Tag Archives: performance

BALANCE AT WORK BLOG

What do you want?

Last week, our single question survey asked readers “What is the one people management issue that is causing you the most pain right now?”

The response was fantastic!  Thanks for all your contributions.

Didn’t see it?  It’s not too late to give us your answer and have it added to our list of topics for future webinars and articles. 

The first webinar is scheduled for 12 noon on Wednesday, 7 July 2010.  Topic and registration details will be posted in the next couple of weeks.

Here is a summary of the suggestions so far:

Team

  • establishing teamwork – working together on to meet organisational goals
  • culture
  • understanding what each person does and how roles work together

Motivation

  • rewards –  ideas on non-monetary rewards
  • getting staff to work in new ways in an industry that has been more reactive than proactive in the past

Delegation

  • effectively communicating what needs to be done
  • having tasks completed to your requirements
  • ensuring staff are productive when you’re not there

Training

  • developing teams to meet future needs
  • helping staff indentify skill gaps
  • making time for training

Recruitment

  • attracting the people with the right attitude
  • matching the right people to the role
  • having the right people in the right seats

Performance

  • meaningful annual reviews
  • addressing weaknesses without causing offence
  • managing underperformance

Why not take a minute to add your own or support one of these suggestions?

Click here to have your say or leave a comment below.

BALANCE AT WORK BLOG

Why I Dropped Kathy and Picked Up Dan*

This article was prompted by questions from readers…

Many people within financial services are familiar with the Kolbe system of measuring ‘Action Modes’.  An individual’s Kolbe profile is a good tool for coaching and team development and I’ve used it in these ways, before I started using Harrison Assessments (HA).

There are similarities between the two approaches (online, accessible to any sized organisation, multiple uses) and I won’t explore the theory behind them in this article.  There are three differences that prompted my decision:

1. Level of detail

If I tell you my Kolbe is 8652 (Strategic Planner), experienced Kolbe users will know quite a lot about me.  It will be a generalisation, of course, as each number is a score out of 10 for each of the four different modes (Fact Find, Follow Through, Quick Start and Implementor).

I admit I can’t give you a quick summary, in numbers or words, of my HA profile, although you’ll find some of the details on our website.  This is because HA measures 156 different traits on a 1-10 scale, resulting in reports that are unique to the individual, rather than classifying them as an ‘Innovator’ or ‘Mediator’ for example.  The 156 traits are made up of personality, task preferences, interests, work environment preferences and motivations.

The reports themselves provide detailed interpretation for the end user.  For example, for a job candidate who has a low score on ‘Analyses Pitfalls’:  “Joe usually does not enjoy analysing the potential difficulties of plans or strategies and may sometimes neglect to do so.  Therefore, it would be best if he were to receive other input before making important strategic decisions.  Joe’s lack of enjoyment of analysing potential problems will probably have a somewhat negative impact on job satisfaction and/or performance.”  How good would it be to know this information before you appoint a new manager?

This is focussed, practical information you can use right away, either in a second interview or to coach the new employee.

2. Data utilisation

One set of data from one 20-30 minute online questionnaire is used to produce all the reports below, listed by application: 

  • Candidate Screening – Job Success Analysis, Group Screening Report
  • Candidate Interviewing and Selection – Interview Guide, How to Attract this Candidate, Paradox Graph and Narrative, Traits and Definitions Report, Summary and Keywords Report
  • Retention and Development – How to Manage, Develop and Retain, Development for Position, Development by Trait, Paradox Graph and Narrative
  • Team Development – Team Paradox Graph, Trait Export
  • Career Guidance and Development – Career Options, Career Development, Career Comparison

To see samples of these reports, please visit our website.

3. Customisability

Because HA is based on work performance research, there is the facility to compare employees and/or candidates to job templates for a specific role.  There are over 200 generic templates in the system and each one can be customised to the requirements of the job and the employer.  We’ve even adjusted templates to check for a good match with the manager.

For our clients in financial services, we have developed a set of templates which we then modify to their specific business requirements.  For example, it they’re hiring a paraplannner and want them to have significant client contact, we would ensure traits such as ‘Outgoing’ and ‘Diplomatic’ are included in the template.

