge worker”, this

alignment between task and employee has never been more important. There is strong


evidence revealed through the Taylor Protocols 20 year research project that individuals with

the same skills, talents, IQ, and experience of top performers in a given job but with misaligned

core values, often perform at lower levels than the A and B players in a given position,

especially when performance is measured six months or longer past the date of hire.

Harter (et.al.) ended their summary of all the available research in this area by saying “The data

indicate that workplaces with engaged employees, on average, do a better job of keeping

employees, satisfying customers, and being financially productive and profitable.”

The Taylor Protocols longitudinal study presented in this Executive Memorandum further

validates the fact of these previously surmised benefits of employee engagement in their work.

The results of Taylor Protocols compilation of A,B,C,D performance levels of an employee

population of 134,526 individuals within 133 companies has also demonstrated the seemingly

universal reality that the Wilfredo Paredo principle (80/20 principle) is persistently observable

in a broad range of companies and a broad range of job positions.

So the question arises: How does the employer improve the chances of choosing an engaged

employee in the hiring process? Or, how can you best ensure alignment between the job task

requirements and what the employee does most naturally? What is the best practice standard,

repeatable process and application of right tools for the consistent selection of future top

performers for a given position?

As you might imagine, there is great interest in attempting to hire for this “best fit”. But few if

any organizations do it well.

Management guru Peter Drucker says of hiring:

“No other decisions are so long lasting in their consequence or so difficult to unmake. And yet,

by in large, executives make poor promotion and staffing decisions. By all accounts their batting

average is no better than .33: at most one-third of such decisions turn out right; one third are

minimally effective; and one-third are out right failures”.

He continues; “Of all the decisions … none is as important as the decisions about people

because they determine the performance capacity of an organization. Therefore, I’d better

make these decisions well.”


Taylor Protocols, in its deployment of its Human Capital Audit work that has lead to the Top

Performance Profile Processes for more than 112,164 individuals, has demonstrated this reality

again, showing (See the Pie Chart on page 25) 7% A Performers, 15% B Performers, 51% C

performers and 27% D performers. A consistent attitude of managers is the disappointment

that occurs when each realizes one more time they have hired another C or D performer for the

job position in question.

The most common method of selection accomplished without the CVI and the Taylor Protocols

enterprise software solution is measuring for traits such as motivation, drive, willingness to

learn, leadership, etc. Although this method of selection has demonstrated some benefits in

contrast to having no screening process there are several problems with this model.

The first problem is that this strategy doesn’t fit the theory built on the available research. That

is, using the above strategy doesn’t help place an individual into a job where they are engaged

long-term or more precisely where they can make their highest and best contribution. The

second and related problem is that these gold standard personality assessments from the last

century are designed to measure surface (behavioral) traits. Surface traits (usually self-

reported) are those traits that change from moment to moment and from job to job, depending

on whether the employee is engaged.

Even Dogs Have Right Roles in Life

Imagine that you’re in need of a good duck retrieval dog for duck hunting. Now imagine that

everyone believes that all dogs are basically the same. That any dog can do anything if trained

and motivated correctly.

You would probably go to a kennel and ask for a dog who was intelligent, willing to learn, and

could swim. Now imagine the kennel owner saying, ‘We have a German shepherd who has

been tested to possess all of the traits that you are looking for. In fact, he was trained as a

guard dog in less than three days. This little fella, is a quick learner, is committed to what you

teach him, and loves to do what is asked of him. By the way, he’s a great leader too. He’s what

we call an alpha dog. He’ll be a leader, in whatever he does. I’m certain that he’ll be easy to

train as a duck retriever.”

You can imagine what happens. You know that no matter how much drive, energy or discipline

that a German shepherd might have, they will never make a reliable water retrieval dog. It’s not


their instinct. They’re not wired for it. Frustration, disappointment and very poor team work

between owner and shepherd is the predictable outcome of this doomed relationship.

Now imagine someone approaching you and saying, I have a puppy that I’m selling that is called

a Labrador. I don’t know if she’s smart or willing to learn, but she seems to like water. In fact

she seems to be attracted to water. And get this, this dog will jump in the water and retrieve

duck-size objects all day long.

Of course the Labrador will be the higher performer. Why? Because she’s born to have an urge

to do what you’re asking her to do. And because of this, she will be fully engaged in the task.

She will be content in being absorbed in the task for longer periods of time. She will remain

focused on the activities without constant discipline and control efforts from her duck hunter

owner. And because of this engagement both she and the owner will form a partnership of

mutual respect and reciprocal contribution.


A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CVI

Over the course of 23 years consulting and serving as a titular CEO, primarily with organizations

that were in need of a major turnaround, Mr. Lynn E. Taylor became intrigued with the

question of what differentiated the top performers in each position. Slowly and, at first,

informally, he began to question people about the tasks they performed and what elements in

their makeup differentiated them from those who didn’t perform well.

Interested in becoming an expert at turning around companies, he first became frustrated that

he was not good at putting right people into right jobs. This was made very apparent when a

year or two after several initial engagements and “fixing” companies financially, the same

clients began showing up again with the same basic problems. And, Taylor was more

disappointed in the new employees he had helped his clients hire, than were the clients.

Taylor became a committed researcher regarding people and how they perform best in right

positions and how to create a process and tools that consistently served to put right people into

right seats. If he couldn’t solve this problem, he would not be able to justify staying in his

currently chosen career, a turn-around manager.

The CVI is not a behavioral instrument. It captures the essential innate nature of the individual.

This moves it toward the neuroscience world, but puts the CVI in a category all its own-- the

first and only assessment that identifies and measures the unique balance of essential core

values energies that comprise the innate essentially unchanging nature of a person. This

assessment, taken by more than 500,000 individuals, has revealed the innate human operating

system, and helped Taylor see and report the internal human operating system, of which the

CVI core values energies are the core.

Many reliable and knowledgeable psychologists and PH.D. graduate educators are

acknowledging that the CVI is in the foundational position to establish the Psychology of Being

that Maslow pointed us toward in his book Toward a Psychology of Being.

The research to develop the CVI consisted of taking more than 130 different assessments, and

attempting to use a few of these instruments to make better hiring choices—the framing


question for Taylor was, “How can we consistently select future top performers for any job in

any company?”

The answer to this first review of other assessments and methods for hiring was that there was

no way to do this, or to even significantly change the human performance bell curve.

The next step was to interview more than 100 individuals who had gone through an adult

development training program in which Taylor and others had identified a central element of

their innate self, and put this new insight into words. He also gathered more than 500 individual

words, of which 7 became candidates for potential innate core values energies. Among the

hundreds of other words were strategic and tactical values/words and phrases—which began

to reveal an alignment among people who expressed their most important energy in life-- core

value energies—through tactical and strategic responses.

