Over the past few weeks watching "The Voice", I've noticed how every act, in the mentors opinion, is just amazing and fantastic and beautiful. Now the thing is, I'm listening to this, the viewers are listening to this but the most important person to be hearing this is the act on stage. Now that's all well and good if they act had got a "turn", but what about those that didn't?? "That was just sooo amazing, that was a fantastic job.... But I didn't turn". Does this show how in modern society how loosely we lavish praise on each other... Is that because we all crave the audience?? Or.... Is it because as a society, we find it more and more difficult to be told a negative truth, to put it bluntly, we are all far too easily offended these days, therefore false hopes are built, people maintain average because they are told its amazing.... And pursue a line that they will never succeed in. Can we not help each other by being honest and constructive with each other? At worst, it should motivate those on the receiving end to prove doubters wrong.
Transfer this to the workplace. People can be far to easily offended in the modern day work place and so as managers, we find ourselves skirting around the issue, sometimes avoiding the difficult discussions because we know it will affect motivation negatively. To have a team that can be open and honest with each other where honest opinions can be conveyed (appropriately) and common goals are driven for is priceless.
A team that has evolved into that of over sensitivity, feeding the want for recognition, management afraid to upset people over what should be a straight forward discussion is damaging. It rewards average, it in effect desensitises the team to what is truly great and to what is pretty average.
Everyone has the right to work I an environment free from prejudice, it isn't just law, it's plain common decency. But please, when it comes to managing teams, when it comes to giving feedback to unsuccessful applicants, be honest. The best that can happen is that the person in front of you keeps the door open, they will take the feedback on board, remember you, appreciate the fact you are trying to help them. The person who openly disagrees, argues or just takes plain umbrage probably shouldn't be working for you anyway.
Let's use words like fantastic and amazing when the situation deserves it and we actually want to offer the person something in return. Not in the context because it's what everyone wants to hear right now. Your teams performance will thrive, it will mean a hell of a lot more if you reserve your praise for the only times that deserve it.
The best employees I have worked with, the best candidates I have placed have all been of the ilk that will listen, take it on the chin, and do something positive about it.
That's me done, step off the soap box Adam and get some proper work done!
Wednesday, 5 March 2014
Monday, 3 February 2014
FEATURE - PSYCHOMETRIC TESTING
SOAP BOX
I am often asked about my opinion on what I think about the use of Personality Profiling. My answer is always the same.....
Recruitment is about people and in this age of technology, you have to be careful not to become too enthralled and overkill your recruitment process by removing the people / personable element. As human beings, yes we make a lot of judgments and decisions based on emotion, fact is always the best basis for a decision. However, do we really need a piece of software to tell us if we engage with our potential hire well enough? Or do we always need a piece of software to back up what we already think?
The point I'm making is that like any tool, in the right hands and used properly, the end result will mostly be a positive one. In the wrong hands, someone who doesn't understand where, why and how to interpret, the decision will be misguided.
Again, like any piece of software, it has to best suit the needs of the business, be fit for purpose. There's always the good and there's always the bad and after all, this software has been designed and interpreted by people. It's only as good as the person who designed it, and the person who uses it.
I have come across several brands and I'd say the most problematic case I have come across is one where the employer used the testing to decide on who would go through to the interview stage or not. Candidates would be selected to attend the premises, not meet anyone of any importance, complete the 45 minute test and would be told will be contacted if they have "passed". The other issue was that this particular questionnaire asked very random questions such as "Which do you prefer, hunting or fishing?" If a candidate scored over 60, they would make it through. On what basis? Because they prefer fishing over hunting?
Because Psychometric Testing isn't a one size fits all (I believe its best used at management level), and because the testing was being used as a deciding factor and not as a guide to support those who actually did the deciding, approx 1 in 10 people made it to interview (and that was a good campaign). Therefore, on average, a hiring company would normally physically meet 5 people at interview. On these numbers, this means 50 people would have to be screened before 1 person was hired. Realistically, can 49 people out of 50 (bearing in mind they would have been invited for screening based on the experience their CV offered) really and truly be the wrong fit??
An extremely time consuming and unnecessary exercise and therefor the outcome was that the candidate pond became smaller and smaller whilst the ability to meet orders and customer demands became critical due to lack of resource. There comes a point where you have to admit this just isn't working.
Best practice is to use the testing prior to going to 2nd stage interview ensuring the info is used as a guide and a basis for additional questions at the next meeting. This way, at 1st stage, you have established the personable element of can you engage, are the right skills and the right attitude apparent at face value. To put it simply, do you like them. Even then, after the 2nd stage, the testing isn't the ultimate basis for a decision. It's a guide to quantify who best fits your required profile, and in your personal opinion, who best performed when questioned about what makes them who they are.
The biggest brands out there are Thomas International and SHL. Both provide fantastic training and SHL, an accreditation. It;s vital that if you are currently using or plan to use Psychometric Testing, you plan and implement the software as you would a new accounting package or CRM database. The better equipped users are, the better know-how to get the best out of it, thus the more effective it will be.
IN THE NEWS
Russell Brand is causing a stir again, urging young people not to vote. This got me thinking though on the whole basis of Democracy and institutions run by a committee and the best at winning popularity contests. Now I'm not particularly politically driven per say, however could there be a way to qualify voters and their ability to make an informed decision?
For example, in a workplace, it is widely adopted that everybody counts no matter the level of role they are in. However, as much as you would like to value every employee's opinion, you perhaps would take little influence from your receptionist on the question of marketing strategy or supply chain management.
