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.

Hammocks, Margaritas and Turkeys

At this very moment, I find myself seated at my computer with a decided disinclination to write this blog. You see, I am visiting Ajijic, Mexico located thirty or so miles from Guadalajara. Ajijic is situated between the mountains and Lake Chapala meaning that it has one of the most pleasant climates in the world. Temperatures day after day hover at plus-or-minus three degrees of 72 degrees Fahrenheit. www.lakechapalasociety.org

This area attracts a lot of Americans and Canadians, and Canadians never tire of telling you, “We are just like Americans except that we are unarmed and we have health insurance.” After hearing this several times one sometimes wishes to be armed.

For me this looks like the land of hammocks and margaritas and naptime. It appears that one of the most pressing questions should be “prone or supine?” Imagine my surprise when one of the local American business people expressed interest in my Workplace Attitudes Test. It appears that everywhere there are people who will take advantage of the system and create problems for employers.

In Mexico the system decidedly favors the worker. Add to this the fact that some Americans have difficulty believing that other countries are not like the U.S. and you have a cauldron of misunderstanding.

In Mexico employers, including and maybe especially North American employers, have certain obligations to their employees even if part-time. This is probably as it should be but it includes maids and gardeners and others that we might consider self-employed, contract labor, or hired as part of a larger maid service or landscaping company, etc. The wages are low but when you hire someone, in many ways you take responsibility for them. You will be expected to pay for some vacation time and possibly other obligations such as payment into a retirement account or keeping them employed while you travel for a few months. In others words, they expect a certain amount of security. Loyalty cuts both ways and the system works well if both parties act in good faith.

One of the big problems is getting rid of someone with a bad attitude or someone who does not do the job. Most Mexicans work very hard for what we would consider very little money. Albeit, there are turkeys everywhere and woe be it to the Gringo employer who does not follow correct procedures when firing someone.

As I understand it, in Mexico there is something that is called a “Denuncio” where an aggrieved party goes to the local police station or City Hall to file a complaint. This is probably a little like a scene from the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy is told “You’re not in Kansas anymore.” Now you get to experience the legal system in a foreign country. Most people simple settle and this can be thousands of dollars. I heard a few stories about having to pay $25,000. This may explain the interest in the Workplace Attitudes Test in a village in Mexico.

At this point, please note that the Workplace Attitudes Test has not been tested or validated for use in a non-English-speaking foreign country. It should work, but I am not sure. I do know that there are plenty of turkeys to look for in the United States. So if you want to know more about the best darn bad attitude test available, please see www.workplaceattitudes.com.

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/.

Bureaucrats Get a Bad Rap

I recently received a phone call from a long-time friend who happens to be a Libertarian. I remember some of his long tirades about the evils of government and particularly how bad bureaucrats are. Well, Norbert just qualified for Social Security. With only a modicum of chagrin, he decided that he would indeed take the benefits. It seems that Norbert had fallen upon some hard times and his business endeavors didn’t work out and the Social Security check was a godsend.

But this isn’t the only change in Norbert. It seems that he now thinks that bureaucrats can be quite fine people. He said that the people at the Social Security office were extremely nice, helpful, and efficient. They helped him track down missing documents, helped him fill out the forms, and were very supportive.

Why is it that there are so many people like Norbert who like to bash bureaucrats? Many seem to believe if we could only get rid of the “bureaucrats” life would be better. They also ask “Why do we need bureaucratic regulation?” I can think of a few reasons such as the savings and loan debacle, poison pet food from China, lead paint on children’s toys, tainted meat, and the recent mortgage meltdown. What do you think? Maybe we should keep some of the firefighters and police who protect our streets and the foresters who fight the forest fires.

I agree with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison when they wrote, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” I wonder if I could design a politician’s version of the Workplace Attitudes Test.

How Does One Get a High Warning Signal on the Workplace Attitude Test?

When a job candidate takes the Workplace Attitude Test it is possible to get a warning signal score on one or more of the nine attitudes tested. A high score or warning signal could indicate the type of individual that David Brooks of the New York Times refers to as “Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Know.”

Overall, it usually identifies someone who has difficulty getting along with others. I will explain how this is calculated after we look at the attitudes that are measured. My research has shown that all nine are relevant to getting along with others in the workplace

Judgmental versus accepting
Propensity to defend one's rights, a strong sense of right and wrong, may have a compulsion to intervene in a controversy.

Vindictive versus forgiving
Tends to keep track of obligations as well as perceived slights and insults, may
have the propensity to persist in the attempt to “correct” the situation.