Taylor continued a process of repeat questioning of other participants in this adult education

curriculum, plus his own self-examination, and research of numerous other human nature

categorization systems dating back to Plato in his cave. Through these time consumptive and

extensive interactions, a system of four core values, with complementary catalytic (screening in

and out) values, plus learning styles and conflict styles and contribution drivers, began to line

up . The final step was putting four strategic and tactical words into boxes and requiring a

forced choice of two in each box. This construct was designed to keep the assessment

participants in their instinctive minds, and the brevity of the instrument to make the Core

Values Index highly practical in fast paced businesses.

The newly designed system was put directly to use in every one of Taylor’s turn-around client

companies, for every position. This work was benchmarked from a starting position, including

performance metrics for most job positions. The results for these client companies began to

exceed Taylor’s own expectation of right person right seat business development success.

Then repeat score validation. This has been completed three times with the most recent repeat

score validation process completed by Seattle Research Partners in February, 2014, which third

party validation summary is provided in complete and unedited form in this Executive

Memorandum…

Then scientific measurement of effectiveness of all words in all boxes to make sure all words in

all boxes did a good job of causing a choice to be made, and a relatively equal balance of words

aligned with all four core values…


…then redesign, then second level repeat score reliability, then repeat score reliability, then

final design, followed by collection of more than 530,000 CVI scores with random, unsolicited

repeat scores gather over ten years, for our current repeat score reliability validation by Seattle

Research Partners.

During those same fourteen years, Taylor Protocols completed hundreds of Top Performer

Profiles with more than 60,000 people to prove there are always a significant difference

between the core values energy capacities of the top performers relative to the low performers

in the same job in the same company; and to prove that our Taylor Protocols algorithms that

automatically identify future top performers, by mathematically assessing the current

employees in a given job in a given company; then using the CVI scores gathered from

individuals who were applying for employment to prioritize which individuals should be

interviewed first. See the Study Results later in this Executive Memorandum.

The Taylor Protocols research and validation processes have been accomplished over the

course of twenty-two years and include:

Test Retest Validation

Third party test retest validation at 97.7% year over year and decade over decade, 1170 CVI

scores from 760 randomly selected individuals. There was no verbal or written communication

setting people up with expectations, no preparation or formal notice of any kind. Most of the

retest participants took additional CVIs voluntarily without notice to Taylor Protocols, before

during or after taking the CVI for a second third, fourth or fifth time. No company employees or

employee family members are known to be in the CVI retest data base.

All appropriate (as described above) retests were gleaned from the data base and put into this

current test retest analysis, with the only restrictors being: at least 12 months between CVI

assessments completed by any individual, and no employees or staff of Taylor Protocols, and no

family members of the employees or staff. Some participants with a year between one CVI and

the second or third CVI assessment completed had also completed a CVI within the first 90

days, so these additional CVI records were also included in our third party test retest validation

performed by Seattle Research Partners.

Retest database, CVI retest comparisons: Study includes 39 people that took the CVI 3 times, 7

that were taken 4 times, and 1 that took the CVI 5 legitimate times. Substantially all retest CVIs

in this database were completed more than 12 months apart.


All CVI retests over all time are included here with exception of those not adhering to a

reasonable time delay, or excluded do to a relationship with employees of the Company. The

result of this retest third party validation provided conclusively a 97.7% repeat score reliability.

This level of reliability has not been achieved by any know human nature assessment. If an

instrument is achieving this high level of repeat score accuracy, it has to be measuring

something that is essentially unchanging. Any instrument that does not achieve this level of

repeat score reliability is either a less accurate and reliable instrument, or it is not measuring

the innate essentially unchanging self that Maslow identified as a universal human nature

reality.

LONGITUDINAL STUDIES

Longitudinal studies were completed in 150 client companies; direct metric measurements and

business practice observations for 1-3 years for each company, illustrating capability to

consistently double and triple the number of Top Performers in client job positions using the

Taylor Protocols™ Top Performer Profile™ development process and the automatic

identification of future top performers, by applying the pattern recognition and pattern

matching algorithms of Taylor Protocols, Inc. The results of this study are presented at the end

of this Executive Memorandum.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE TAYLOR PROTOCOLS PATTERN IDENTIFICATION AND

PATTERN MATCHING ALGORITHMS—

Characterization of Top Performers and Core Values Energy™ Differentiation from Lower

Performing Employees doing the Same Job in the Same Company

367 Top Performer Profiles in 133 corporations were completed to validate the Top Performer

Profile algorithms and scripted job descriptions, and the Taylor Protocols mathematical

processes; demonstrating the persistent existence of the Wilfredo Paredo 80/20 principle in the

companies, industries and functional positions studied. This field validation demonstrates the

efficacy of the Taylor Protocols algorithms to automatically find the ideal core values nature

(innate pattern of relative capacities of four core value energies and six types of contribution)

that clearly distinguishes the core values nature of A level performers in a given job in a given

company at a given time from the B, C and D performers in that same job role, in the same

company.


The results of this extensive research and client based business optimization services provided

by Taylor Protocols are provided in this Executive Memorandum along with descriptions of the

research and validation processes.

The Taylor Protocols technologies, Core Values Index™ Assessment and right person right job

algorithms and talent acquisition methodologies add to the general body of research and

validations regarding these core business and human effectiveness issues.

With the above knowledge, compiled data, and multiple revisions, a 10 minute forced choice

test was designed, the Core Values Index™ (CVI™). The CVI™ reliably (independent test-retest

reliability index of 97.7%) describes an individual’s unique mixture of core energy capacities.

(see Test Retest Reliability Validation, Page 21)

It is this mixture of core energies (which exist in every individual at different levels of capacity,

and different stages of life/work integrated use) that determines the types of tasks through

which an individual will contribute his core energies, and find himself engaged and flourishing;

setting each individual up to be more fulfilled on an individual level, and to be a top performer

within the organization.

What we found in Taylor’s study of more than 367 positions in 133 companies and 60,322

individual employees can be boiled down to six basic findings (Foundational Premises).


FOUNDATIONAL PREMISES DERIVED FROM RESEARCH PROJECTS

1. For every job position there is a best practice process and transactional interaction

through which the highest and best performance can be achieved. In order to achieve

optimum human performance this optimum process must be discovered, designed in,

and made sacrosanct (not changeable for individual comfort or preference, etc.).

2. Each job is therefore made up of specific and identifiable tasks with specific and

identifiable support structures that will require specific and identifiable core human

(unchanging) energies at identifiable relative capacities within the employee in order for

him/her to be consistently and naturally engaged with the work required in their

specific job within the transactional processes to which the position (individual) makes

the requisite contribution.

The right practice is to match a right person to each functional position, not change job

functions to suit individual preferences.

3. To allow intentional or unintentional individual task and process changes is to

participate in the constant degradation of the ideal job/function/task/interactive design.

This most productive and reliable process design conscribes the human energies needed

in each job, and at the relative levels of capacity of these basic human energies.

The only right way to discover these human energies requirements within a given job is

to measure and quantify (using the most objective metrics possible) the performance of

all employees who have been participating in a given job. Then the core values human

energies of people doing the work of that job in accordance with the best practices

design of the job must be measured separately in each individual at all levels of

performance.