Thus, here's an idea. Could Democracy evolve into something more? Could we make the voting system more robust through people having to "earn their right to vote" through a means test that qualifies they have enough of a political understanding as to what they are actually voting for? We wouldn't let unqualified drivers loose on our roads, and so I merely debate that are there voters who do not possess the abilities to make an informed vote? In turn, are these votes then letting loose the wrong politicians that everybody loves to despise? I have absolutely no idea as to the content of this means test, but just a thought!
LUNCH BREAK
Currently reading "The Bridges of Constantine" by Ahlam Mosteghanemi. I am a fan of socio-economic reads and was drawn to this book by it's description of the struggles of an Artist and a Writer suppressed by pre and post revolution Algeria. In fact although only half way through it, it's more of a love story, very metaphoric, almost poetic. It would certainly be a great read for a lover of the arts but for me, it lacks any punch and is slow going. I have never not finished a book and so I shall persevere on this poetic journey into Constantine and Algeria. Wish me luck!
AFTER WORK
Excited and compelled to go out of my way to watch the documented film "The Armstrong Lie". Alex Gibney directs the story surrounding Lance Armstrong and his drugs use confession. No doubt I shall be scrutinizing every facial flicker from the fallen angel.
I am often asked about my opinion on what I think about the use of Personality Profiling. My answer is always the same.....
Recruitment is about people and in this age of technology, you have to be careful not to become too enthralled and overkill your recruitment process by removing the people / personable element. As human beings, yes we make a lot of judgments and decisions based on emotion, fact is always the best basis for a decision. However, do we really need a piece of software to tell us if we engage with our potential hire well enough? Or do we always need a piece of software to back up what we already think?
The point I'm making is that like any tool, in the right hands and used properly, the end result will mostly be a positive one. In the wrong hands, someone who doesn't understand where, why and how to interpret, the decision will be misguided.
Again, like any piece of software, it has to best suit the needs of the business, be fit for purpose. There's always the good and there's always the bad and after all, this software has been designed and interpreted by people. It's only as good as the person who designed it, and the person who uses it.
I have come across several brands and I'd say the most problematic case I have come across is one where the employer used the testing to decide on who would go through to the interview stage or not. Candidates would be selected to attend the premises, not meet anyone of any importance, complete the 45 minute test and would be told will be contacted if they have "passed". The other issue was that this particular questionnaire asked very random questions such as "Which do you prefer, hunting or fishing?" If a candidate scored over 60, they would make it through. On what basis? Because they prefer fishing over hunting?
Because Psychometric Testing isn't a one size fits all (I believe its best used at management level), and because the testing was being used as a deciding factor and not as a guide to support those who actually did the deciding, approx 1 in 10 people made it to interview (and that was a good campaign). Therefore, on average, a hiring company would normally physically meet 5 people at interview. On these numbers, this means 50 people would have to be screened before 1 person was hired. Realistically, can 49 people out of 50 (bearing in mind they would have been invited for screening based on the experience their CV offered) really and truly be the wrong fit??
An extremely time consuming and unnecessary exercise and therefor the outcome was that the candidate pond became smaller and smaller whilst the ability to meet orders and customer demands became critical due to lack of resource. There comes a point where you have to admit this just isn't working.
Best practice is to use the testing prior to going to 2nd stage interview ensuring the info is used as a guide and a basis for additional questions at the next meeting. This way, at 1st stage, you have established the personable element of can you engage, are the right skills and the right attitude apparent at face value. To put it simply, do you like them. Even then, after the 2nd stage, the testing isn't the ultimate basis for a decision. It's a guide to quantify who best fits your required profile, and in your personal opinion, who best performed when questioned about what makes them who they are.
The biggest brands out there are Thomas International and SHL. Both provide fantastic training and SHL, an accreditation. It;s vital that if you are currently using or plan to use Psychometric Testing, you plan and implement the software as you would a new accounting package or CRM database. The better equipped users are, the better know-how to get the best out of it, thus the more effective it will be.
IN THE NEWS
Russell Brand is causing a stir again, urging young people not to vote. This got me thinking though on the whole basis of Democracy and institutions run by a committee and the best at winning popularity contests. Now I'm not particularly politically driven per say, however could there be a way to qualify voters and their ability to make an informed decision?
For example, in a workplace, it is widely adopted that everybody counts no matter the level of role they are in. However, as much as you would like to value every employee's opinion, you perhaps would take little influence from your receptionist on the question of marketing strategy or supply chain management.
Thus, here's an idea. Could Democracy evolve into something more? Could we make the voting system more robust through people having to "earn their right to vote" through a means test that qualifies they have enough of a political understanding as to what they are actually voting for? We wouldn't let unqualified drivers loose on our roads, and so I merely debate that are there voters who do not possess the abilities to make an informed vote? In turn, are these votes then letting loose the wrong politicians that everybody loves to despise? I have absolutely no idea as to the content of this means test, but just a thought!
LUNCH BREAK
Currently reading "The Bridges of Constantine" by Ahlam Mosteghanemi. I am a fan of socio-economic reads and was drawn to this book by it's description of the struggles of an Artist and a Writer suppressed by pre and post revolution Algeria. In fact although only half way through it, it's more of a love story, very metaphoric, almost poetic. It would certainly be a great read for a lover of the arts but for me, it lacks any punch and is slow going. I have never not finished a book and so I shall persevere on this poetic journey into Constantine and Algeria. Wish me luck!
AFTER WORK
Excited and compelled to go out of my way to watch the documented film "The Armstrong Lie". Alex Gibney directs the story surrounding Lance Armstrong and his drugs use confession. No doubt I shall be scrutinizing every facial flicker from the fallen angel.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)