This flexibility can also be applied to staff and team development.  If, for example, a broker is just not brining in the new business they were hire to achieve, we could assess their scores on a range of relevant traits, including traits such as ‘Persistent’ and ‘Optimistic’ and coach them to better performance by building on their areas of strength.  Of course – ideally – you would have known these scores before you hired them!

The detailed reports, as you can imagine, are invaluable for both team and individual coaching.  For teams, we are also able to plot all team members on the same chart, to give an easy to read overview of the team’s strengths and challenges.

The reason I chose to train and gain certification with Harrison Assessments:  So I can provide my clients with the best available information for people management decisions and coaching.

*Kathy Kolbe and Dan Harrison

BALANCE AT WORK BLOG

BALANCE AT WORK BLOG

Networking gets personal

Have you noticed how personal business has become recently? 

In this post-GFC era of distrust of corporations, we are relying more and more on the individual relationships we build to grow our businesses.  This is more important than ever before for financial services.

Yesterday I spoke with Dr Jim Taggart of Taggart Group about his recent doctoral thesis.  Jim chose to research the role of business networks and in particular the importance of trust, commitment and reciprocity to effective networking. 

This started me thinking about how you would select, or coach, employees who have a role that includes the important task of networking to bring in new business. 

Here are just five of the 155 traits measured by Harrison Assessments that I believe would enhance your team’s networking success:

  1. Outgoing – the tendency to be socially extroverted and enjoy meeting new people
  2. Warmth/empathy – the tendency to express positive feelings and affinity toward others
  3. Helpful – the tendency to respond to others’ needs and assist or support others to achieve their goals
  4. Optimistic – the tendency to believe the future will be positive
  5. Persistent – the tendency to be tenacious despite encountering significant obstacles

Other traits that could have a positive impact on networking include self-motivation, assertiveness, diplomacy, influencing, flexibility and tolerance of bluntness.  On the other hand, care should be taken to avoid employing someone to this type of role if their profile shows they are blunt, dogmatic or self-sacrificing.

Every one of these traits can be measured as part of our online assessment that takes less than half an hour.  You can try it for yourself here.

It is possible to assess these traits in your selection process.  Employees can also improve their performance through coaching, once you know their strengths.

Imagine how your business could benefit from knowing your employees better.

BALANCE AT WORK BLOG

1 in 3 candidates lie. Will you hire a liar?

Applying for their dream job, or any job, can bring out the worst in some people.  Studies consistently show that at least a third of all candidates are prone to ‘embellish’ their suitability for the job they want.

What do candidates lie about?

The three most common lies you will encounter in a recruiting situation are:

1. Falsifying or exaggerating qualifications, often including courses that were started but never finished.

2. Inflating experience or expertise by inflating past salaries and titles, perhaps by exaggerating the level of involvement in important business deals.

3. Discrepancies in employment dates such as extending end dates to cover periods of unemployment.

How do you know you’re being lied to?

Experienced interviewers are good at reading the signs, but even obvious ‘clues’ may be misinterpreted:

  • Body language can be unreliable as an indicator of honesty in job interviews.  Perhaps anxiety, rather than dishonesty, is causing your interviewee to fidget or avoid eye contact.  How could you be sure?
  • Verbal cues may indicate incongruence between the facts and what they’ve claimed in their CV.  This may show up in extra words, fillers like ‘um’ and delayed answers to your questions as they try to think of the next lie.  On the other hand, this behaviour might be entirely natural under the pressure of a job interview.

There are some more subtle indicators of untruths in the interview:

  • Generalising and hypothesising when asked a behavioural question, such as ‘Can you tell me about a time when…’.  Behavioural interview questions work because they alert you to past behaviour, an excellent predictor of future behaviour.  If you get an answer starting with ‘I would have’ or ‘We did’, it’s time to drill down to what actually happened (as opposed to what might happen) and who was responsible (ideally, your candidate).
  • Avoiding answering the question.  Politicians are the experts at this!  When interviewing, you need to be like the persistent journalist:  If your question isn’t answered, repeat it until you get a satisfactory answer.

Why would you want to detect deception?

There are two main steps in the recruitment process where candidates are prone to deception in order to improve their chances:  the CV and the interview.