4. All employees in this subject position must then be categorized to be operating at the A,

top performer level, or at the B, C, or D level of performance (each having met the

minimum required performance metrics produced by their work.


5. If there is an identifiable pattern of basic core values energies in the top performers,

and if there is a linear correlation between the performance levels of top to bottom

performers and the amount of difference of the CVI core values energy patterns

(relative capacities of energies) when comparing top performers to lesser performers--

then future top performers can be selected better by deducing a scientifically

reproducible core values pattern in candidates for the given position. This must be the

first step prioritization toward potential job placement (employment). This generates

the Taylor Protocols’ Top Performer Profile™ that can then be used to automatically

prioritize potential future top performers for the given position.

Note: We have been unable to find a product, a process, a methodology, a technology—not

one effective means for consistent selection of future top performers. We assert that the

Taylor Protocols automated pre-employment selection process is the first field validated

solution for right hiring, the identification of future top performers, for any job in any

industry.

6. Each individual is made up of a unique mixture of four basic core values (energy

capacities) that determine what kinds of tasks they will find naturally engaging; the

alignment of core values energies that are naturally expressed through the most

important and most time consuming tasks of the job. This is the first and presently, the

only effective match of the human energy needed in a given job with the essential

human nature energies (core values energies) in individuals who are applying for that

job.

How Did All of This Come Into Play?

Proposition: The existing employees can be assessed and a pattern matching algorithm can be

used to differentiate which mixture of core capacities is present in the top performers in a given

job in a given company.

The type and basic functionality of the algorithms deployed for this purpose by Lynn Taylor and

Taylor Protocols, Inc. were developed by Taylor in his work in the late 1970’s with Dr. Ed Geiger

of Gainesville, Florida, when Lynn guided the development of the world’s first non-invasive

cardiac output computer. The effectiveness of these algorithms were validated in studies with

dogs on treadmills, with the hearts’ pumping effectiveness measured by capture and

recirculation of the amounts of blood being pumped by the dog’s heart under various levels of

stress.


In 1983, Taylor introduced the first IBM PC compatible speech recognition system which

deployed similarly constructed algorithms to raise speech recognition accuracy from the then

current industry benchmark accuracy levels of 75% with a ten word vocabulary, to a measured

98.5% accuracy with a 500 word vocabulary, expandable with parallel processing to unlimited

vocabulary size.

The algorithms now deployed in the Taylor Protocols automatic employment pre-selection

technologies are used to automatically deduce the ideal pattern of core values energies

(relative capacities) as measured by the Core Values Index™ (CVI™). These digital pictures of the

ideal balance of core values energy are then used to screen incoming CVI™ scores from job

employment candidates, with automatic comparison with the ten fundamental scored

measurement points and within a range of variances for each measurement, which variance is

automatically deduced by the algorithm in the above described Top Performer Profile process.

The Taylor Protocols automated candidate prioritization technology finds the 3-7% of applicants

for a given job, which applicants have a close similarity to the core values energies of the

current top performers in a given job. This dramatically reduces the cost of human resources

talent acquisition processes, and consistently secures only new A and B performers for the job

position being filled.

This mixture of core capacities (or Top Performer Profile-- data driven from the pattern matching,

pattern recognition algorithm when compared with the existing talent pool) can be used to

screen in and predict, with significant consistency, which individuals will perform best and be

fully engaged by the work required in specific positions in specific organizations. This fact has

been validated in the ongoing application of the Top Performer Profile hiring process that is

active in more than 300 companies.


TOP PERFORMERS HAVE UNIQUE CORE VALUES ENERGIES –

Twenty-Year 60,000 Employee Research Project

The Core Values Index™ Research Studies of Taylor Protocols, Inc.

In conversation surveys with more than 8,000 executives in large medium and small companies

during the past two decades, Taylor Protocols has obtained anecdotal feedback that less than

10% of the executives believe that they have solved the hiring conundrum; that despite any

uses of assessments, improvements in hiring processes and classical job descriptions, the

Wilfredo Paredo 80/20 principle continues to exist in every position in every company, large or

small.

In a twenty year 60,000 person study Taylor Protocols conducted a tightly scripted job

description, deducing best objective metrics for measuring performance of individuals in a

given job, facilitating the client in the categorization of all of the employees in the given job as

A,B,C, or D performers by objective measurements of outputs only.

These 8000 interviewed executives (see above) also tended to express disbelief or skepticism

that there can or will ever be a solution to the single most frustrating challenge for executives,

the identification of future top performers.

In its work, Taylor Protocols has also gathered evidence that debunks the myth that people who

are low performers in a given job are low performers because of one or several of the following

reasons:

o Bad attitude

o Weak talents and skills

o Poor work ethics

o Poor work disciplines or practices

o Personality issues

o Lower IQ than higher performers in the

same role

o Inadequate or non-existent education

o Inadequate or non-existent training in

the essential work of the position

o Social emotional immaturity

o Social dysfunctions such as alcoholism,

drug addiction

o Wrong generation (age)

o Technology ignorance

o Technology addictions- texting,

Tweeting, gambling, playing games, etc.


Taylor found that if we put a wrong person in a job that is not matched with his or her innate

human energies, the above list of negative evaluations about the individual are highly likely to

be made a reality. Wrong jobs create low caliber human interaction.

While there may be example individuals whose behaviors and performance seem to support

one or more of the above myths, regarding a given performer in a given job, Taylor Protocols

has routinely in hundreds of companies repositioned persons who were low performers in one

specific job, into a different new job position in which the core values energies of the top

performers were more closely matched with the repositioned person.

This has yielded consistent evidence that the above observable personal attitudes and

behaviors are more often caused by a person having been hired into a job that doesn’t need the

unique cores values pattern of energies in the person. In other words, more often than not, the

observable poor behaviors and attitudes, or judged poor levels of competencies of poor

performers, is predominantly caused by putting a person in a wrong position, not a result of a

basic immaturity, lower intelligence level, low skills competency or poor work ethic.

The common attitude of hiring managers is that individuals who prove to be low performers in

a given job are low caliber human beings. It’s always gratifying and amazing to watch when low

performers in one job are repositioned correctly (core values energies match necessary job task

energies)—They rise to high performance much faster than expected and suddenly they are

judged to be and they realize that they are really high quality humans.

As you absorb the processes and results of the Taylor Protocols twenty year study, you will see

the consistent reduction or destruction of the above myths about why people are low

performers. In the turnaround work that Taylor Protocols performed over twenty years with

more than 200 companies, the company leaders had the opportunity and need to move people

in a failing company from one position to another, or to purify the tasks and responsibilities of a

desk, in order to achieve the financially required level of performance (productivity) of the work

force.

Due to the fact that most of those clients were in a failed position at the beginning of each

client relationship, the TP turnaround clients had to achieve significantly greater productivity

and profits than less stressed businesses— These failed and at risk businesses had

extraordinary levels of debt, and a need for critical personnel who were necessarily required to

be 2X-3X more profitable than industry averages in order for the company to just survive and

work its way out of the distressed position.