Adversarial versus accommodating
Limited understanding of the needs and desires of other people and generally- accepted social obligations.

Egocentric versus people oriented
May be disinclined to assist fellow workers, limited obligation to customers, and a general unwillingness to make sacrifices for the good of the organization.

Entitled versus unassuming
May assume that they are not being rewarded sufficiently, tends to see work as an obligation rather than an opportunity, and may have a sense of entitlement.

Undisciplined versus self-disciplined
Limited commitment to finish projects without supervision.

Insubordinate versus respectful
Tends to doubt people in authority and the chain of command, may question that "rank has its privileges," oftentimes unwilling to seek help from a superior.

Risk-Inclined versus cautious
Generally unwilling to delay decisions in order to get more information, disinclined to check with others, and limited regard for record keeping.

Non-Traditional versus traditional
Oftentimes little desire to understand past events, rules and regulations, or work-related ceremonies.

Each of these attitudes can be assumed to exist on a continuum. For example, one’s attitude can go from very judgmental to very accepting. This is determined by asking five questions for each of the attitudes and providing three possible answers for each question. Here is an example of a judgmental question.

Q Overall . . . (select one answer)

1 Right is right and wrong is wrong and people should know the difference.
2 Rules should be enforced, but with some discretion.
3 Every situation is different and it is hard to apply universal rules.

For each question there is an extreme, average and moderate answer. In order to score high on the attitude being measured, the respondent must answer three extreme and at least two moderate answers. Our research has shown that extreme answers indicate strong negative attitudes that are not conducive to getting along with others.

It would seem to be quite difficult to achieve extreme scores but about one in twenty people do it. When they are interviewed concerning their answers, they tend to report that their answers accurately reflect their view of the world. This is, after all, what attitudes are defined to be. They are the filters through which we see the world. This reminds me of the Spanish expression “Cada cabeza es un mundo.” It translates to “each head is a world.” Our goal is understand those worlds so they don’t collide. I’ll have to admit that I might have carried this analogy too far, but if you really want to use your cabeza refer to http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/.

In an upcoming article I will discuss how to interpret the scores based on types of work environments.

Jack is Back or What Happened When I Hired an Embezzler

Now I knew Jack was an embezzler. In fact he had just spent about two years in the pokey for “borrowing” money from a Wall Street investment firm. Albeit, a friend of mine convinced me that everyone deserves a second chance and I decided to hire him “on a conditional basis.” At the time, I had a boutique research company in Denver, Colorado and Jack would be a sales rep. Frankly, there wasn’t that much to steal.

Jack looked good, chiseled Grecian features, five-hundred dollar suits, alligator shoes and a really nice brief case. I hired him on a Friday and by the following Monday he had read all of our reports and promotional material and was quite well informed. Jack did a very good job and I was, frankly, impressed.

As I mentioned, there was very little opportunity to misappropriate funds. Our small research company did have an asset which would seem to have only moderate value. We had done some work for trade-out with a local airline. Trade-out is where a company receives sort of a promissory note that can be used for other services. This could include airline tickets, restaurant meals and hotel accommodations.

Soon Jack learned about our trade-out account and he came to me for a “small” favor. He said that he had a girl friend who had helped him when he needed a friend. When he was on probation, she had let him stay at her house. He said he would like to take her to a local ski resort for the weekend to reward her for her generous help.

I mean, how could I refuse? How much could one spend on a single weekend? The trade-out account had $14,000 in it, nevertheless Jack and his friend were able to have a $14,000 weekend. Of course, I didn’t know this until I tried to use the account and by that time, Jack had another job with a large advertising agency. Apparently, it is easier for a person with a job to find another job when he already has one. This is probably especially true for an embezzler. On the plus side, it did provide inspiration to develop the Workplace Attitudes Test. See www.workplaceattitudes.com. Now if I would have had the Workplace Attitudes Test, I suppose I could have still hired him. Nah, I’m not that dumb.

People Can Seem To Be So Darn Nice

I have come to the conclusion that I am a lousy interviewer. I have hired some real turkeys. I remember thinking what nice people they seemed to be. In future blog entries I’ll tell you about some of the worst but the person that I am thinking about now is a drama queen named “Gloria.” Of course, at the time, I didn’t know that she was a drama queen. After all, she made it obvious that she thought that I was clever and intelligent and that counts for a lot.

Later, I developed the Workplace Attitudes Test (WAT) and she agreed to take the test. The results showed that she is - well, a drama queen. She tested very high on entitled, undisciplined and insubordinate but what did I know? Now I consider the WAT the best darn bad-attitude screening device available today and Gloria deserves some of the credit for inspiring me to develop it.

