This blog has talked about jerks in the workplace and I was discussing this with a friend the other day. He made a point that I found interesting. He said that jerks are everywhere and they earn their status in a variety of ways, but jerks in the workplace are simply disruptive.
In the search to be ever more precise in using language, it appears to me that the “jerk in the workplace” description should be replaced by the word “disruptor.” To put it simply, if an individual yells at his spouse, kicks his dog and flips the bird to various people on the way to work, that person is a jerk. But once at work, if that person does a good job and treats others with a modicum of respect, that person may be a jerk but he is not a disruptor.
The Workplace Attitudes Test does a great job at identifying disruptors because it focuses upon the workplace. All the questions are related to workplace attitudes. Yeah, I know all you fathers with teenage daughters are probably saying, “You mean to tell me that I can’t use the Workplace Attitudes Test to weed out all those dweebs who are trying to date my daughter?” No, sorry, dweeb alerts are outside my field of expertise.
I think dweeb might be a little like a jerk, a little too general, and maybe a bit too imprecise. See www.workplaceattitudes.com to learn more about disruptors who may also be jerks or dweebs.
Showing posts with label attitude tests. Show all posts
Showing posts with label attitude tests. Show all posts
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Friday, June 27, 2008
What’s Up Down Under
Recently I received an e-mail from Fiona Smith, Work Space Editor of the “The Australian Financial Review” who wanted to interview me about the Workplace Attitudes Test. We scheduled a call for 4:00 pm in Washington, DC two days later. When I got the call I said, “Good morning, you’re up early,” and she seemed pleased that I knew that there was a 17 hour time difference. I try to sound moderately intelligent with reporters and invariably nice because I remember the quote, “Never argue with a person who buys ink by the barrel.”
Fiona Smith was very nice (I hope you read this Fiona) and was writing about some companies in the Australian workplace where jerks and bullies are less tolerated than they used to be. Her article is entitled “Now be nice – there’s no place for bullies” and it is in The Australian Financial Review, June 17, 2008. She starts her article by saying, “At Arup Australasia, there is a ‘no dickheads’ policy. If you can’t treat others with respect, you won’t be tolerated.”
She is quoting the managing director of this engineering consulting firm, Robert Care. Robert, I couldn’t have said it better myself. The article goes on to cite examples of intolerance for intolerance, or as the fine folks down under might say “We are not going to dick around with dickheads.”
Then Fiona went on to describe how to identify these people and she got to me - well, what I mean is she got to my Workplace Attitudes Test. The following four paragraphs are from her article.
“There are many consultancies offering psychological testing to make sure that new recruits will fit into the culture of their new employer, but one company in the U.S. is selling a test specifically targeted at weeding out jerks.
The president of Allegiance Research Group, Dale Paulson, says his Workplace Attitudes Test has not yet been picked up by the big corporations – ‘HR people are not as receptive’ – but is proving popular with small businesses, franchises, associations, and even a policy academy.
‘About ninety percent of problems come from ten percent of employees – people who have chips on their shoulders’ he says. The 45 question test, developed nine years ago, is very effective at the lower levels of the organization and for supervisors, he says, but, realistically, is unlikely to be used at the top of the organization. ‘If you are making ten million dollars you get to be a jerk’ he says.
But wouldn’t people with a history of difficulty working with others be tempted to lie about their attitudes in a test? ‘No, they are actually proud of their attitudes. They come in and say things like, ‘it’s a dog eat dog world,’ ‘you can’t trust anyone,’ and, ‘if you step on my toes and you don’t apologize you are going to get broken toes.’ he says.”
And so folks, I’m here to tell you that in addition to shrimp on the barbie and Foster’s beer, there are jerks in Australia, except they are generally referred to as “dickheads.” See http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/.
Fiona Smith was very nice (I hope you read this Fiona) and was writing about some companies in the Australian workplace where jerks and bullies are less tolerated than they used to be. Her article is entitled “Now be nice – there’s no place for bullies” and it is in The Australian Financial Review, June 17, 2008. She starts her article by saying, “At Arup Australasia, there is a ‘no dickheads’ policy. If you can’t treat others with respect, you won’t be tolerated.”
She is quoting the managing director of this engineering consulting firm, Robert Care. Robert, I couldn’t have said it better myself. The article goes on to cite examples of intolerance for intolerance, or as the fine folks down under might say “We are not going to dick around with dickheads.”
Then Fiona went on to describe how to identify these people and she got to me - well, what I mean is she got to my Workplace Attitudes Test. The following four paragraphs are from her article.
“There are many consultancies offering psychological testing to make sure that new recruits will fit into the culture of their new employer, but one company in the U.S. is selling a test specifically targeted at weeding out jerks.
The president of Allegiance Research Group, Dale Paulson, says his Workplace Attitudes Test has not yet been picked up by the big corporations – ‘HR people are not as receptive’ – but is proving popular with small businesses, franchises, associations, and even a policy academy.
‘About ninety percent of problems come from ten percent of employees – people who have chips on their shoulders’ he says. The 45 question test, developed nine years ago, is very effective at the lower levels of the organization and for supervisors, he says, but, realistically, is unlikely to be used at the top of the organization. ‘If you are making ten million dollars you get to be a jerk’ he says.
But wouldn’t people with a history of difficulty working with others be tempted to lie about their attitudes in a test? ‘No, they are actually proud of their attitudes. They come in and say things like, ‘it’s a dog eat dog world,’ ‘you can’t trust anyone,’ and, ‘if you step on my toes and you don’t apologize you are going to get broken toes.’ he says.”
And so folks, I’m here to tell you that in addition to shrimp on the barbie and Foster’s beer, there are jerks in Australia, except they are generally referred to as “dickheads.” See http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Why Does the Workplace Attitude Test (WAT) Work?