Taylor Protocols has gathered evidence in its twenty year research of businesses and the hiring

and retention of future top performers in business that illustrates that the Wilfredo Paredo

principle (80/20 Rule) is still the overarching norm for seemingly all types of business. Except

where the Core Values Index and the Taylor Protocols methodologies and scientific

technologies have been deployed, Taylor Protocols has been unable to identify even one

situation (job position) wherein this is not the case.

Over the course of two decades Taylor Protocols has worked with 133 clients to develop more

than 367 Top Performer Profiles for positions that have a combined employee base of more

than 60,000 individuals. Taylor Protocols’ Top Performer Profiles are now being used to identify

future top performers for each employment position from the numerous candidates who apply

for the job.

Necessary Methods for Acquisition of Future Top Performers

Taylor Protocols’ methodology for completion of this 20 year research project required each

client company to complete a Taylor Protocols facilitated job description a human energy-based

job description, which was then used to identify various performance levels of all of the

individuals in a specific job position in the client company. The rating process guided clients to

determine right objective metrics for pure performance-based ratings similar to most U.S.

school systems (A, B, C, and D levels of performance).

Taylor Protocols used its Core Values Index™, a revolutionary new human nature assessment

that accurately identifies and quantifies the relative capacity an individual has for four

fundamental human energies and six types of contribution. The 97.7% repeat score reliability

of the CVI™ makes it the only instrument that can and should be used in a technology that

prioritizes candidates for a given job prior to an interview.


TEST RETEST RELIABILITY VALIDATION BY THIRD PARTY ANALYSTS

The older gold standard behavioral instruments have repeat score reliability of less than 75%

generally, and then only if taken the second time within 90 days of the first completed

assessment. The Taylor Protocols Core Values Index™ has now been validated to exceed 97.7%

repeat score reliability year over year and decade over decade (See the attached third party

reliability study performed by Seattle Research Partners). 1170 repeat CVI records (from 760

individuals) have been accumulated by Taylor Protocols, making this validation process one of

the most extensive ever conducted. 47 individuals took the CVI more than twice with some

taking it five times over the course of 22 years.

The Taylor Protocols Core Values Index™ has a built‐in statistical variance which is about 2.6%.

Previous

Current


METHODOLOGY FOR THE TWENTY YEAR RESEARCH PROJECT

In order to complete their part of the assignment, Taylor Protocols client companies

categorized all of the people in each job as A, B, C, and D performers. In order to accomplish

this task the hiring manager, the executive above the hiring manager, an A player in the role,

and the assigned Human Resources manager were guided through a one hour job description

process.

The primary contributions of the job were identified, plus the prioritized responsibilities and

assignments that cause the contributions to be realized. Then the tasks were examined

(percentage of the worker’s day) that are required to fulfill the responsibilities in order to

create the contribution.

Definitions of the three work elements in the Taylor Protocols Job Description Process

Primary Contribution™ – The measurable benefit that is derived from a person achieving an A

level performance in this specific job position; the nature of the benefit and the dollar value of

that benefit contributed by one A level person. The Primary Contribution has nothing to do with

the individual in the position, or who is a candidate for the position. This first, most important

job description issue establishes the expected return on investment to be achieved by

employees who fill the position, while also establishing the primary metrics that will be used to

measure ultimate performance of each person in the position.


Responsibilities, Functions and Assignments – These important job descriptors act as a unifying

purpose for each portion of the employee’s work in the subject position. All are identified, then

prioritized based upon which responsibilities most cause the Primary Contribution to be

realized.

Tasks – The tasks required to fulfill the responsibilities are then enumerated, carefully grouping

all of the same tasks together to derive a percentage of the A players’ day. In other words some

tasks are done in fulfillment of all or several responsibilities. The framing question is this:

Where is this person most of the time during an average work day, and what tools,

environments and individuals are with the individual or connected to the individual as they

perform their tasks?

Note: Many times during this job description process the facilitator discovers that there are

one or more tasks, functions or responsibilities that are accepted currently as part of the

subject job functions, but which do not serve to achieve ultimate fulfillment of the Primary

Contribution. These tasks that are misaligned with the primary contribution that justifies the

job are usually also misaligned at the core values level.

A specialization and splitting off of these non-aligned tasks and responsibilities is often the

right solution for achieving a tight job description, a right design of the job which ensures that

an individual with specific core values energies is fully endowed to perform successfully and

with full engagement.

“This allowed our clients to identify the most critical metrics that led to clarity about which

individuals were A, B, C, or D performers in the position. These metrics then were used by all

managers to categorize the performance of the individuals in that position,” according to Lynn

E. Taylor, President of Taylor Protocols and creator of the Core Values Index™.

All of the people in each position are given a Core Values Index to complete in less than ten

minutes. The receipt by Taylor Protocols of these two sets of data about the individuals in the

given position in a given company, are then fed into the pattern recognition and pattern

matching algorithms of Taylor Protocols. The core values based top performer profile for each

company’s given position is automatically determined by this process.

The pie chart below illustrates the results of this 20 year study that captured the relative

number of individuals who were rated by the several hundred companies that participated in

this research project.


In this work 134,527 individuals were rated by performance and Core Values Index scores were

also collected for 60,332 of these people. In some of the larger companies small sample groups

of several hundred individuals were used to develop a statistical norm for the larger population

of individuals in the same position. The client companies in these cases made the judgment that

the job descriptions and the methods for performing the jobs were reasonably represented by

the sample group.

This chart shows that the Wilfredo Pareto principle is alive and well in all of the positions

researched and in all of the industries in which companies participated. The research illustrates

the reality that the top performers (A and B performers) in each position were typically less

than 22% of the population in that job role. This indicates that about 78% of all people in any

given position in any company are not making as strong a contribution as the A and B

performers.

“In addition to the A,B,C,D performance ratings illustrated by the Pie Chart above,” Taylor

claims, “we had the opportunity and the pain in our turn-around management work to witness

the effects of some job terminations in about 10% of our client companies.”


ROI ANALYSIS OF PEOPLE IN A SAME POSITION IN A GIVEN COMPANY

Company Name:

Contact:

Phone:

Email:

Top Performer Position #1

Total Employees in

position: 27

Annual Cost Annual Contribution

Per Player Per Player

# A Players 4 $130,000 $1,600,000

# B Players 6 $85,000 $1,200,000

# C Players 12 $70,000 $800,000

# D Players 5 $65,000 $600,000

Total: 27

Total Annual Contribution for this position: $26,200,000

Total Contribution (A & B Players Only): $13,600,000 52%

Number of A & B players needed to produce current Annual Contribution: 19

Current Annual Pre-Tax Profit WASTED on un-needed employees: $541,471

What would the Total Annual Contribution for this position be with the

Same number of employees but

only A & B players? $36,720,000 40%

Questions to wrestle with…

Are you more inclined as a company to reduce cost, or pursue increased capacity to increase profit?

How much un-needed waste and increased capacity opportunity dollars would become pre-tax profit?

