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 workplace atttitudes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label workplace atttitudes. Show all posts
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Is a Good Employee Someone Who is Not a Bad Employee?
The Workplace Attitudes Test is designed to screen out people who have a propensity to be disruptive in the workplace. I refer to these people as “turkeys” or “jerks.” They are disruptive all out of proportion to their numbers. An assumption underlying the Workplace Attitudes Test is if you avoid hiring problem employees you will ipso facto hire good employees.
But we can turn this upside down and ask what constitutes a good employee? You say you demand a better definition than “A good employee is someone who is not a bad employee.” Well, I’ll take a shot.
A good employee is one who is not disruptive. Not good enough? You say you want something more proactive? How about this, a good employee is a person who is slow to judge, who sees the world in gray rather than black and white, and has genuine concern for one’s fellow man.
In sum, a good employee is a person who is decidedly disinclined to say, “I am doing this for your own good.” See www.workplaceattitudes.com
But we can turn this upside down and ask what constitutes a good employee? You say you demand a better definition than “A good employee is someone who is not a bad employee.” Well, I’ll take a shot.
A good employee is one who is not disruptive. Not good enough? You say you want something more proactive? How about this, a good employee is a person who is slow to judge, who sees the world in gray rather than black and white, and has genuine concern for one’s fellow man.
In sum, a good employee is a person who is decidedly disinclined to say, “I am doing this for your own good.” See www.workplaceattitudes.com
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Deep Do Do
Ah, irony of ironies. Here I have developed a pre-employment instrument that is designed to screen out the jerks in the workplace and at the highest level, the pigs have taken over the farm, the fox has been put in charge of the hen house and the engineers have been asleep at the switch. Is this too many clichés? Give me a break, how in hell can I describe the imbroglio called Wall Street and the sell out we call government.
Yes, the Workplace Attitudes Test will help you keep jerks out of the workplace but short of a revolution, what do we do about psychopathic executives and irresponsible regulators? Frankly, I just don’t know. See www.workplaceattitudes.com if you would like to foster an island of sanity in a sea of deep do do.
Yes, the Workplace Attitudes Test will help you keep jerks out of the workplace but short of a revolution, what do we do about psychopathic executives and irresponsible regulators? Frankly, I just don’t know. See www.workplaceattitudes.com if you would like to foster an island of sanity in a sea of deep do do.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Workplace Attitude Insurance and More
I think you should assume that the Workplace Attitudes Test is like an insurance policy. But it is more than that. You buy insurance because you want to be compensated when something bad happens; you buy the Workplace Attitudes Test to prevent something bad from happening.
Our statistics show that about one in twenty hires is a bad one. That’s about five percent. Now I know you may think that the following quote could apply to me: "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts, for support rather than illumination." Andrew Lang (1844-1912) But I say unto you, as Johnny Carson said to Ed McMahon, “Wrong moose breath!” It really is about five percent.
Plus I’m not saying this as a perception thing. Like George Carlin observed, “Have you ever wondered why everyone who drives faster than you is a maniac, and everyone who drives slower than you is an idiot?” It’s really is about five percent.
Yes, about one in twenty potential employees has an attitude problem. How many times have you had thoughts like this: "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." (Clarence Darrow) Or along the same line, consider this quote from Mark Twain, "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it."
Now, at least in the workplace, you don’t have to have these sentiments. You can screen out these people before nature does it for you. See: www.workplaceattitudes.com.
Our statistics show that about one in twenty hires is a bad one. That’s about five percent. Now I know you may think that the following quote could apply to me: "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts, for support rather than illumination." Andrew Lang (1844-1912) But I say unto you, as Johnny Carson said to Ed McMahon, “Wrong moose breath!” It really is about five percent.
Plus I’m not saying this as a perception thing. Like George Carlin observed, “Have you ever wondered why everyone who drives faster than you is a maniac, and everyone who drives slower than you is an idiot?” It’s really is about five percent.
Yes, about one in twenty potential employees has an attitude problem. How many times have you had thoughts like this: "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." (Clarence Darrow) Or along the same line, consider this quote from Mark Twain, "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it."
Now, at least in the workplace, you don’t have to have these sentiments. You can screen out these people before nature does it for you. See: www.workplaceattitudes.com.