I think that the WAT test works for some very simple reasons: it has a limited objective; it is based on understanding values from the right cohort; people are fairly open about their beliefs and values and extreme or disruptive behavior results from holding certain values in the extreme. Let’s look at each point.
WAT’s limited objective. When I set out to develop the WAT I sought to answer a simple question. Do disruptive workers share certain identifiable attitudes? I made the assumption that the workplace is almost always a social environment and I wanted to understand individuals who do not get along well with others. This is much easier than trying to understand personality or trying to match people to a certain type of job. Personality has many components and jobs can be done in a variety of ways but there appears to be a limited number of ways to be disruptive in the workplace.
The right cohort. A cohort is simply a group of people that share some characteristic. I refer to them as turkeys or jerks. Fortunately they’re not hard to find and they tend not to be bashful. Part of my research included going to supervisors in various types of organizations and asking if it would be possible to interview some present or past employees about their work-related beliefs and attitudes. I didn’t say I was looking for jerks and I interviewed all kinds of employees but, in truth, it was a turkey hunt. I correlated problem employees with many variables such as job-hopping, negative work experiences, dislike of work in general, involvement in law suits, etc. As you may appreciate, it is not hard to find problem employees.
Beliefs and Values. Short of saying, “Yes I am a jerk,” turkeys or jerks are quite willing to talk about their beliefs and values. Often this is to amplify their low opinion of others. You’ve heard of the term “a people person,” well these are “anti-people persons.” Where Will Rogers said he never met a person he didn’t like, these individuals almost never met people that they do like. I am reminded of the pundit who said, “I love humanity, it’s people I don’t like,”
Now to understand values one must ask open-ended questions. This is much like the jury-consultant approach. They ask questions like, “What do you think of the justice system?” This is followed up with such questions as “Why do you think that?” or “Why do you feel that way?” Now, I’m not going to go into the exhaustive set of questions that I asked jerks and non-jerks but I am going to tell you about some of their answers and attitudes.
Here are some of the scintillating insights found in their answers. “Most people are stupid.” “You can’t trust anybody.” “My boss is so stupid, he couldn’t find his ass with both hands.” “I spend my nights lying awake thinking of ways to get even.” “Work sucks but you have to do it.” “I never get a break.” “I should be making more money.” And one of my favorites, “Step on my toes and forget to apologize and I’ll kick your ass—I don’t care who you are.” I was wise enough not to suggest steel-toed shoes for the last one. I could go on, but you get the idea. Next let’s look at some of the attitudes that underlie these sentiments. To name a few, the problem attitudes include judgmental, vindictive, adversarial, egocentric and entitled.
Extreme values. I found a strong correlation between disruptive behavior and holding the above mentioned values in the extreme. For each value, five test questions were developed. Each question had three options, one weak, one moderate and one strong. For example, for the judgmental attitude the following question is an example:
When I feel I have been treated unjustly …
* I will do whatever is necessary to defend my rights.
* I seldom feel I have been treated unfairly.
* I probably should do more but oftentimes just let it go.
It is only when the respondent answers four of five questions like this it is deemed that they hold that attitude in the extreme.
Respondents have strong (belief-related) rationales for their extreme answers and these extremes are strongly related to disruptive behavior. This test works because people tend to be proud of their values and they use those values to justify their behavior. Although job candidates may not reveal this information in a job interview, they are willing to express themselves in the test.
There you have it. The WAT works because it doesn’t try to do too much, it is based upon understanding the right people, they are willing to reveal their beliefs if given the chance, and strongly held disruptive values are related to disruptive behavior in the workplace See: www.workplaceattitudes.com.
Friday, May 23, 2008
The Best is the Enemy of the Good
Recently, I’ve been thinking about the expression, “The best is the enemy of the good.” Just exactly what does it mean? I think it describes the tendency of some jerks to criticize any new or innovative idea that is not perfect. It is like saying, “Sure we are dealing with a crappy situation but your solution isn’t perfect and I don’t think we should settle for anything less than perfect.”
This allows the critic to take a position of moral superiority and yet not offer anything of value. I am often amazed how often people put up with this sort of jerkdom. Someone offers a good solution and our jerk takes the opportunity to raise their eyebrow, dip their chin and say, “It’s not perfect and I can’t agree.” Most often we as an audience say “Gee, I guess you could be right.”
This is a subtle form of jerkiness, and I think it may hide an inferiority complex. I suppose I should be more sympathetic but I choose a tranquil workplace over psychological tolerance. I am reminded of an episode of “MASH” where psychiatrist Sidney Freedman described Frank Burns and his problems by saying, “He is such a walking sack of fertilizer that it is hard to care.” Now I’m not totally unsympathetic. For example I would probably chastise the wag who said of someone with an inferiority complex, “It’s not a complex.”
Each of us must decide to what extent jerk behavior should be tolerated, but all of it has its cost. See http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/.
This allows the critic to take a position of moral superiority and yet not offer anything of value. I am often amazed how often people put up with this sort of jerkdom. Someone offers a good solution and our jerk takes the opportunity to raise their eyebrow, dip their chin and say, “It’s not perfect and I can’t agree.” Most often we as an audience say “Gee, I guess you could be right.”
This is a subtle form of jerkiness, and I think it may hide an inferiority complex. I suppose I should be more sympathetic but I choose a tranquil workplace over psychological tolerance. I am reminded of an episode of “MASH” where psychiatrist Sidney Freedman described Frank Burns and his problems by saying, “He is such a walking sack of fertilizer that it is hard to care.” Now I’m not totally unsympathetic. For example I would probably chastise the wag who said of someone with an inferiority complex, “It’s not a complex.”