Copyright Taylor Protocols, Inc. 1999 - 2011

Taylor Protocols uses a very simple Excel spreadsheet to illustrate the ROI of the people in a

given job in a given company. You will see in the ROI example above the individuals rated by

their companies as A and B performers, consistently produced most of the dollar value of the


work product of the position. The C and D performers contributed a much lower per person

productivity. Sometimes the total population of C and D performers was actually producing

more absolute value than the A and B performers, but with far more people and with a far

greater cost.

Taylor explained, “We learned from this research that presence of D performers in any position

actually subtracts overall productivity of the total group. In our work as turn-around

management, we sometimes had to cut costs and jobs significantly in order to save the

company. When this was done, there was often too little time to do anything except identify

the D performers and terminate the employment of these people. When this was a

requirement, we realized an unexpected benefit. The absolute productive output of the smaller

population of employees in the given position increased without significant systems, process or

management changes in the following month or two.”

In other words Taylor Protocols learned that by removing poor performers from a given

position, the total work product of the smaller team was greater than it had been with the

larger team. Taylor Protocols typically saw a 30%-40% increase in total productive output in a

position where there had been a 30%-40% reduction of the work force (i.e. all of the D

performers). The presence of the D performers in subject positions was shown to subtract from

the productivity of the higher performers on the team.

This opportunity for significant reduction in the cost of human resources in a given position

does not decrease in companies that are larger and more profitable, but actually continues to

increase geometrically. Companies that have thousands of persons in sales and production

positions, have the same tendency to deliver performance of the typical 80/20 principle, what

Taylor Protocols has found to be universally present, with the exception that the larger the

company, the more likely it is to have an even more extreme bell curve. Some of the top eight

securities firms, large household name manufacturing companies, etc. were found to have

fewer than 7% A performers, often as few as 2-3%, and these top performers often created

significantly more than the amount that the already baffling Wilfredo Paredo principle asserts --

80% of the total value created by the entire population of employees in the given position.


LONGITUDINAL STUDY – APPLICATION AND RESULTS

The results have been rewarding for individuals and organizations alike. The clearest illustration

of the effects of Core Values alignment with job tasks occurred with 24 companies, in which 39

positions were studied, and reorganized in accordance with Top Performer Profiles over the

course of three years beginning in 2000 and ending in 2004. Taylor Protocols spent a minimum

of one year in each company, and less than fifteen months in all cases.

Case Study Summary

December 2003

Performance Metrics First Year Performance Improvement

Number of Companies 24

Number of Positions 39

Number Of Employees 1356

Starting A Employees 146 10.8%

Ending A Employees 357 26.3%

Starting B Employees 196 14.5 %

Ending B Employees 301 22.2%

Starting C Employees 648 47.8%

Ending C Employees 637 47.0%

Starting D Employees 366 26.9%

Ending D Employees 61 4.5%

Types of Companies:

Industrial Manufacturing, Industrial Wholesale, Industrial Distribution, Retail, Financial

Services, Service Contracting, Food Service, Marine Manufacturing, Landscaping,

Consulting, Light Manufacturing, Vehicle Dealerships, Heavy Construction, Non-Profits,

Office Products, Software Developers, Machinists

Types of Positions:

Customer Service Reps, Financial Planners, Production Floor Leads, Store Managers,

Production Supervisors, Insides Sales Reps, Field Installers, Service Technicians, Outside

Sales Reps, Laborers, Bakers, Project Managers, Engineers, Consultants, Programmers,

Chemical Technicians, Machinists, Truck Drivers, Auto Mechanics, Equipment Operators,

Line Manufacturers/Assembly

This extraordinary business improvement project helped 26 companies become significantly

more profitable and also caused a strong increase in overall sales. But the most important

information to be derived from this process is that out of 1356 total employees in 39 positions


with a significant variety of skills and responsibilities required, about 25% were rated as A or B

players—highly desirable employees and top performers in their given positions-- while about

75% were rated as C level performers or lower.

A Human Capital Benchmark is and was always performed to ensure a baseline from which all

subsequent performance is compared. In this process Taylor Protocols is also able to deduce

the efficiency through which performance is converted into revenue at the individual level.

In the above companies, 11% were A Players, and of those, 95% received a High

Recommendation for their current position – or another way of saying this is that 95% of the

individual core values profiles were strongly aligned with the Top Performer core values profiles

for each position. If the resulting Top Performer Profile based upon the Core Values Index and

the Taylor Protocols algorithms was used to rehire current employees for this position, more

than 95% of all current A players would be screened in as first priority hiring recommendation.

When considering the B Player alignment, 38% received a High Recommendation and 62%

received a low recommendation, or low correlation with the ideal profile. At the C level, the

drop is significant with less than 10% with a High Recommendation and 74% with a low

recommendation, and the balance of 16% of C performers would have been not recommended

for this position. As a rule Taylor Protocols recommends that clients hire only those individuals

who are wired like current A players, indicated by a Highly Recommended rating.

“In fact, we’ve found through self-revelation from C level employees, who receive a low

recommendation; most are fully aware that the job they’re in is not ideally suited to them, and

they are part of the future self-generated turnover crowd for the company,” Taylor asserted.

At the D level there was an 89% Not Recommended with only 2% High Recommendation and

9% with Low Recommendation profiles.

By developing Top Performer profiles with the Core Values Index, then using this Top Performer

Profile™ to prescreen for new employees, the number of A and B Players in each company

increased, so at the end of this study, this ratio of strong performers to weaker performers

improved significantly, and across all industries and varieties of positions.

At the end, these 24 subject companies had increased their A and B players to almost 50% of

their workforce, with less than 5% rated at a D level. Turnover was decreased and productivity

increased improving profits.


The results indicate that 40% of the people hired for any job should not have been interviewed

for that position—not because of their claimed experience and skills, but according to a better

predictor of future top performance: the lack of alignment between their individual core values

profiles and the core values profile of individuals who are already proven to be A or B players in

that job.

This is a direct energy to energy comparison.

”The Core Values Index has done an excellent job at capturing some of the innate core traits of

the person’s unchanging nature. Several experts in optimal human functioning such as Abraham

Maslow, Peter Drucker, and Marcus Buckingham have described these core traits as an “inner

bent,” “propensity,” or “core wiring.” Because of this, Taylor Protocols is able to make a

compelling and convincing connection between the essential nature of each person and the

tasks and contributions that are inherent in his/her work.” - Dr. David Mashburn

In turnaround companies, otherwise known as financial turnaround projects where the client

companies require a more stringent cut off for top performers, we found 75% of the employees

(hired without a core values Top Performer Profile used to prescreen and select) would be

significantly better performers in a different job—or in the same titled job in a different

company. In other words these companies would have been better off not hiring 75% of the

people found working for these companies in the job for which they were hired.

Let’s be clear here, these companies would have been better off not hiring 73% of the people

hired for the specific positions. This is not a judgment on the quality of the individuals. It is a

judgment about the relative failure of companies to know how to consistently hire a right

person for a given position.