Gloria did some part-time work for my company and then moved on when she found a full-time job. Gloria makes a good first impression because she has seemingly good social skills which are important in an interview. On the job, she is a disaster. She cannot focus because she prefers to socialize, and she quickly ignores the chain of command. She often fails to do her job or finish a project and always blames someone else. In other words, her survival skills are highly developed and she has a tendency to scapegoat people.

Supervising Gloria became a Herculean task for her new boss. Picture this, she was on several committees, interacted with almost everybody, especially the higher-ups and to her, work was party time. Several of her colleagues and her immediate boss became fed up with her but by then she had friends in all the right places.

It took over a year but after countless intrigue, much of it orchestrated by Gloria herself, she was finally encouraged to move on. And if you don’t want to fire someone like Gloria, you give her a good recommendation to make sure that she moves on. Did I mention that one of the people that Gloria befriended was the organization’s legal counsel? He thought a good recommendation might be wise. Of course, one can’t outright lie but everyone agreed that Gloria has great people skills. Take a look at www.workplaceattitudes.com and see what Gloria helped inspire.

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.

The Greatest-Generation, Baby-Boomers, Gen-X’ers, Gen-Y’ers and Gen-Me: Who Are These People?

There is an interesting, and possibly apocryphal, story concerning Pompeii that was buried during a catastrophic eruption of the volcano of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD. It is reported that graffiti on a bathhouse wall said, “What is happening to the younger generation?” Whether this story is true or not, every generation seems puzzled and bemused by subsequent generations.

Newer generations are equally critical of the previous generation. This reminds me of the old bromide, “The grandson wants to remember what the son wants to forget.” Suffice it to say, generations are different and they approach life and work differently.

Tom Brokaw wrote several books on the “Greatest Generation.” This is the generation that grew up during the Depression, won World War Two, developed the suburbs and spawned the “Baby-Boomer” generation. Mr. Brokaw drew so much attention to that generation and did so many interviews that one wag was inspired to quip, “The Greatest Generation has just delivered a cease-and-desist order to Tom Brokaw!”

Now it is the Baby-Boomer generation that is retiring from the workplace to be replaced by Gen X, Gen Y, and/or Gen Me. It is these generations that are receiving much attention from HR experts.

Gen X was born in the 1960s and 1970s, Gen Y was born between 1980 and 1995. Gen-Me tends to be a more pejorative term and overlaps Gen X and Gen Y, and they were born after 1970.

In an article entitled “Generation Y: They’ve Arrived at Work With a New Attitude” appearing in “USA Today”, http://usatoday.com/money/workplace/2005-11-06-gen-y_x.htm columnist Stephanie Armour describes a 22 year old young lady in flip-flops at her desk listening to her i-pod and saying that she doesn’t want work to be her life. “This is Generation Y, a force of as many as 70 million, and the first wave now embarking on their careers –taking their place in an increasingly multigenerational workplace.” Armour goes on to describe Gen Y as having been pampered, nurtured and provided with a multitude of diverting activities. Since toddlers they are both high performance and high maintenance.

Bruce Tulgan of Rainmaking Thinking, who co-authored Managing Generation Y with Carolyn Martin states “If you thought you saw a clash when Generation X came into the workplace, that was a fake punch. The haymaker is coming now.” Tulgan gave a recent example of a young woman who just started a job at a cereal company, “She showed up on the first day with a recipe for a new cereal she’d invented.” Conflict?

Jean M. Twenge wrote a book whose title seems to say it all, Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled and More Miserable Than Ever Before. Would I be too cynical to ask, if they are going to make the rest of us miserable it’s only fair that they’re a little miserable themselves?

K. Henderson wrote a book review of Generation Me (mentioned above) and called her review “The Self-Esteem Movement is Setting Our Kids up For Failure.” Not one to mince words, she says, “Instead of creating well-adjusted, happy children, the self-esteem movement has created an army of little narcissists. Narcissism is a very negative personality trait linked to aggression and poor relations with others.” http://www.amazon.com/review/R2Z252ND5U3D7R/ref=cm_cr_pr_viwpnt

Oh boy. Here are a few more. Mike Kraus, offers strategies to retail store managers who are faced with the statement, “Pay me more or I’m quitting.” http://www.allbusiness.com/retail/6070443-1.html.

Rebecca Mazin authored an article called “How Many Employees Will Have the Flu on Monday?” This refers to likely absences after the Super Bowl. She suggests that employers track absences after weekends and three day holidays. http://allbusiness/medicine-health/deseases-disorders-infectious/6611264-1.html.