Each of us must decide to what extent jerk behavior should be tolerated, but all of it has its cost. See http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Identifying Jerks With De-merits
In previous blog entries I suggested that jerks and abusive people shouldn’t be tolerated in the workplace. Some have noted that it is difficult to define jerk behavior. Even if we could define jerk behavior should we be permitted to ban it?
In terms of definition, I suggest that jerk behavior involves the abuse of other people, particularly subordinates. But why not throw this open to people in their workplaces and let them provide definitions? Workers are perfectly able to define behavior that should not be tolerated. I suggest jerk-defining focus groups.
Now, how about the libertarian argument that we shouldn’t regulate behavior? Well we do regulate behavior. Duels such as the one between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton are quite effectively banned these days. Also, there are very few gun fights like in the old west. We reframed the issue and said that consensual duels and six-gun face-offs are not self-defense or a matter of honor. We decided to call it murder.
However, even if we define jerk behavior to specific work environments, one major problem remains. How do we identify jerk behavior when it occurs? I suggest anonymous jerk de-merits.
For example, let’s give every employee 100 anonymous de-merit points each month to spend on anyone who has acted like a jerk. Each employee would make a list of people that they interact with and they could assign de-merits in any amount to anyone on that list. Totals would come in at the end of each month.
Should the cumulative list be public? I’m not sure. Should you take action against those who get consistently high scores? Good question. All I am saying here is that it is possible to define jerk behavior and it is possible to identify it.
It is best not to hire jerks in the first place, but if you have them in the workplace you need to decide what you can do about it. See: www.workplaceattitudes.com
In terms of definition, I suggest that jerk behavior involves the abuse of other people, particularly subordinates. But why not throw this open to people in their workplaces and let them provide definitions? Workers are perfectly able to define behavior that should not be tolerated. I suggest jerk-defining focus groups.
Now, how about the libertarian argument that we shouldn’t regulate behavior? Well we do regulate behavior. Duels such as the one between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton are quite effectively banned these days. Also, there are very few gun fights like in the old west. We reframed the issue and said that consensual duels and six-gun face-offs are not self-defense or a matter of honor. We decided to call it murder.
However, even if we define jerk behavior to specific work environments, one major problem remains. How do we identify jerk behavior when it occurs? I suggest anonymous jerk de-merits.
For example, let’s give every employee 100 anonymous de-merit points each month to spend on anyone who has acted like a jerk. Each employee would make a list of people that they interact with and they could assign de-merits in any amount to anyone on that list. Totals would come in at the end of each month.
Should the cumulative list be public? I’m not sure. Should you take action against those who get consistently high scores? Good question. All I am saying here is that it is possible to define jerk behavior and it is possible to identify it.
It is best not to hire jerks in the first place, but if you have them in the workplace you need to decide what you can do about it. See: www.workplaceattitudes.com
Friday, May 16, 2008
Why Won’t People Tell You How Good You Are?
I decided that my Workplace Attitudes website needed some client recommendations. I sent out some emails to elicit recommendations. Nada. Then a few came in but I had sent out dozens of emails. Reluctantly, I decided to make some phone calls. Jackpot. Turns out that clients love the product. In fact they were effusive. Still few people offered this information on their own. Many people said we thought you knew we liked it. Someone else said, “Well, we wouldn’t re-order it if we didn’t like it.”
This is very similar to the premise of the Workplace Attitudes Test (WAT)--if you want specific information you have to ask specific questions. The WAT seeks information about bad attitudes in the workplace. Then I asked clients, “What do you like about the Workplace Attitudes Test?” “What problems has it solved for you?” and “What changes would you like to see?” Here are some of the answers:
“I used the WAT on about ten new hires because I decided that I didn’t need it. I hired the next ten on my own. After a sexual harassment suit that was settled out of court, I’m back to using the WAT. Would this have made a difference? Probably. You see, I tested my hires after they were on the job. Two of them showed high warning signals. I don’t know why Dr. Paulson lowered he price.”
Manager, Lawn Service
“We promoted a clean freak perfectionist for our fabric and sewing store, thinking that this was a good thing. There are no fabric remnants on the floor but some of our best sales clerks have quit and customer complaints are rampant. From now on I’ll be using the Workplace Attitudes test for promoting supervisors as well as new hires.”
Fabric Store Manager
“Given the (Often hidden) cost of jerks why wouldn’t you use a pre-employment bad-attitude screener?”
Manager, Fast Food Franchise
“With a money back guarantee, it’s a no-brainer”
Restaurant Manager
“If you think that this test is better than just an interview, you’re a better interviewer that me.”
Locksmith Store Owner
“I my opinion, HR keep a lot of good people from getting the job; the WAT keeps bad-attitude people from getting the job.”
Department Store Manager
“If you don’t want to ask someone “Are you an asshole,” you should use this test."
Honcho at a Motor Scooter Store
“Some people are proud to be jerks; others hid it during the interview. Now you can catch them in the act.”
Restaurant Manager
“This (the WAT) is not a psychological test, it simply tells you if the person you are considering can get along with others. You need this information.”
Association Executive
“If you could send your candidate to boot camp like the military, you wouldn’t need this test. But then again maybe you would because some recruits wash out.”
A Retired Army Sergeant
“Dr. Paulson, why would you lower the price when you save someone so much money by helping your clients avoid turkeys?”
Association VP
"We wanted someone who would enforce the rules and yet would get along with people. The WAT help us find the right person."
Manager, at a Marina
“You can’t believe the number of jerks out there. I interview a lot of kids. Some pampered and spoiled. The WAT screener makes my job much easier. At an amusement park you want patient and polite employees. Believe me this separates the wheat from shaft.”