In fact, Taylor Protocols in its work as a turnaround management company, terminated

employees in less than 10% of the companies managed. A significant process was the Top

Performer Profile job description and individual employee Core Values Index score, right match

to each job. In other words, the first step is always to move employees out of a position in

which they are C or D performers and into a job in which the core value nature of the individual

better matches the core value energies needed in the work of a given job.

More than 85% of all such internal job matches were observed and measured to develop B or A

level performance in the new position for these repositioned employees, even in positions that

the person repositioned had never considered as a career option until the move was made.


The bigger the company the greater the waste

Over a five year period of time, from 2001 to 2006, the top performer profiles of job positions

in Fortune 2000 companies showed that greater than 80% of the value is typically created by

less than 20% of the employees in a specific position. Taylor Protocols routinely computes the

relative efficiency of Human Resource dollars by comparing the productive output of all levels

of rated performance.

The level of HR dollar investment efficiency is computed by calculating the actual dollar value of

productivity of the A and B performers in a given position. The actual dollar productivity of the

C and D performers is also computed. The Taylor Protocols process computes the total cost of

this productivity at each rated performance level. See the ROI worksheet previously presented.

The accepted viability level of Taylor Protocols is that any company can and should have only A

and B performers in every position, and that this is generally achievable given sufficient time

and commitment to right process, and using the Taylor Protocols CVI and automated hiring

technology.

Taylor Protocols has demonstrated that most companies operate at less than 33% Human

Capital Efficiency—100% being the rate of productivity achieved by the A and B performers in

all positions.

See the two questions asked and answered in the Taylor Protocols ROI worksheet.

With this methodology, Taylor Protocols has learned that the larger companies routinely

achieve a lower efficiency and effectiveness of their Human Capital dollars than do smaller

companies.

NOTE: The Taylor Protocols definition of A and B performers, etc. is the benchmarked

productivity levels that existed prior to the Top Performer hiring process imbedded in the

Taylor Protocols software CVI programs and technologies. This fact debunks the challenge that

even after you make better hiring decisions, you still have A, B, C and D performers. This is true

only if you don’t care about or value the increases in the new base of employees all of whom

are producing at the benchmarked levels of A and B performers, using the same metric

productivity validated at the start of the hiring process.

It has been the experience of Taylor Protocols that almost all companies have a few people who

have learned how to be A players, both by specific company standards, and also within a


competitive industry comparison. The same is true at the B level. The greatest increase in

human productivity is realized, then, by doing the benchmark rating and by doubling and

tripling the number of A and B performers, without hiring more C and D performers and moving

all C and D performers (in their current low performance positions) into other positions where

they also can achieve A and B performance.

If, as Taylor Protocols has concluded from its 20 year research study and in its three year

longitudinal study, the Taylor Protocols methodology, driven by the Core Values Index, has

demonstrated that it can typically double and triple the number of A and B performers in

essentially any position – and that the Wilfredo Paredo principle is alive and well in positions in

companies in a variety of industries in which the CVI has not been used to hire right individuals

– we can conclude, that by tripling the number of A and B performers in these positions

companies are generally able to reduce the total number of persons in the given position by

40% or more.

Example

IF: A and B performers = 20% of employees in given job = 80% of total productivity

THEN: 3X increase of A and B performers = 60% of original total employees in a specific

position = which causes a 3X increase in productivity = 240% productive output with 40%

reduction in total employees in the given position.

80% X 3 = 240%, and the 240% is produced by 60% of the original number of people. This yields

a demonstrated achievable objective of 400% increased productivity.

This may be the single greatest performance enhancement and market competitiveness

opportunity that exists in any first and second tier world economy.

It is counterintuitive that this process is not merely a continuation of the pushing for increased

productivity that has been part of the Industrial Revolution culture. The old manner of

increasing productivity is to create better processes and provide some right level of new

automation and then to push people to perform better and to do forced ratings on

employment and terminate low performers. There is little or no consideration of whether the

human energies that are needed in a given job are available in about the same levels of human

energy capacities that exist in a given individual.


The Taylor Protocols process creates an improvement of employment satisfaction, a decrease

of stress, a reduction in the need for yet another increase in automation. The principle is

simple: Design the optimum job processes, measure performance, hire more A and B

performers and transfer lower performers to different positions.

Everyone wins, the A and B performers are surrounded by more A and B performers (actually

increasing productivity yet again), the C and D performers are relieved from a position in which

they are mediocre at best and in which the work is not engaging for them, and moved into

positions that do engage their deepest core values natures, increasing their sense of fulfillment

individually and also increasing the productive output of their new team. The relative market

value of each person is thereby increased.

This can be proven within six months in the most important revenue generating positions in any

company. After which all positions can be subject to the same restructuring processes and the

company can either become dramatically more profitable very quickly, through some staff

reductions, or can build capacity (by moving people into core values aligned jobs) that invites

significant increase in growth at lower HR costs.

Evidences of Hiring Effectiveness…

The consistent experience of Taylor Protocols has been to find that the A performers in a given

job in a given company have essentially the same pattern of Core Values Energies. This has

never been found to not be the case in the 367 job position TPPs completed in its 13 year study.

The Core Values Energies of the A performers in a given role in a given company have

measurably different Core Values Energies profiles relative to the B performers, even greater

difference from the C performers and essentially different profiles when compared with the

core values energy capacities of the D performers in the same position.

The results of this research demonstrate that the core values patterns, when used to re-select

people for the same position in the same company, show that that the automated employment

pre-prioritization process would help its clients rehire 93% of the same A performers, 73% of

the B performers, 32% of the C performers, and less than 10% of the D performers. This

internally validated study in 133 companies and 367 job positions and 60,322 people, has

demonstrated the desirable ability of the Taylor Protocols algorithm to appropriately prioritize

consideration for employment of incoming candidates for a given position using the core values

energy profile created in this Top Performer Profiling process.


Taylor Protocols has routinely deployed these two questions in its ROI cost and benefit analysis

worksheet shared earlier. The importance of answering these two questions is evident. In

answering the first question, a senior executive is seeking to understand: what is the best that

can be achieved with the right people in all of the seats in every position; an important goal

setting exploration. This helps the forward-thinking executive build strategies meant to

optimize future productivity through right placement.

In question two, the answer provides the baseline of immediate profitability potential if one

chooses or deems the cost cutting approach to be the right and essential strategy at this time.


The graph (left above) is another presentation of the pie chart earlier, illustrating the human

performance bell curve that appears to exist almost universally, as demonstrated by the Taylor

Protocols 20 year research study. The graph on the right shows the achieved improvement of

the human performance bell curve that was experienced by the Taylor Protocols group of

clients, due to the demonstrated ability of a core values based Top Performer Profile being used

to prioritize incoming applicants for potential employment in a given position.

When combined with the ROI worksheet shown earlier, this transformation of the productive

output of groups of employees who are doing the same job in the same company, illustrates

the potential productivity increases and the increased profits that are waiting to be mined by

the Taylor Protocols employment pre-selection sciences™.