In the latest (Dec 2007) Junior Achievement/Deloitte Teen Ethics Survey, “Thirty-eight percent of the teenagers surveyed believe that it is sometimes necessary to cheat, plagiarize, lie or even behave violently in order to succeed.” No wonder Tom Brokaw misses the Greatest Generation.

Well which is it? Is that graffiti on the Pompeii wall accurate in that older generations will always disparage younger generations, or are Gen X, Gen Y, and Gen Me really going to hell in a hand basket?

Referring back to Aristotle’s Golden Mean, I think that the answer is a decisive yes and no. The point is that all generational labels are generalities. Useful if they are correct more than 50% of the time. But the problem that I am concerned with is whether the next person I hire will be disruptive in the work place. Who is to say which generation has the most jerks or turkeys? Maybe the proportions are different. Therefore, I recommend that you assess everyone as an individual. You might even want to consider using the Workplace Attitudes Test. http://www.workplaceattitudes.com.

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.

Are Ya Feeling Lucky Punk, Well Are Ya?

These immortal words were uttered in the “Dirty Harry” movie played by a gun-wielding Clint Eastwood whose gun may or may not have been out of ammunition. Eastwood also uttered the words “Make my day” in a similar situation. Such is the work of cinematic policemen administering quick and final justice to what David Brooks of the New York Times called “The mad, bad and dangerous to know.”

Truth be told, some police spend their entire careers without firing their guns outside of the firing range. Most like it that way. Police work is difficult, and oftentimes dangerous. They go where there are problems and they often see the seamier side of life. It is a challenging career and I am happy to say that the Workplace Attitudes Test has been utilized to help screen people for this profession.

The Test assesses nine work-related attitudes and I’d like to discuss a few of them here. These include judgmental versus accepting, vindictive versus forgiving, adversarial versus accommodating, and egocentric versus people oriented.

In most professions one does not want a person who is judgmental, vindictive, adversarial and egocentric. But when looking at work-related attitudes it is important to understand your own work environment, and some organizations may prefer a certain combination of attitudes. For example, law enforcement may want high judgmental which is defined as a strong sense of right and wrong yet it should be coupled with moderate or low egocentric. We want police to enforce rules and regulations. That is their job. We also want police who have people skills, a sense of forgiveness, and the ability for accommodation.

This is expecting a lot, but thousands of law enforcement people do just that every day.
For more information see http://www.workplaceattitudes.com.

Workplaces Are Social Environments

Charles Schultz, the famous cartoonist and I might add philosopher, was once asked, “How optimistic are you about the future of America?” After all, Charlie Brown, his erstwhile protagonist suffered an inordinate amount of frustration. Year after year Lucy would promise to hold the football only to yank it away at the last moment. Suffering catastrophe after catastrophe a disillusioned Charlie would utter, “Good Grief.”

Nevertheless, concerning optimism and America, Mr. Schultz was very optimistic. When asked why, he said because every day millions of hard-working Americans went to work, did their job, took care of their children and met their obligations. The simple fact is the vast majority of people do us proud.

As the developer of the Workplace Attitudes Test, I was recently asked, “What percent of employees have problem attitudes?” This is difficult to answer with precision. I would say that usually among a group of job applicants, approximately one out of twenty has shown at least one very high warning signal on the test. This usually comes as a surprise to the interviewer because it is difficult to identify these problem attitudes in a regular job interview.

The anecdotal evidence suggests that there are a lot of turkeys out there. If you drove to work today, you probably witnessed someone honk at you, cut you off, or run a yellow light. You have probably experienced a cashier who was on their cell phone or had some other similar experience.

Most people follow the rules, are invariably polite and easy to get along with. Unfortunately, it is the turkeys that have a disproportionate impact. I sometimes think that it is the job of a manager to reign in the five percent so that the other ninety-five percent don’t get totally disgusted.

There is no question that one problem employee can pollute the workplace. It is even worse if that one person is a supervisor. We have probably all witnessed workplaces that were happy, then with a change in managers they became a neurosis-driven dysfunctional environment.

I am thinking of a sewing and fabric store that had a low-key, tolerant supervisor who was primarily concerned with keeping customers happy. As often happens, this manager was promoted and replaced by an individual with a different agenda. Neatness became the new top priority. In a fabric store, scraps of fabric were not tolerated and employees picked up scraps of cloth while customers were ignored. When the scraps were gone, then everything needed to be folded properly. Complaints increased, employees were blamed, and longtime employees quit. Hello neatness, goodbye profits.

The lesson is that workplaces are social environments. Ninety-five percent of the employees can be good, but that ain’t enough. All it takes is one turkey . . .