Manager at an Amusement Park
“Wow, this thing (the WAT) couldn’t be easier, one score and a bar graph. No warning signals, no problem.”
VP, Department Store
“One less thing to worry about.”
Hardware Store Manager
“$49 bucks, you’re kidding me? (I mean this in a good way.)"
Supervisor, Boat Supply Store
“I haven’t tried other tests and probably won’t. This works. Thanks.”
Tour Company Director
“By keeping it simple and concentrating on bad attitudes, this thing really works.”
Admissions Director, Community College
“Believe me, there are bad apples out there and this test keeps them out of your barrel.”
Owner, Auto Shop
Now to be honest, two people didn’t like the Workplace Attitudes Test but I didn’t include their comments because these two turkeys are jerks. See http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/.
This is very similar to the premise of the Workplace Attitudes Test (WAT)--if you want specific information you have to ask specific questions. The WAT seeks information about bad attitudes in the workplace. Then I asked clients, “What do you like about the Workplace Attitudes Test?” “What problems has it solved for you?” and “What changes would you like to see?” Here are some of the answers:
“I used the WAT on about ten new hires because I decided that I didn’t need it. I hired the next ten on my own. After a sexual harassment suit that was settled out of court, I’m back to using the WAT. Would this have made a difference? Probably. You see, I tested my hires after they were on the job. Two of them showed high warning signals. I don’t know why Dr. Paulson lowered he price.”
Manager, Lawn Service
“We promoted a clean freak perfectionist for our fabric and sewing store, thinking that this was a good thing. There are no fabric remnants on the floor but some of our best sales clerks have quit and customer complaints are rampant. From now on I’ll be using the Workplace Attitudes test for promoting supervisors as well as new hires.”
Fabric Store Manager
“Given the (Often hidden) cost of jerks why wouldn’t you use a pre-employment bad-attitude screener?”
Manager, Fast Food Franchise
“With a money back guarantee, it’s a no-brainer”
Restaurant Manager
“If you think that this test is better than just an interview, you’re a better interviewer that me.”
Locksmith Store Owner
“I my opinion, HR keep a lot of good people from getting the job; the WAT keeps bad-attitude people from getting the job.”
Department Store Manager
“If you don’t want to ask someone “Are you an asshole,” you should use this test."
Honcho at a Motor Scooter Store
“Some people are proud to be jerks; others hid it during the interview. Now you can catch them in the act.”
Restaurant Manager
“This (the WAT) is not a psychological test, it simply tells you if the person you are considering can get along with others. You need this information.”
Association Executive
“If you could send your candidate to boot camp like the military, you wouldn’t need this test. But then again maybe you would because some recruits wash out.”
A Retired Army Sergeant
“Dr. Paulson, why would you lower the price when you save someone so much money by helping your clients avoid turkeys?”
Association VP
"We wanted someone who would enforce the rules and yet would get along with people. The WAT help us find the right person."
Manager, at a Marina
“You can’t believe the number of jerks out there. I interview a lot of kids. Some pampered and spoiled. The WAT screener makes my job much easier. At an amusement park you want patient and polite employees. Believe me this separates the wheat from shaft.”
Manager at an Amusement Park
“Wow, this thing (the WAT) couldn’t be easier, one score and a bar graph. No warning signals, no problem.”
VP, Department Store
“One less thing to worry about.”
Hardware Store Manager
“$49 bucks, you’re kidding me? (I mean this in a good way.)"
Supervisor, Boat Supply Store
“I haven’t tried other tests and probably won’t. This works. Thanks.”
Tour Company Director
“By keeping it simple and concentrating on bad attitudes, this thing really works.”
Admissions Director, Community College
“Believe me, there are bad apples out there and this test keeps them out of your barrel.”
Owner, Auto Shop
Now to be honest, two people didn’t like the Workplace Attitudes Test but I didn’t include their comments because these two turkeys are jerks. See http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
We Offer a 100% Money Back Guarantee and Frankly That Guarantee Isn’t Worth a Tinker’s Dam
If you’re wondering what a tinker’s dam is, it is usually defined as something that is worthless. Some think that it was a curse as in a tinker’s damn which was considered of little significance because tinkers were always swearing; or it is a tinkers dam which is a small dam to hold solder made by tinkers when mending pans and once used, it is then of no value. www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/tinkers-damn.html
I lean towards the second tinker’s dam definition. Albeit, why would I say that the guarantee, for the Workplace Attitude Test (WAT), is worthless? The WAT test is designed to ensure that you don’t hire a person with a bad attitude in the workplace. Presumably, if you are asking for your money back you have hired a “turkey.” This puts you in a bit of a sticky wicket which is defined as a difficult situation.
(A wicket is the playing surface used in cricket. It is a direct allusion to the difficulty of playing on a wet and sticky pitch. www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/334550.html)
Overall, you’ve hired the wrong person and a few dollars back from us isn’t going to help you much. Fortunately, the Workplace Attitudes Test works well and no one has every asked for their money back.
See http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/
I lean towards the second tinker’s dam definition. Albeit, why would I say that the guarantee, for the Workplace Attitude Test (WAT), is worthless? The WAT test is designed to ensure that you don’t hire a person with a bad attitude in the workplace. Presumably, if you are asking for your money back you have hired a “turkey.” This puts you in a bit of a sticky wicket which is defined as a difficult situation.
(A wicket is the playing surface used in cricket. It is a direct allusion to the difficulty of playing on a wet and sticky pitch. www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/334550.html)
Overall, you’ve hired the wrong person and a few dollars back from us isn’t going to help you much. Fortunately, the Workplace Attitudes Test works well and no one has every asked for their money back.