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 20, 2008
Some Thoughts on Vindictiveness
I remember the old Kingston Trio song, “I shot the Sheriff, got ninety-nine years and it sure has been a lesson to me.” Problem is, I don’t think vindictive people feel much regret. What is it with this mind-set? Vindictive people seem to feel compelled to “Get even.” This suggests that they see life as a zero-sum game where some people win and others lose. If they see themselves losing, they must do something to balance the game. Most people see the world in terms of cooperation where win-win possibilities dominate.
Vindictive people are quite proud of their assumptions. They tend to agree with these types of statements: “If someone insults me, I remember it for a very long time,” “Don’t get mad, get even,” and “I’m the wrong person to cross.” Vindictive people tend to be mad most of the time.
I’ve been told that they get more ulcers, have higher blood pressure and tend to have more heart attacks. I have even read somewhere that evolution hasn’t had enough time to eliminate these types of people. In the meantime you might want to avoid hiring them by visiting www.workplaceattitudes.com
Vindictive people are quite proud of their assumptions. They tend to agree with these types of statements: “If someone insults me, I remember it for a very long time,” “Don’t get mad, get even,” and “I’m the wrong person to cross.” Vindictive people tend to be mad most of the time.
I’ve been told that they get more ulcers, have higher blood pressure and tend to have more heart attacks. I have even read somewhere that evolution hasn’t had enough time to eliminate these types of people. In the meantime you might want to avoid hiring them by visiting www.workplaceattitudes.com
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Some Thoughts on Entitlement
One of the values tested in the Workplace Attitudes Test is a sense of entitlement. Of course some people feel very entitled, others not at all. I believe that a strong sense of entitlement makes a person more difficult to work with. In the workplace, problems arise because the highly entitled may assume that they are not being sufficiently rewarded, they tend to see work as an obligation rather than an opportunity, and they often feel put upon if they are asked to do anything extra.
Entitlement is an interesting value and it has, on occasion, been a source of humor. I am reminded of Woody Allen’s lament, “Oh Lord if you could only give me a sign—like putting 10 million dollars in a Swiss bank account in my name.” Or the story of a man named Joseph who prayed every day for thirty years to win the lottery. One day on a hilltop he beseeched God “God, why have you not honored my prayer? I attend church every week, I tithe, I am good to my family and my fellow man and yet you don’t honor my prayer.” And God spoke to Joseph, “So Joseph, buy a ticket.”
Why do we find this so funny? I think that it is because we all feel entitled to some degree. But like the other values measured in the Workplace Attitudes Test, values that are extreme and inflexible cause problems.
Recently there has been a lot of buzz about generational differences concerning entitlement. It has been argued that when you raise children where everyone gets a trophy, you area fostering entitlement. A recent generation has been labeled the “Me Generation.” The proportion of people from different generations may differ on a variety of values, but I caution you to remember that entitlement is an individual characteristic. We hire individuals not generations. This is where skilled interviewing and a good pre-employment test will help. See: http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/.
Entitlement is an interesting value and it has, on occasion, been a source of humor. I am reminded of Woody Allen’s lament, “Oh Lord if you could only give me a sign—like putting 10 million dollars in a Swiss bank account in my name.” Or the story of a man named Joseph who prayed every day for thirty years to win the lottery. One day on a hilltop he beseeched God “God, why have you not honored my prayer? I attend church every week, I tithe, I am good to my family and my fellow man and yet you don’t honor my prayer.” And God spoke to Joseph, “So Joseph, buy a ticket.”
Why do we find this so funny? I think that it is because we all feel entitled to some degree. But like the other values measured in the Workplace Attitudes Test, values that are extreme and inflexible cause problems.
Recently there has been a lot of buzz about generational differences concerning entitlement. It has been argued that when you raise children where everyone gets a trophy, you area fostering entitlement. A recent generation has been labeled the “Me Generation.” The proportion of people from different generations may differ on a variety of values, but I caution you to remember that entitlement is an individual characteristic. We hire individuals not generations. This is where skilled interviewing and a good pre-employment test will help. 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
Monday, May 12, 2008
So High Self-Esteem is a Good Thing Right?