If these are your only sources of information for recruitment decisions, you are at risk of employing someone who may be dishonest in other aspects of their relationship with you, your colleagues and your clients.

Five steps to minimise the risk of hiring someone ‘careless with the facts’

1. Screen carefully for minimum eligibility requirements.  Don’t be dazzled by a sparkling resume if there are gaps in qualifications or experience.  The best way screen is by using an application process that includes an application form, either physical or online.

2. Check qualifications with the issuing institution.  Job applicants can – and do – falsify diplomas and transcripts.  Is not checking worth the risk to your business?

3. Use structured interviews with clear, concise and relevant questions, including behaviourally based questions.

4. Always reference check and include the question ‘Would you hire this person again?’

5. Use a personality test that specifically identifies deception and other behavioural tendencies that might lead to future problems.  The Harrison Assessments questionnaire is the most deception-proof in the assessment industry.

BALANCE AT WORK BLOG

Overcoming ‘interview infatuation’

When I met Matthew Farrell, Principal of Five Pillars Financial Planning, he was in the process of selecting a new financial planner to support the growth of his business.

Matthew was impressed with a candidate but confided that one of the traps he’d fallen into in the past was loving someone at the interview, only to find they didn’t live up to expectations on the job.  This is a familiar scenario, especially when faced with a charming and enthusiastic interviewee.  

To ensure he didn’t make the same mistake this time, Matthew decided to use Harrison Assessments to determine the candidate’s suitability for the role.

1.  After the first meeting, we sent the candidate a ‘questionnaire invitation’ so that he could complete the online assessment overnight.
2.   We sent Matthew a draft job template for him to consider.
3.   Next morning, Matthew and I discussed the template and I made adjustments to the
template online.
4.   The candidate had completed the assessment so we were able to immediately run the
reports, comparing him to the customised template.
5.   Matthew and I discussed the reports and the candidate’s suitability straight away.

We asked Matthew to comment on his experience of using the Harrison Assessments:

“I was looking for an objective assessment tool that took away the temptation of me being swayed by the candidate’s pleasing personality and charm. I wanted to know if the candidate possessed the internal qualities required to perform in the position.

TIP:  Don’t let your heart rule your head!  Get some objective advice before you make decisions on the people in your business.


BALANCE AT WORK BLOG

BALANCE AT WORK BLOG

Reports that are job specific, quantified and easy to understand

The following information is an excerpt from the whitepaper ‘Best Practices in Talent Assessment’ by Dan Harrison, PhD, of Harrison Assessments International ©2008 Harrison Assessments International. For a copy of the full report, please email us.

If a behavioural assessment report simply describes the person’s behaviour or personality, each interviewer or interpreter will assign their own meaning to the behaviour or personality trait, usually based on their own bias rather than a formula of job success factors.

This seriously detracts from the benefits of job assessment. The report must be focused on the specific job requirements and provide an overall score related to the suitability of the person’s overall behavioural patterns in relationship to the specific job. This must be such that it is easy to understand and not left to the interpretation of the person reading the report.

BALANCE AT WORK BLOG

Download sample reports here:

Recruitment Package Reports

•   Job Success Analysis

Compares a person to the behavioral requirements of a job

•   How To Attract

Key points that will help convince a top candidate to accept a job offer

•   Interview Guide

Worksheet with behaviorally-based interviewing questions

Development Reports

•   Development For Position

A development plan for each of two traits that would most improve performance for a specific person related to a specified job

•   Manage, Develop, Retain

Key points to effectively manage, develop and retain selected employee

•   Job Success Analysis

Compares a person to the behavioral requirements of a job

•   Main Graph Report

Overview of trait relationships. Requires expert training to interpret (optionally highlights traits related to a job)

•   Paradox Report

Analysis of paradoxical behaviors (optionally highlights traits related to a job)

•   Summary Keywords

A summary and key word descriptions of the individual’s job-related behavior

•   Traits Definitions

An individual’s scores on all the primary traits listed in order of the highest score and optionally highlights the traits related to the job