See http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Hiring the Wrong Person: Is It a Speed Bump, A Pothole or a Land Mine?
For a speed bump you have to slow down, for a pot hole you may have to get your wheels realigned, but with a landmine you’re lucky if you survive. Many people believe that hiring the wrong employee is like a speed bump but the more I read, the more I believe that bad hires are more like pot holes or land mines.
I suppose a speed bump is where you hire someone, put them on probation and get rid of them after a week or so. They may have missed work, come in late, been rude to customers, but you caught it early and the rest of the staff or you picked up the slack and not too much damage was done.
A pothole would be where the morale of fellow workers was affected, some customers were lost, and it was difficult to get rid of them. Examples of this from previous blog entries are “Jack is Back or What Happened When I Hired and Embezzler”, (that one cost $14,000) or “People Can Seem So Darn Nice,” (where it took a year to get rid of a drama queen) or “A Tale of Two Employees,” (where one employee averted a serious problem and another lost customers for a movie rental store).
The land mine is best described by Lester Rosen in Kennedy Information Recruiting Trends in his article “Recruiting Russian Roulette.” http://www.esrcheck.com/ He writes, “It’s a sobering thought, but every time a recruiting professional makes a placement, there is the possibility that a new hire can put him out of business.”
I am reminded of the old Flip Wilson comedy routine that parodied an old radio show when he said, “Who knows what evil lurk in the minds of men? The devil do honey!”
Is it that bad? According to Lester Rosen it is! To quote Mr. Rosen, “Industry statistics suggest that up to 10% of applicants can have criminal records. Fraudulent misrepresentations as to education and employment occur in as much as 40% of the time according to some studies.”
Mr. Rosen points out staffing professionals are particularly vulnerable to “Negligent Hiring” law suits. He goes on to say, “A staffing professional would need to show whether credentials and education were verified, whether past employment was checked, and whether a criminal background check was done.”
I couldn’t agree more but, in fact, everyone who is involved in hiring is vulnerable. Even if the dangers were only a speed bump careful hiring is important. Now the Workplace Attitudes Test is only a part of the puzzle. It does not replace a good interview or a good background check. It does, however, focus on the identification of bad attitudes and it helps you identify some applicants that you may want to eliminate early. See http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/.
I suppose a speed bump is where you hire someone, put them on probation and get rid of them after a week or so. They may have missed work, come in late, been rude to customers, but you caught it early and the rest of the staff or you picked up the slack and not too much damage was done.
A pothole would be where the morale of fellow workers was affected, some customers were lost, and it was difficult to get rid of them. Examples of this from previous blog entries are “Jack is Back or What Happened When I Hired and Embezzler”, (that one cost $14,000) or “People Can Seem So Darn Nice,” (where it took a year to get rid of a drama queen) or “A Tale of Two Employees,” (where one employee averted a serious problem and another lost customers for a movie rental store).
The land mine is best described by Lester Rosen in Kennedy Information Recruiting Trends in his article “Recruiting Russian Roulette.” http://www.esrcheck.com/ He writes, “It’s a sobering thought, but every time a recruiting professional makes a placement, there is the possibility that a new hire can put him out of business.”
I am reminded of the old Flip Wilson comedy routine that parodied an old radio show when he said, “Who knows what evil lurk in the minds of men? The devil do honey!”
Is it that bad? According to Lester Rosen it is! To quote Mr. Rosen, “Industry statistics suggest that up to 10% of applicants can have criminal records. Fraudulent misrepresentations as to education and employment occur in as much as 40% of the time according to some studies.”
Mr. Rosen points out staffing professionals are particularly vulnerable to “Negligent Hiring” law suits. He goes on to say, “A staffing professional would need to show whether credentials and education were verified, whether past employment was checked, and whether a criminal background check was done.”
I couldn’t agree more but, in fact, everyone who is involved in hiring is vulnerable. Even if the dangers were only a speed bump careful hiring is important. Now the Workplace Attitudes Test is only a part of the puzzle. It does not replace a good interview or a good background check. It does, however, focus on the identification of bad attitudes and it helps you identify some applicants that you may want to eliminate early. See http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Using The Workplace Attitudes Test With Existing Employees and The Supervisor Who Was Too Good
In most cases, people are hired for their aptitude and fired for their attitude. The primary goal of the Workplace Attitudes Test is to identify prospective employees with problem attitudes so the interviewer has the info and may decide not to hire them. In fact our welcome aboard letter reads as follows:
Congratulations,
You are about to enter a new era of employee selection. This is truly a breakthrough. Now for the first time you can understand the values that motivate potential employees. When selecting new hires you can avoid the landmines while you pick the cherries.
Without getting too complicated, we analyze workplace attitudes to predict likely behavior.
Wouldn’t you like to avoid potential employees who may sue you or your company?
How about identifying gadflies who would rather socialize than work?
Maybe you would like to know about people who are likely to be hostile to your customers or clients?
Conversely, how would you like to find people who are grateful to have a job, who are willing to put in extra effort, and who are team players?
Now you can.
All you need to do is have job candidates take the Workplace Attitudes Test which consists of forty-five questions, and we will evaluate it for you. You then receive a bar chart that describes the individual’s relevant workplace values and an overall score that tells you how likely they are to be disruptive in the work place. Remember, everyone is on their best behavior during the job interview. With the Workplace Attitudes Test you are in a position to hire good employees by avoiding bad ones. It makes you a better interviewer and applies to a variety of environments including business, non-profits, and the public sector.