During the interview the job candidate has a great deal of self-confidence and obviously has high self-esteem and you’re thinking this is going well. But it turns out that researcher, Michael Kernis, Ph.D, Professor of Psychology at the University of Georgia says, “There are many kinds of high self-esteem, and in this study we found that for those in which it is fragile and shallow it’s no better than having low self-esteem.” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/28/health/webmd/main4050443.shtml
Now there is good self-esteem and bad self-esteem. The self-esteem goodnicks were less likely to be verbally defensive by blaming others or providing excuses when discussing past transgressions or threatening experiences. The baddies were more verbally defensive. The professor sums up, “These findings support the view that (high self-esteem involving) heightened defensiveness reflects insecurity, fragility and less-than-optimal functioning rather than a healthy psychological outlook”
My conclusion, self-esteem probably is not a great predictor of job performance and HR professionals should probably stay out of the psychoanalytic business. I think that this is true of pre-employment tests as well. A good pre-employment test should be related to the job environment and not one’s personality.
The Workplace Attitudes Test makes the following assumptions: 1) the workplace is a social environment; 2) people should get along with each other; 3) people with bad attitudes don’t play well with others; 4) certain work-related attitudes pre-dispose people to act in certain ways; 5) workplace attitudes can be measured; 6) disruptive people, often described as jerks, have problem workplace attitudes; and 7) jerks, identified by behavior or consensus, are happy to reveal all of their workplace attitudes because they are proud of those attitudes.
The Workplace Attitudes Test works not because it is psychoanalytic, but because it looks at attitudes related to social aspects of the workplace. See, www.workplaceattitudes.com
Now there is good self-esteem and bad self-esteem. The self-esteem goodnicks were less likely to be verbally defensive by blaming others or providing excuses when discussing past transgressions or threatening experiences. The baddies were more verbally defensive. The professor sums up, “These findings support the view that (high self-esteem involving) heightened defensiveness reflects insecurity, fragility and less-than-optimal functioning rather than a healthy psychological outlook”
My conclusion, self-esteem probably is not a great predictor of job performance and HR professionals should probably stay out of the psychoanalytic business. I think that this is true of pre-employment tests as well. A good pre-employment test should be related to the job environment and not one’s personality.
The Workplace Attitudes Test makes the following assumptions: 1) the workplace is a social environment; 2) people should get along with each other; 3) people with bad attitudes don’t play well with others; 4) certain work-related attitudes pre-dispose people to act in certain ways; 5) workplace attitudes can be measured; 6) disruptive people, often described as jerks, have problem workplace attitudes; and 7) jerks, identified by behavior or consensus, are happy to reveal all of their workplace attitudes because they are proud of those attitudes.
The Workplace Attitudes Test works not because it is psychoanalytic, but because it looks at attitudes related to social aspects of the workplace. See, www.workplaceattitudes.com
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Silly Me, I Thought It Was Obvious
Recently, I started a discussion session on the HR website called ERE and the address is http://www.ere.net/forum. The topic was “Should HR be Pro-Actively Anti-Jerk?” I even cited the book, “The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t” by Robert I. Sutton. This book describes the high costs of jerks in the workplace. It goes on to describe how jerks are personally abusive and that they tend to treat subordinates with derision and superiors with some respect.
About eighty percent of the comments tended to agree that jerks are costly and that HR should do its part to bring tranquility to the workplace. However, about twenty percent of the comments demonstrated a fair amount of tolerance for jerks.
One comment asked (in Latin) who is going to watch the watchers. My Latin is non-existent so to add insult to injury, I had to look up the quote on Wikipedia. Another person said that “One man’s victim is another man’s whiner.” Someone else said “The purpose of HR is to serve as a protective device. Make sure everything is legal, fair and compliant and quash anything likely to result in litigation. When you are done with all that then by all means, you may devote a few minutes per day to your Utopian ideals on human potential.”
Others have suggested that jerks are necessary to shake things up and to keep people on their toes and that if someone is really good at their job then jerkiness should be tolerated.
There you have it, some justifications for tolerating jerks in the workplace: (1) who has the right to judge; (2) their victims may just be whiners; (3) the anti-jerk idea is utopian; (4) people need jerks to motivate them; and (5) and some jerks are so important that we need to tolerate them.