Team Reports

•   Group Screening

Compares a group of people to the behavioral requirements of a job

•   Team Main Graph

A graphical overview of the relationship between traits for a group of people

•   Team Paradox Graph

A graph showing a group of people plotted against each of the twelve paradoxes

•   Trait Export

An export of all the scores from all the traits for a selected group of people (used for analyzing performance factors or organizational culture)

Career Reports

•   Career Comparison

Compares an individual to the specific requirements of a particular career

•   Career Development

Personalized guidance for an individual’s career development

•   Career Options

A list of careers that would provide the greatest job satisfaction for a specified individual

BALANCE AT WORK BLOG

BALANCE AT WORK BLOG

BALANCE AT WORK BLOG

Media multitaskers pay mental price

Stanford Report, August 24, 2009 by Adam Gorlick

Attention, multitaskers (if you can pay attention, that is): Your brain may be in trouble. People who are regularly bombarded with several streams of electronic information do not pay attention, control their memory or switch from one job to another as well as those who prefer to complete one task at a time, a group of Stanford researchers has found.

multitaskingHigh-tech jugglers are everywhere – keeping up several e-mail and instant message conversations at once, text messaging while watching television and jumping from one website to another while plowing through homework assignments.

But after putting about 100 students through a series of three tests, the researchers realized those heavy media multitaskers are paying a big mental price.

“They’re suckers for irrelevancy,” said communication Professor Clifford Nass, one of the researchers whose findings are published in the Aug. 24 edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “Everything distracts them.”

Social scientists have long assumed that it’s impossible to process more than one string of information at a time. The brain just can’t do it. But many researchers have guessed that people who appear to multitask must have superb control over what they think about and what they pay attention to.

Is there a gift?

So Nass and his colleagues, Eyal Ophir and Anthony Wagner, set out to learn what gives multitaskers their edge. What is their gift?

“We kept looking for what they’re better at, and we didn’t find it,” said Ophir, the study’s lead author and a researcher in Stanford’s Communication Between Humans and Interactive Media Lab. In each of their tests, the researchers split their subjects into two groups: those who regularly do a lot of media multitasking and those who don’t. In one experiment, the groups were shown sets of two red rectangles alone or surrounded by two, four or six blue rectangles.

Each configuration was flashed twice, and the participants had to determine whether the two red rectangles in the second frame were in a different position than in the first frame. They were told to ignore the blue rectangles, and the low multitaskers had no problem doing that. But the high multitaskers were constantly distracted by the irrelevant blue images.

Their performance was horrible. Because the high multitaskers showed they couldn’t ignore things, the researchers figured they were better at storing and organizing information.

Maybe they had better memories. The second test proved that theory wrong. After being shown sequences of alphabetical letters, the high multitaskers did a lousy job at remembering when a letter was making a repeat appearance.

“The low multitaskers did great,” Ophir said. “The high multitaskers were doing worse and worse the further they went along because they kept seeing more letters and had difficulty keeping them sorted in their brains.”

Still puzzled

Puzzled but not yet stumped on why the heavy multitaskers weren’t performing well, the researchers conducted a third test. If the heavy multitaskers couldn’t filter out irrelevant information or organize their memories, perhaps they excelled at switching from one thing to another faster and better than anyone else.

Wrong again, the study found. The test subjects were shown images of letters and numbers at the same time and instructed what to focus on. When they were told to pay attention to numbers, they had to determine if the digits were even or odd. When told to concentrate on letters, they had to say whether they were vowels or consonants.

Again, the heavy multitaskers underperformed the light multitaskers.

“They couldn’t help thinking about the task they weren’t doing,” Ophir said. “The high multitaskers are always drawing from all the information in front of them. They can’t keep things separate in their minds.”

 The researchers are still studying whether chronic media multitaskers are born with an inability to concentrate or are damaging their cognitive control by willingly taking in so much at once. But they’re convinced the minds of multitaskers are not working as well as they could.

 “When they’re in situations where there are multiple sources of information coming from the external world or emerging out of memory, they’re not able to filter out what’s not relevant to their current goal,” said Wagner, an associate professor of psychology. “That failure to filter means they’re slowed down by that irrelevant information.”

So maybe it’s time to stop e-mailing if you’re following the game on TV, and rethink singing along with the radio if you’re reading the latest news online. By doing less, you might accomplish more