Just because Ben Franklin wanted to make the turkey our national bird doesn’t mean that you have to hire one
This sums up the primary purpose of the Workplace Attitudes Test. Still, many companies have used it to evaluate and help existing employees. I used to think that this was a little like closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. After all, once a person has worked for your organization you should know who has problem attitudes.
Also, the test reports on bad attitudes and as mentioned these are difficult to discuss. For example, an interviewer might not want to say “I see here that you are quite judgmental” or “I note that you tend to be a bit vindictive.” Dale Carnegie who wrote “How to Win Friends and Influence People” would not approve.
You can have the information but you don’t need to state it in a negative way. Each attitude relevant to the workplace is not single dimension, rather it exists on a continuum. That is, each bad attitude that is related to “disruptive behavior” has a corresponding attitude that is related to “getting along with people.” Next, I will look at the nine attitudes to show you what I mean.
Judgmental versus Accepting
Vindictive versus Forgiving
Adversarial versus Accommodating
Egocentric versus People-Oriented
Entitled versus Unassuming
Undisciplined versus Self-Disciplined
Insubordinate versus Respectful
Risk-Inclined versus Cautious
Non-Traditional versus Traditional
Each of the “bad” or disruptive attitudes has a corresponding “good” of socially-skilled attitude. Note our research has shown that the bad attitudes are disruptive only when they are extreme.
When working with existing employees and when reporting the results to a job candidate, it is the positive attitudes that are reported. It is important for the interviewer to understand that extreme and negative attitudes are warning signals, but is better to report the results in a positive way.
Although, it is the primary goal of the Workplace Attitudes Test to screen out potentially disruptive employees it is also useful for matching people to different types of workplace environments and to help some employees perform their jobs better.
In terms of matching people to work environments, command-and-control workplaces such as the military or the Catholic Church will likely find that individuals with respect for tradition and a respect for authority tend to fit in better. Conversely, entrepreneurial or team-building organizations may not need as much respect for authority and tradition and would prosper with people who are more self-disciplined and people oriented.
In one instance, the Workplace Attitude Test helped a young supervisor work with older sales representatives. Joyce was in her late twenties and supervised six sales reps who were twice her age. She did a great job. All of her reports were done on time, her meetings were short and efficient all of her staff liked her, business was great and she was miserable.
She wasn’t sure why she was miserable and discussions with her boss didn’t help. The big boss wanted to keep her and gave her raises and more time off, but still she was miserable. At that time, the Workplace Attitudes Test was under development and the entire staff agreed to take the test. No one had warning signals but the test solved the mystery.
Joyce proved to be accepting, forgiving, accommodating, people-oriented, unassuming, self-discipline somewhat cautious and very traditional.
Joyce’s sales reps were, well, sales reps. They too had good people skills, but they had little respect for authority, were a bit undisciplined, and quite entitled.
In short, Joyce wanted to please people, and her sales reps tended to take advantage of her. She met everyone’s needs but her own.
I am reminded of a great quote from the movie, “Three Days of the Condor” when a young CIA agent asks a grizzled old veteran played by John Housman, “What do you miss about the old days (referring World War II)?” Houseman replied, “The clarity.”
Joyce finally had clarity and the story has a happy ending. Joyce got a private office and a gatekeeper secretary. The sales reps could no longer barge in and talk to her at anytime. They had to make an appointment, unless it was critical, and they received an incentive to get their reports on time.
Joyce regained her sanity and the organization kept a good supervisor. To learn more, see http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/.
Congratulations,
You are about to enter a new era of employee selection. This is truly a breakthrough. Now for the first time you can understand the values that motivate potential employees. When selecting new hires you can avoid the landmines while you pick the cherries.
Without getting too complicated, we analyze workplace attitudes to predict likely behavior.
Wouldn’t you like to avoid potential employees who may sue you or your company?
How about identifying gadflies who would rather socialize than work?
Maybe you would like to know about people who are likely to be hostile to your customers or clients?
Conversely, how would you like to find people who are grateful to have a job, who are willing to put in extra effort, and who are team players?
Now you can.
All you need to do is have job candidates take the Workplace Attitudes Test which consists of forty-five questions, and we will evaluate it for you. You then receive a bar chart that describes the individual’s relevant workplace values and an overall score that tells you how likely they are to be disruptive in the work place. Remember, everyone is on their best behavior during the job interview. With the Workplace Attitudes Test you are in a position to hire good employees by avoiding bad ones. It makes you a better interviewer and applies to a variety of environments including business, non-profits, and the public sector.
Just because Ben Franklin wanted to make the turkey our national bird doesn’t mean that you have to hire one
This sums up the primary purpose of the Workplace Attitudes Test. Still, many companies have used it to evaluate and help existing employees. I used to think that this was a little like closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. After all, once a person has worked for your organization you should know who has problem attitudes.
Also, the test reports on bad attitudes and as mentioned these are difficult to discuss. For example, an interviewer might not want to say “I see here that you are quite judgmental” or “I note that you tend to be a bit vindictive.” Dale Carnegie who wrote “How to Win Friends and Influence People” would not approve.
You can have the information but you don’t need to state it in a negative way. Each attitude relevant to the workplace is not single dimension, rather it exists on a continuum. That is, each bad attitude that is related to “disruptive behavior” has a corresponding attitude that is related to “getting along with people.” Next, I will look at the nine attitudes to show you what I mean.
Judgmental versus Accepting
Vindictive versus Forgiving
Adversarial versus Accommodating
Egocentric versus People-Oriented
Entitled versus Unassuming
Undisciplined versus Self-Disciplined
Insubordinate versus Respectful
Risk-Inclined versus Cautious
Non-Traditional versus Traditional
Each of the “bad” or disruptive attitudes has a corresponding “good” of socially-skilled attitude. Note our research has shown that the bad attitudes are disruptive only when they are extreme.