This is an old debate, but I agree with James Madison’s sentiments when he said, “If men were angels, government wouldn’t be necessary.” In other words, certain actions should be taken to guard against the worst instincts of some people. Even gun rights advocates tend to agree that hand-grenades and bazookas should be regulated. I’ll grant that some people would disagree, but they are jerks. See http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/
About eighty percent of the comments tended to agree that jerks are costly and that HR should do its part to bring tranquility to the workplace. However, about twenty percent of the comments demonstrated a fair amount of tolerance for jerks.
One comment asked (in Latin) who is going to watch the watchers. My Latin is non-existent so to add insult to injury, I had to look up the quote on Wikipedia. Another person said that “One man’s victim is another man’s whiner.” Someone else said “The purpose of HR is to serve as a protective device. Make sure everything is legal, fair and compliant and quash anything likely to result in litigation. When you are done with all that then by all means, you may devote a few minutes per day to your Utopian ideals on human potential.”
Others have suggested that jerks are necessary to shake things up and to keep people on their toes and that if someone is really good at their job then jerkiness should be tolerated.
There you have it, some justifications for tolerating jerks in the workplace: (1) who has the right to judge; (2) their victims may just be whiners; (3) the anti-jerk idea is utopian; (4) people need jerks to motivate them; and (5) and some jerks are so important that we need to tolerate them.
This is an old debate, but I agree with James Madison’s sentiments when he said, “If men were angels, government wouldn’t be necessary.” In other words, certain actions should be taken to guard against the worst instincts of some people. Even gun rights advocates tend to agree that hand-grenades and bazookas should be regulated. I’ll grant that some people would disagree, but they are jerks. See http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/
Saturday, April 5, 2008
A Jerk is a Jerk is a Jerk
Now that would seem obvious. Why isn’t it? In a world that claims that there are no absolutes, believe me, there are absolutes. Newtonian physics is not cancelled out by Einstein’s theory of relativity, especially if you hit a tree at one hundred miles an hour in your car.
When it comes to jerks, I am reminded of that cartoon about two guys standing in a pot surrounded by cannibals. The caption reads “It doesn’t help to add more salt once you’ve crapped in the soup.”
Why do I bring this up? Well, I’ve been reading some blogs lately that say that one jerk in the workplace may be a good thing. The argument goes that some people are indispensable, that it is impossible to find enough reasonable people, and that one jerk will help keep everyone else on their toes.
There is an interesting book called The "No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One that Isn’t," written by Robert Sutton a professor at the Stanford School of Engineering and the founder and co-director of Stanford’s Center for work. He points out that there is a calculated “total cost of assholes” and it is surprisingly high, plus it is almost impossible to enforce a civility rule with one asshole (or jerk) in the workplace.
I have often wondered why there is such great tolerance for jerks. I think one of the reasons is that a lot of jerks have money and we have an almost irrational appreciation for conspicuous consumption. We tend to forgive people with wealth and give them credit for virtues that are conspicuously lacking. They also tend to like the attention and they get a lot of press. For every Warren Buffet, a reasonable man, there seems to be ten Donald Trumps. I like to refer to this as the jerk or asshole halo effect.
But let’s look a little closer at the behavior of the office jerk. Mark I. Schickman, in his review of the aforementioned book, says that jerks “take credit for other people’s work. They manage expectations by making employees feel bad about themselves. They have the laser-like ability to find the weakest, most insecure people and focus their aggression on them. The symptomatic behaviors include insults, threats, teasing, shaming and ostracizing.” http://hrheroblogs.com/resources/2008/02/06/the-no-asshole-rule-building-a-civilized-workplace-and-surviving-one-that-isnt
Do you want to have even one jerk in your workplace? Shouldn’t it be a primary function of bosses and HR to keep these people away from the rest of us? I am reminded of the Tylenol scare of a few years ago. Some nut was putting poison in Tylenol. It would have been unthinkable to say it was only a few poison capsules in millions and millions of bottles. Come on folks, end the suffering. Screen for jerks and assholes. See http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/.
When it comes to jerks, I am reminded of that cartoon about two guys standing in a pot surrounded by cannibals. The caption reads “It doesn’t help to add more salt once you’ve crapped in the soup.”