Thank Goodness for Gratitude

When I did the initial research to discover attitudes related to disruptive behavior in the workplace, I had the opportunity to meet a lot of turkeys.

This includes embezzlers, back-stabbers, bad-mouthers, imposters, malcontents and job-hoppers and I also talked to a few people who liked to threaten their former employers with law suits. Individuals in this rouges gallery had bad attitudes in the extreme. These same bad attitudes were generally absent in good or non-disruptive employees.

Turkey attitudes include judgmental, vindictive, entitled, disrespect for authority, undisciplined, egocentric and so forth. Again, to be a turkey, one has to hold at least one of these negative attitudes strongly. If you want to know more about these bad attitudes visit the Workplace Attitudes website at www.workplaceattitudes.com.

These work-related attitudes were discovered from a series of open-ended interviews but one other underlying attitude or characteristic seemed to be present in good workers and absent in problem employees—that is, gratitude.

Gratitude explains a lot. If you decide that a pre-employment test is not for you, you may want to look for gratitude in your job candidates. If you find evidence of gratitude, I believe you may be fairly sure that this person will get along well with others.

Wikipedia provides the following definition: Gratitude, appreciation, or thankfulness is a positive emotion or attitude in acknowledgment of a benefit that one has received or will receive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratitude
One of my favorite quotes is by Meister Eckhart, “If the only prayer you said in your whole life was, ‘thank you,’ that would suffice.”
Melodie Beattie talks about gratitude as follows:
“Gratitude unlocks the fullness of life. It turns what we have into enough, and more. It turns denial into acceptance, chaos into order, confusion into clarity . . . It turns problems into gifts, failures into success, the unexpected into perfect timing, and mistakes into important events. Gratitude makes sense of our past, brings peace for today and creates a vision for tomorrow.” www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_gratitude.html
If you’re looking for an employee who will get along well with other people, you can’t go wrong by asking them “What are you grateful for?”
If you want to learn more about research related to gratitude and good health, I suggest that you look at some comments made by Charles Osgood in his Osgood File (CBS Radio Network) The Osgood File (CBS Radio Network): 7/12/02The Osgood File (CBS Radio Network): 12/19/01
http://www.acfnewsource.org/religion/gratitude_theory.html

Why Look for Bad Attitudes in the Workplace Rather Than Good Attitudes?

After all, if you are looking for good employees why not look for people with good attitudes? The simple answer is--it tends not to work. Looking for good attitudes does not identify individuals with bad attitudes.

I am reminded of a speech given by the president of a gold-mining corporation who stated “Our company must process two tons of dirt to find one once of gold.” An audience member then asked, “How is that possible?” The executive replied, “Well, you look for the gold, not the dirt.”

This is not as obvious as it first appears. For example, the goal of mental therapy is and was to develop well-adjusted happy individuals. Since Sigmund Freud, psychologists and psychiatrists tended to assume that the simple absence of mental illness equated to happiness.

It was Professor Martin E. P. Goldman of the University of Pennsylvania who did empirical research and turned this upside down. He developed a system that showed that happiness is not simply the absence of mental illness, rather it is a proactive phenomena based upon an individual’s beliefs and actions. He did not believe that happiness was the absence of mental illness and he began to look for the factors related to happiness, and a new branch of psychology was born called Positive Psychology. There is more info in his book “Learned Optimism” that was published in 1992.

I suppose it is possible to use Dr. Goldman’s system to identify individuals who score high on the happiness scale and this would likely produce happier workplaces. In fact, this may a good idea but there can be a few legal issues because pre-employment tests must be related to the workplace.

The Workplace Attitude Test focuses on identifying individuals who possess bad attitudes or warning signals that are related to disruption in the workplace and the test looks at a total of nine attitudes.

Without going into great detail, here are three attitudes that I found can be critical problems in the workplace. These include “judgmental” which involves a strong sense of right and wrong; “vindictiveness” which involves a zero-sum approach to relations with customers, fellow employees or supervisors; and “entitlement” which is somewhat self-explanatory. During our research to develop the Workplace Attitudes Test, when problem employees were interviewed it was discovered that these attitudes were almost always present in the extreme. Therefore, these attitudes - judgmental, vindictiveness, and entitlement – are included (among others) when we look for warning signals.

It would be wonderful if we could hire happy well-adjusted individuals every time but a more reasonable goal is to find people who don’t have a chip on their shoulders. For more details on Dr. Goldman’s research, see http://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/Default.aspx. For more details about our Workplace Attitudes Test please see http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/.