When working with existing employees and when reporting the results to a job candidate, it is the positive attitudes that are reported. It is important for the interviewer to understand that extreme and negative attitudes are warning signals, but is better to report the results in a positive way.
Although, it is the primary goal of the Workplace Attitudes Test to screen out potentially disruptive employees it is also useful for matching people to different types of workplace environments and to help some employees perform their jobs better.
In terms of matching people to work environments, command-and-control workplaces such as the military or the Catholic Church will likely find that individuals with respect for tradition and a respect for authority tend to fit in better. Conversely, entrepreneurial or team-building organizations may not need as much respect for authority and tradition and would prosper with people who are more self-disciplined and people oriented.
In one instance, the Workplace Attitude Test helped a young supervisor work with older sales representatives. Joyce was in her late twenties and supervised six sales reps who were twice her age. She did a great job. All of her reports were done on time, her meetings were short and efficient all of her staff liked her, business was great and she was miserable.
She wasn’t sure why she was miserable and discussions with her boss didn’t help. The big boss wanted to keep her and gave her raises and more time off, but still she was miserable. At that time, the Workplace Attitudes Test was under development and the entire staff agreed to take the test. No one had warning signals but the test solved the mystery.
Joyce proved to be accepting, forgiving, accommodating, people-oriented, unassuming, self-discipline somewhat cautious and very traditional.
Joyce’s sales reps were, well, sales reps. They too had good people skills, but they had little respect for authority, were a bit undisciplined, and quite entitled.
In short, Joyce wanted to please people, and her sales reps tended to take advantage of her. She met everyone’s needs but her own.
I am reminded of a great quote from the movie, “Three Days of the Condor” when a young CIA agent asks a grizzled old veteran played by John Housman, “What do you miss about the old days (referring World War II)?” Houseman replied, “The clarity.”
Joyce finally had clarity and the story has a happy ending. Joyce got a private office and a gatekeeper secretary. The sales reps could no longer barge in and talk to her at anytime. They had to make an appointment, unless it was critical, and they received an incentive to get their reports on time.
Joyce regained her sanity and the organization kept a good supervisor. To learn more, see http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
A Tale of Two Employees
This morning I received a phone call from Blockbusters, it was a recording saying that I failed to return one of their movies. I had returned it to the store a few days earlier and since the message did not include a return phone number I decided to stop by the store to explain the situation. It was not a store that I normally use but it was near a fast food restaurant that I like so I thought I would try the single stone-two bird gambit.
Now, as you may know, Blockbuster does not give you a receipt when you return a movie. It’s sort of “On the honor system” and one has to hope for the best. When I returned to the store I waited patiently while the solo employee finished a phone conversation on the merits of various ski resorts. I thought my patience would be rewarded with a modicum of empathy. After waiting at the cash register for a time, the employee looked at me with a trace of annoyance and asked “What can I do for you?” I explained that I had received a phone call saying that I had not returned a movie but that, in fact, I had. This explanation was rewarded by a blank stare and the words, “Your card.” This I immediately interpreted as meaning my Blockbuster card and I handed it over.
A quick swipe of the card into their computer system indicated that I must be a kleptomaniac with a tendency for mendacity. I was told “Our records show that the movie was not returned.” I said that I returned the movie a few days ago. He repeated, “Our records show that the movie was not returned.” It appeared that we were in a bit of a loop.
I asked, “Could you check the shelves?” He said, “You could.” After two minutes of frantic looking, I found the movie and brought it to the counter. In a moment of contrition only found in some prison cell blocks, the clerk said, “Lucky you.” The clerk then turned his back to make another phone call.
I would suspect this person would score quite high on more than one of the warning signals of the Workplace Attitudes Test. But I got to thinking, how much money does this type of employee cost Blockbusters?
In the future I don’t want this kind of surprise. I like to know what to expect. Unless they embrace truth in advertising and they change their name to Ballbusters, I won’t be back.
Now I’m not a very good movie rental customer. I usually rent a movie once a week but when I’m in the store I often buy a snack or something so I drop about six bucks. Multiply this by fifty and it adds up to about $300 a year. Not a lot of money but if it happens often it adds up for them.
Contrast this with another shopping experience. I was waiting in line at McDonalds to purchase and scarf down one of their vaulted chicken snacks when a rather disheveled octogenarian lady cut in front of me. She asked for a coke and the cash register rang up $1.06. She took out a shabby coin purse and counted out 76 cents. Alas, she had no more and looked up expectantly at the Hispanic cashier who smiled sympathetically. The cashier said “No, no, that’s okay” and gave her a cup for her coke. After the lady had left, the cashier was obviously concerned that I had to wait and said “I’m sorry.” I said “That’s all right” but before I could give my order, the octogenarian was back. Looking confused, she said, “I want ice cream.” The ice cream machine was broken and I could see my snack wrap fading into the sunset. The cashier said “Ma’am we have apple pie, would you like apple pie?” Now you may have heard the expression, “No good deed goes unpunished.” The old women said, “I’d like two.” The cashier replied, “Two it is.”
When the cashier got back to me she again apologized. I got my order and gave the cashier extra change to make up for her loss. I did this because I can be very generous when it comes to small amounts and someone was probably watching. I am reminded of one of my favorite expressions, “There is no greater pleasure than to do an anonymous good deed and then to get caught.”
If you would like to hire the second employee rather than the first, maybe you would like to look at www.workplaceattitudes.com.