Why do I bring this up? Well, I’ve been reading some blogs lately that say that one jerk in the workplace may be a good thing. The argument goes that some people are indispensable, that it is impossible to find enough reasonable people, and that one jerk will help keep everyone else on their toes.
There is an interesting book called The "No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One that Isn’t," written by Robert Sutton a professor at the Stanford School of Engineering and the founder and co-director of Stanford’s Center for work. He points out that there is a calculated “total cost of assholes” and it is surprisingly high, plus it is almost impossible to enforce a civility rule with one asshole (or jerk) in the workplace.
I have often wondered why there is such great tolerance for jerks. I think one of the reasons is that a lot of jerks have money and we have an almost irrational appreciation for conspicuous consumption. We tend to forgive people with wealth and give them credit for virtues that are conspicuously lacking. They also tend to like the attention and they get a lot of press. For every Warren Buffet, a reasonable man, there seems to be ten Donald Trumps. I like to refer to this as the jerk or asshole halo effect.
But let’s look a little closer at the behavior of the office jerk. Mark I. Schickman, in his review of the aforementioned book, says that jerks “take credit for other people’s work. They manage expectations by making employees feel bad about themselves. They have the laser-like ability to find the weakest, most insecure people and focus their aggression on them. The symptomatic behaviors include insults, threats, teasing, shaming and ostracizing.” http://hrheroblogs.com/resources/2008/02/06/the-no-asshole-rule-building-a-civilized-workplace-and-surviving-one-that-isnt
Do you want to have even one jerk in your workplace? Shouldn’t it be a primary function of bosses and HR to keep these people away from the rest of us? I am reminded of the Tylenol scare of a few years ago. Some nut was putting poison in Tylenol. It would have been unthinkable to say it was only a few poison capsules in millions and millions of bottles. Come on folks, end the suffering. Screen for jerks and assholes. 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/.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Is It Easier to Hire Good Workers During a Recession?
Dare I say the word “Recession?” In the late-1970s, Alfred Kahn who was Jimmy Carter’s chief economic advisor used this word in one of his discussions with the press. He was quickly summoned to the White House for a wood-shed moment and abandoned the word. He replaced it with the word banana even singing the song, “Yes we have no bananas, we have no bananas today.”
Now assuming that we could be in for one big banana, how does this affect the hiring process? It would seem that with more people looking for work, good people would be easier to find.
Many job candidates in 2008 may be looking for a new position because they are facing serious financial problems, some may be facing foreclosure, and some may have less than excellent credit reports. A lot of times candidates are automatically disqualified because of their credit rating. The truth is that many people are in trouble because of circumstances, not irresponsibility. For example, it could be the housing meltdown, it could be a serious illness in their family, it could be that they started a business that didn’t work out. It is better to judge applicants not by their credit report but by their work-related attitudes.
Are they entitled versus unassuming?
Are they adversarial versus accommodating?
Are they egocentric versus people oriented?
Are they judgmental versus accepting?
Are they vindictive versus forgiving?
Are they insubordinate versus respectful?
Are they undisciplined versus self-disciplined?
Overall, there is not much good about a recession but there are tools to help the interviewer in these challenging times. The Workplace Attitudes Test looks at several of the attitudes listed above, and more. See: http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/.
Now assuming that we could be in for one big banana, how does this affect the hiring process? It would seem that with more people looking for work, good people would be easier to find.
Many job candidates in 2008 may be looking for a new position because they are facing serious financial problems, some may be facing foreclosure, and some may have less than excellent credit reports. A lot of times candidates are automatically disqualified because of their credit rating. The truth is that many people are in trouble because of circumstances, not irresponsibility. For example, it could be the housing meltdown, it could be a serious illness in their family, it could be that they started a business that didn’t work out. It is better to judge applicants not by their credit report but by their work-related attitudes.
Are they entitled versus unassuming?
Are they adversarial versus accommodating?
Are they egocentric versus people oriented?
Are they judgmental versus accepting?
Are they vindictive versus forgiving?
Are they insubordinate versus respectful?
Are they undisciplined versus self-disciplined?
Overall, there is not much good about a recession but there are tools to help the interviewer in these challenging times. The Workplace Attitudes Test looks at several of the attitudes listed above, and 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.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, January 21, 2008
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 . . .
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 . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