The graph immediately above illustrates the pattern recognition and pattern matching

algorithm that is employed by Taylor Protocols to first unearth the core values pattern of

energies that exist in the A performers of a given job in a given company. The average of the

core values energies and the six types of contribution of the A performers is computed.

However, as Jung presented, the computation of an average in order to make decisions is not

sufficient. He described this as the same as knowing that the average of weight of all of the

rocks in a stream is 5 ounces. But this says nothing about how many rocks vary from this

average and by how much. In fact, what is known from this kind of averaging process is that

none of the stones in the stream weighs precisely 5 ounces.

Taylor Protocols agrees with this precept and simply begins its algorithm process with this

crude averaging computation. Then the average is compared with the ranges of CVI scores in

the B, and C and D performers in the given job. As the comparison are made the algorithm

automatically finds the line of highest efficiency at which the greatest number of A performers

would be rehired when compared to the ideal score, while the greatest number of C and D

performers would not be hired.

Having arrived at this mathematical resolve, the client company can appropriately claim that it

has developed an internal validation of the TPP process that is more objective than any other

hiring screening or interviewing or assessment process.


Once Taylor Protocols had third party validation that its Core Values Index had a 97.7% or

greater repeat score reliability, and once the company had added to this foundation a tightly

scripted job description process, that caused the participants to understand the human

energies needed in a given job—then added to this the TPP algorithm for pattern recognition

and matching — the reasonable assertion was that Taylor Protocols had cracked the right

person in right job employment conundrum.

The graphics above illustrate why this reasonable assumption was not valid. As long as human

resource departments and hiring managers saw the requirement to give purchased Core Values

Indexes to all candidates for a given job, the desire to be frugal and keep costs in line was too

powerful to ignore. They would quit giving CVI’s to all candidates restricting the number of

candidates being considered for the job. Not enough data would be gathered for the internal

validation process that is essential for right hiring. And when an assessment is given at the point


at which a few favorites had been selected, the assessment is demonstrated to be of negligible

value.

So Taylor Protocols decided to give its clients who purchased a Top Performer Profile an

unlimited number of free Core Values Index assessments to send out to all candidates for each

TPP position. The clients then pay a nominal per hire success fee or a monthly subscription

license for use of the TPP’s and the CVI’s, with the added benefit that Taylor Protocols

guarantees that all hires will be judged A or B performers by the subject client company or

Taylor Protocols will replace at no additional cost.

In this service process with hundreds of client companies and almost 2000 completed Top

Performer Profiles, Taylor Protocols has learned that the classical hiring process illustrated in

the left side graph above causes elimination of some of the ideal candidates which the Taylor

Protocols hiring science will identify as Highly Recommended. Gallup has done studies that

have shown that less than 24% of all employees are significantly engaged in their work. The

conclusion of Taylor Protocols is that this is why the C and D performers generate so much less

productive output, and that the Core Values Nature of the individuals involved with the job is

the greatest determinant for engagement. This is supported by the consistent increased ROI

that is shown to be available by the ROI worksheet provided earlier in this document.


This final graphic illustrates the multiple benefits of the Taylor Protocols core values energies

protocols. By developing Top Performer Profiles for all families of positions in a company the

client is set up to optimize the productivity of all of its work force through the process of

comparing individual CVI scores with the several TPP ideal profiles so that all people can be

positioned in jobs that need the core values energies that comprise each individual.

Additionally, when one position is listed on job boards, the CVI scores of the many applicants

will all be processed automatically through the TPP for the subject position. Most will not

receive a Highly Recommended rating for the subject position, but all of the CVI scores of the

not selected people can be passed through all of the client’s TPPs in the close family of

positions or even with totally unrelated positions. This causes all applicants to be considered for

all possible jobs in the company they have selected to apply to for employment.


This is the methodology that has allowed Taylor Protocols to be consistently successful in

performing turnaround contracts with more than 200 companies over the course of two

decades.

SUMMARY

Optimization of Companies-- Optimization of People

In their many years of client company work, Taylor Protocols found that there are a lot of C and

D performers who are German shepherd’s and they believe, and their employers believe, that

they are, or should be willing to be, Labradors.

This critical research and field validation work has demonstrated that the CVI™ and the Taylor

Protocols™ (that apply the CVI to business and personal development) provide significant

improvement in the identification of a unique set or recipe of Core Energy Capacities that

makes an individual a top performer in each unique position. The C and D performers have

been relieved to hear that there is a tangible reason why they are not performing well and they

often thank us for giving them “permission” to find a right job for themselves, one they are

uniquely suited for; to find a position that needs them to be who they are, the unique recipe of

core values energies which comprise the core of their essential, unchanging self.

This optimization process consists of right process design, right job description, and replicable

identification of core values capacities that are needed in a person who is asked to do the work

of that job. The best practice process requires an individual seeking the given job to complete

the ten-minute Core Values Index, so the innate nature of the individual can be compared with

the innate capacities of the best performers in that job. Then a right selection of best fit

employee is made from this comparison so that a right person can be put in his place of highest

and best contribution. When the right person is put in a right seat, the increase in human

productivity and corporate profits exceeds what is generally believed to be possible.

Executive Memorandum

Supporting Documents

Seattle Research Partners, Inc. Reliability Report

Gaitan Group, LLC Review of Equal Employment

Opportunity Compliance

By

Lynn E. Taylor, President

Taylor Protocols Inc.

2014 © Peak-Publishing on behalf of Seattle Research Partners, Inc: Reliability Study (CVI) Feb. 2014

2/20/2014

Dear Lynn;

Attached is the retested reliability report conducted by Seattle Research Partners, Inc. Seattle

Research Partners, Inc. has been in operation since the early 1990’s (formerly Seattle Research Institute;

SRI). The report was conducted as a follow-up to previous studies conducted in 1999 by then SRI. This

report was conducted in compliance of the first of several intended studies to determine the reliability

of the Core Values Index (CVI) ™ assessment tool.

The following executive report is the official findings relative to the scope of the statistical and

independent research conducted by Seattle Research Partners, Inc. The results independently

determine that the CVI is a highly reliable assessment tool.

We very much appreciated the opportunity to independently explore this tool and report on our

findings. We look forward to future opportunities to partner together as the CVI and Taylor Protocols

seeks to achieve great results.

Regards,

Paul Rand, PhC, MBA Vice President

Seattle Research Partners, Inc. www.seattleresearchpartners.com

http://www.seattleresearchpartners.com/


Taylor Protocols: Core Value Index ™ Reliability Study & Recommendations

Background:

The Core Values Index™ (CVI; formerly PVI) has been an established psychometric tool created

and provided by Taylor Protocols. Taylor Protocols has tested several thousand individuals using the CVI

assessment over the past decade. Seattle Research Partners, Inc. was provided the raw database for test

and re-test participants having taken the CVI at uncontrolled intervals. Over the past three years; Seattle

Research Partners has had three consultants complete the CVI. The CVI assessment and raw score

entries were located and determined the raw data access represented true and accurate information

captured by Taylor Protocols over the past ten years. The data was compiled and prepared for statistical

analysis by Seattle Research Partners, Inc. consultants.