Now, as you may know, Blockbuster does not give you a receipt when you return a movie. It’s sort of “On the honor system” and one has to hope for the best. When I returned to the store I waited patiently while the solo employee finished a phone conversation on the merits of various ski resorts. I thought my patience would be rewarded with a modicum of empathy. After waiting at the cash register for a time, the employee looked at me with a trace of annoyance and asked “What can I do for you?” I explained that I had received a phone call saying that I had not returned a movie but that, in fact, I had. This explanation was rewarded by a blank stare and the words, “Your card.” This I immediately interpreted as meaning my Blockbuster card and I handed it over.
A quick swipe of the card into their computer system indicated that I must be a kleptomaniac with a tendency for mendacity. I was told “Our records show that the movie was not returned.” I said that I returned the movie a few days ago. He repeated, “Our records show that the movie was not returned.” It appeared that we were in a bit of a loop.
I asked, “Could you check the shelves?” He said, “You could.” After two minutes of frantic looking, I found the movie and brought it to the counter. In a moment of contrition only found in some prison cell blocks, the clerk said, “Lucky you.” The clerk then turned his back to make another phone call.
I would suspect this person would score quite high on more than one of the warning signals of the Workplace Attitudes Test. But I got to thinking, how much money does this type of employee cost Blockbusters?
In the future I don’t want this kind of surprise. I like to know what to expect. Unless they embrace truth in advertising and they change their name to Ballbusters, I won’t be back.
Now I’m not a very good movie rental customer. I usually rent a movie once a week but when I’m in the store I often buy a snack or something so I drop about six bucks. Multiply this by fifty and it adds up to about $300 a year. Not a lot of money but if it happens often it adds up for them.
Contrast this with another shopping experience. I was waiting in line at McDonalds to purchase and scarf down one of their vaulted chicken snacks when a rather disheveled octogenarian lady cut in front of me. She asked for a coke and the cash register rang up $1.06. She took out a shabby coin purse and counted out 76 cents. Alas, she had no more and looked up expectantly at the Hispanic cashier who smiled sympathetically. The cashier said “No, no, that’s okay” and gave her a cup for her coke. After the lady had left, the cashier was obviously concerned that I had to wait and said “I’m sorry.” I said “That’s all right” but before I could give my order, the octogenarian was back. Looking confused, she said, “I want ice cream.” The ice cream machine was broken and I could see my snack wrap fading into the sunset. The cashier said “Ma’am we have apple pie, would you like apple pie?” Now you may have heard the expression, “No good deed goes unpunished.” The old women said, “I’d like two.” The cashier replied, “Two it is.”
When the cashier got back to me she again apologized. I got my order and gave the cashier extra change to make up for her loss. I did this because I can be very generous when it comes to small amounts and someone was probably watching. I am reminded of one of my favorite expressions, “There is no greater pleasure than to do an anonymous good deed and then to get caught.”
If you would like to hire the second employee rather than the first, maybe you would like to look at www.workplaceattitudes.com.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Will Disruptive People Answer Honestly?
When developing the questions for the Workplace Attitudes Test I was concerned that problem employees would not provide extreme responses. For example, take the following options:
Q. When someone insults or slights me . . . (select one of the following answers)
A. I tend to remember it a very long time.
B. I can hold a grudge, but not often.
C. at first I get irritated, but soon forget it.
Turns out, I did not need to be concerned because they did select some extreme answers. In this case, the extreme answer is “A.” In follow-up interviews I discovered that people with strong or extreme attitudes are proud of these attitudes. They tend to believe in absolutes. Later, correlating extreme answers with job performance suggested that attitudinal rigidity inclines one to disruptive behavior.
I am reminded of Lee Marvin’s line in the movie, Paint Your Wagon. He said, “When I was conceived, my parents did not have the benefit of marriage but you, sir, are a self-made man.” It turns out that there are a lot of self-made men (and women) out there and they are proud of their status.
If you listen carefully you can often hear, “You’ve got to watch your back all the time,” “You can’t trust anyone,” and “It’s a dog-eat-dog world out there.” Yep, people will tell you what they really think if you just give them a chance.
Skilled interviewers can sometimes pick up on attitudinal rigidity but most often the interviewer concentrates on “can do the job” rather than “will do the job.” Also many interviewers may feel it is not polite to ask these types of questions. That is why the Workplace Attitudes Test is so valuable. It asks questions that you may not be inclined to ask face-to-face, and people are willing to answer accurately. For more info see, http://www.workplaceattitudes.com.
Q. When someone insults or slights me . . . (select one of the following answers)
A. I tend to remember it a very long time.
B. I can hold a grudge, but not often.
C. at first I get irritated, but soon forget it.
Turns out, I did not need to be concerned because they did select some extreme answers. In this case, the extreme answer is “A.” In follow-up interviews I discovered that people with strong or extreme attitudes are proud of these attitudes. They tend to believe in absolutes. Later, correlating extreme answers with job performance suggested that attitudinal rigidity inclines one to disruptive behavior.
I am reminded of Lee Marvin’s line in the movie, Paint Your Wagon. He said, “When I was conceived, my parents did not have the benefit of marriage but you, sir, are a self-made man.” It turns out that there are a lot of self-made men (and women) out there and they are proud of their status.
If you listen carefully you can often hear, “You’ve got to watch your back all the time,” “You can’t trust anyone,” and “It’s a dog-eat-dog world out there.” Yep, people will tell you what they really think if you just give them a chance.
Skilled interviewers can sometimes pick up on attitudinal rigidity but most often the interviewer concentrates on “can do the job” rather than “will do the job.” Also many interviewers may feel it is not polite to ask these types of questions. That is why the Workplace Attitudes Test is so valuable. It asks questions that you may not be inclined to ask face-to-face, and people are willing to answer accurately. For more info see, http://www.workplaceattitudes.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