The objective for this specific report was to establish and independent reliability score for the

CVI using best practice methodologies. This is the first of several intended independent research studies

to understand, validate, and report on the Core Values Index™ assessment as well as the Taylor

Protocols’ methodology for best practice use of the CVI. To our knowledge the CVI assessment has

remained unaltered in its construct in capturing the innate energies of humans for over a decade.

Drawing from thousands of individual scores, a reliability study was conducted based on available test-

retest results of random individual taking the CVI assessment.

Goal:

Apply a statistical analysis process to randomly select and measure the reliability score of at

least 500 tests and retest results of the Core Values Index™.

Findings: Reliability Test

Seattle Research Partners was asked to make a study of the reliability of the Core Values Index

(CVI), a psychometric instrument that has been used by Taylor Protocols for several years. Taylor

Protocols supplied test-retest results from past clients, from 2002 to 2013. The sample size used was n=

711. The method used was test-retest, with regression constant set to zero. Individuals were re-tested

at various intervals, ranging from just a few months to over ten years. Seattle Research Partners, Inc.

cross-checked reliability results by using two separate SRP researchers. Both professionals hold a

doctorate degree; one holding a doctorate in statistical analysis and the other in psychology.

Regression Statistics

Findings based on Multiple R value are presented below.


Multiple R 0.97697 R-value (“Correlation”) represents the relationship between the

test-retest scores. A relationship correlation of 98% is extremely high

and demonstrates the reliability of the instrument.

R Square 0.95446

Adj. R Square 0.95399

Standard Error 4.058

Observations 2133

P-Value 0

The low p-value and the high correlation both indicate that first test scores are a highly significant

indicator of retest scores. We independently conclude that the CVI is a reliable instrument.

Summary

The low p-value and the high correlation both indicate that first test scores are a highly

significant indicator of retest scores. We independently conclude that the CVI is a reliable instrument.

We are not able to comment at this time on validity or bias in the CVI, having only examined the

summary data from each test. Bias could be examined by a study that included responses to each of the

72 questions. Validity would require additional research tests and measures currently in process.

However, validity and bias were addressed in an independent research report in 1999 in addition to

reliability. At that time the CVI data, formerly the PVI, was independently analyzed for both bias and

validity. In this report, there was no bias found and validity was determined to be accurate.

This prior report is attached as Appendix One.


Appendix One: Seattle Research Institute (SRI) Reliability and Validity Study 1999 (Archive Report Only)

THE GAITAN GROUP A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

LAW OFFICES

3131 ELLIOTT AVENUE, SUITE 700

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121

FACSIMILE (206) 346-6019

PHONE (206) 346-6000

VIRGINIA LEEPER

EMAIL: [email protected]

DIRECT: (206) 346-6669

Lynn Taylor, President

Elliott Bay Publishing, Inc. DBA

Taylor Protocols, Inc.

16040 Christiansen Road

Suite 205

Tukwila, Washington 98188

Dear Mr. Taylor:

Our firm was retained by you to review the Taylor Protocols Core Values Business Organization

System and to give an opinion as to its compliance with current law. For the purposes of this

letter, we refer to this as the Taylor Protocols System. Our review included the 80/20 Protocol,

the Core Values Index assessment, the Top Performer Profile, samples of a Top Performer

Profile, and samples of interview questions; as well as materials regarding application of the

protocol and validation of the protocols with various known businesses.

Applicable Washington State and federal laws were reviewed, including the federal regulations,

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Guidelines, and 20 CFR 1607. Under Washington

State law, there is no prohibition against the use of "personality" or "motivation" tests. Under

federal law, although there have been some challenges to the use and application of pre-

employment screening tests, the United States Supreme Court has upheld an employer's right to

use employment testing in the hiring process.

Early challenges to pre-employment screening tests involved the use of intelligence tests. In

Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), African-American employees challenged the

Lynn Taylor

Page 2

requirement of a high school diploma or the use of intelligence tests as a condition of

employment in or transfer to jobs with Duke Power. The court found that these requirements

were not directed at or intended to measure ability to learn to perform a particular job or category

of jobs. The Supreme Court further found that the use of any professionally developed ability test

is authorized as long as it is not designed or used to discriminate.

The concern of the courts has been that there will be a disparate impact on persons within the

protected categories of race, gender, age, disability, or ethnic origin. Generally, a test will

comply if the test meets two criteria: it is job-related and it does not impact a specific protected

group. In addition, taking the test must not pose an undue hardship for a person with disabilities.

No test should be the sole determinant for hiring. Results should be considered within the

context of other information; including resumes, interviews, and reference or background checks.

In Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, testing had been involved. The court stated that in order

to avoid liability for disparate impact, an employer should not make objective tests

determinative, but should combine practices such as interviews that have a subjective component

with objective tests.

The Core Values Index assessment is computer based and administered on an applicant's

personal computer, thus, making the assessment accessible to an individual with a disability. In

addition, it is suggested that the assessment take 7-10 minutes to complete; however, it is not

timed and does allow an individual with a disability to take longer to complete the assessment.

The assessment is designed to assess core values of potential employees. In addition, the

assessment is administered to current employees who work in the position for which the

employer seeks a new applicant. The assessment results of the current employees are used to

establish the Top Performer Profile which establishes the basis to which new applicants will be

compared.

The Core Values Index assessment is not an intelligence test or aptitude test. It is comprised of

descriptive nouns and adjectives. The assessment does not require a job applicant to reveal

information about his or her race, gender, age, disability, or ethnic origin. None of the words in

the assessment relate specifically to any of these categories.

Lynn Taylor

Page 3

The Top Performer Profile is created from the information given on the assessment. Nothing in

the Top Performer Profile is related to race, gender, age, disability, or ethnic origin. The Top

Performer Profile is based exclusively on the individual responses to the words contained

within the assessment. The data given in the assessment is based solely on the accuracy and

truthfulness of the individual taking the assessment.

The Taylor Protocols System requires an employer to choose potential employees using resumes

and interviews in addition to the Core Values Index assessment and Top Performer Profile.

Candidates are, therefore, selected through the use of the objective assessment as well as from

the use of other subjective information. The Taylor Protocols System includes sample interview

questions. The interview questions are related to the core values sought for the applicant for a

particular position. Those that have been reviewed do not relate to the applicant's race, gender,

age, disability, or ethnic origin.

After a review of the Taylor Protocols Core Values Business Optimization System, we are of the

opinion that the Taylor Protocols System is in compliance with current EEOC laws, including

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 42 U.S.C. 1983,

and 42 U.S.C. 2000e. These laws have been enacted to ensure that job applicants are not

discriminated against in the hiring process. We are aware of no litigation pending or

challenging the use of Taylor Protocols in any jurisdiction. If the assessment is used according

to its design and within the system's intended use, it has no adverse impact on any individual or

class of persons protected by Equal Employment Opportunity laws and/or regulations.

Very truly yours,

THE GAITAN GROUP, LLC

Virginia Leeper

2070.01/L