ERE.net

We’re working with a fast-growing security software company whose CEO is using Blanchard and Hershey’s Situational Leadership model for their management development program.

Our part in this is developing a new method of assessing Managerial Fit when hiring from the outside. We all know that the development skills of the manager are critical in ensuring a new employee’s performance, so this might be something useful to consider whether you’re a recruiter or hiring manager.

In this same vein, using the concept of Managerial Fit and Situational Leadership might also be something to consider if your company is increasing its emphasis on internal mobility. It could help increase the number of top-performing current employees transferred into significantly different roles.

The concept behind Blanchard and Hershey’s leadership model is that the manager needs to adapt their style based on the current skills and developmental needs of the subordinate. The model categorizes management styles into these four levels:

• S1 – Directing: providing specific guidance for the task with direct and immediate follow-up. This is useful technique for a subordinate who has little skills in the area of need and lacks confidence.
• S2 – Coaching: providing an appropriate level of training and follow-up, but giving the subordinate some latitude in getting the job done. This is a very interactive two-way approach which is also useful where the subordinate needs external motivation to complete the task as well as some training.
• S3 – Participating: the manager assigns the tasks, provides some direction, but leaves how the task is done up to the subordinate. This technique is appropriate for a skilled person who might need some support and guidance in getting the job done.
• S4 – Delegating: in this case the manager assigns the tasks with the expectation that the subordinate will get it done with little follow-up. This is an appropriate technique to use when the person handling the tasks is fully competent and highly motivated.

The Situational Leadership model defines the developmental needs of subordinates into four broad categories based on competence, confidence, and motivation to do the work.

As you’ll see, these classifications are very-task oriented, so a person might vary in ability and motivation from strong to weak across all job needs. This requires a successful manager to adapt to the subordinate’s needs given the specific task.

keep reading…

As the basic building blocks for talent and performance, competencies provide the foundation for a framework that can dramatically improve your ability to identify, attract, hire and develop the right talent. But what exactly is competency management and how do you apply it to your talent acquisition processes? In this webinar, we’ll explore the answers.

Join talent acquisition strategy expert Mitzi Adwell of The Newman Group and competency expert Cara Capretta as they shed light on best practices for applying a competency-based approach to your talent acquisition processes.

If you want to avoid many of the interview errors that have been outlined in the previous three installments in this series, it’s important that you take the time to educate managers about interviewing.

I’m not talking about a day-long training session; instead, use a reminder sheet, e-mail, or website with warnings and tips delivered just before the start of interviews.

keep reading…

Our recently completed 2006 Recruiting and Hiring Challenges survey revealed some significant conflicts between recruiters and their hiring managers that aren’t abating. Between 50 and 60% of the survey respondents indicated these were significant problems at their companies:

keep reading…

Once upon a time, there were no human resources departments. Applicants were interviewed by managers and hired or fired on the job. For most employees, work was often simple and labor intensive. Not much changed as the need for workers grew, except management created a new department to process paperwork and administer benefits. As you can imagine, new employee skills were only tested on the job. Eventually, the “paperwork and benefits” department was assigned the tasks of placing help wanted ads and pre-screening applicants.

For the most part, applicants were still interviewed by managers and hired or fired on the spot. For most employees, work was still often simple and labor intensive. As you can imagine, new employee skills were only tested on the job. Throughout this time, interviewers’ primary objective was to screen out blatantly unqualified candidates (i.e., people they either disliked or who drooled on the paperwork) and forward them to the hiring managers. Without any special training or education, their interview questions sounded something like this: “Tell me about yourself. Why do you want this job? Do you have any relatives who work here?”

As you can imagine, new employee skills were only tested on the job. Time went by, and interviewers became more confident, often to the point of believing they were trained psychologists. The personnel department even creatively renamed itself “human resources.” Questions changed slightly and became something like this: “What color do you prefer? What is your greatest strength? If you could be an animal, which would it be, and why?” As you can imagine, new employee skills were only tested on the job. Nothing much changed except interviewers sounded sillier, and applicants read advice on how to fake well and get the job. But would anyone be surprised to learn that research shows that interviews are most predictive of future job performance only when they meet three criteria:

1. The interviewer works from a competency-based document that outlines the skills necessary for job success or failure. This is not a job description and it is not a job evaluation band. It is a list of measurable competencies based primarily on interviews with successful job holders.

keep reading…

I found the following phrase printed on a clever little gadget that attaches to my garage door. When the door is open, it sends a signal to a wireless receiver which flashes red to let me know my home is unsecured. When the door is closed, the receiver flashes green. Here’s the phrase: “I don’t wonder. I know.” What do garage doors and recruiting have in common? Both are doorways that, when left unattended, can let in undesirable elements. Take recruiting, both internal and external. A while ago, Jeremy wrote an article about the need to overcome a general recruiting industry inferiority complex. He made some good points, and I thought I would build on (i.e., steal) some of his ideas. For example, if I am correct, Jeremy’s key points were:

• Recruiters seldom do the basics.

keep reading…

Managers have a hard time assessing competency and motivation, even though many have gone through some type of formal interviewing training. It turns out the real problem is not the questions being asked; it’s not knowing the job they’re evaluating the candidate against. Not knowing real job needs turns out to be the root cause of the most common hiring mistakes: hiring people who are partially competent, or hiring people who are competent but not motivated to do the work required. If you’ve taken the recruiter diagnostic assessment, you know that knowing the job and knowing your market are prerequisites to being a great recruiter.

Here’s a short reading list to get you started here. The books listed below are essential reading for all top managers and recruiters, and the articles will give you instant credibility when you suggest using a different approach as you take your next search assignment. The Required Reading List If you want to be a top 10% recruiter within a year, check these out:

• First, Break All of the Rules - What the World’s Best Managers Do Differently by Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman. The basic premise is if you want to hire and retain top people, you must clarify expectations and then hire people who want to do this work.

keep reading…

In a past article, an amazing number of people weighed-in to trash professional education in favor of practical experience. Some of the commentators supported their position by citing three industry leaders without degrees who lead successful companies; maintaining that recruiting is an art, as well as a serious profession; or, arguing that some ERE authors are unqualified because they have never recruited. I hope the majority of people do not take these comments too seriously. These arguments may sound attractive, but are all seriously wrong-headed - and some are even dangerous.

For example: The “I Know People Who Are Highly Successful Without a Degree” Argument

• As pointed out by one reader, if education is unimportant, why do you suppose smart and successful folks like Gates, Dell, and others insist that their new employees are educated? Education does not make someone successful, but neither does self-imposed ignorance.

keep reading…

As the resident ERE contrarian, I often find myself at odds regarding best practices (i.e., fair and effective ways) to hire employees. Past readers might even say that “quiet and unassuming” is not one of my virtues. However, several recent articles have advocated very bad advice; in effect, unilaterally tossing 50 years of hiring science out the window because a few authors and vocal recruiters disagree with it. I guess you could call this the “I never heard of it, and because I don’t know about it, it must be wrong” syndrome (or “INHOIABIDKAIIMBW,” for short).

INHOIABIDKAIIMBW

Although some authors may not be aware, there are approximately 6,000 members of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology and 235 graduate schools that read and conduct research on best hiring practices. In addition, there are hundreds of independent organizations staffed by I/O psychologists working in this field throughout the world (including the U.S. Department of Labor and the EEOC). All of these folks agree on a few facts about selection and placement:

• It should be based on a professionally conducted job analysis to identify competencies associated with job performance (i.e., ones based on job requirements and business necessity). The careful reader might notice that there are few or no references to job descriptions, top-grading, or reliance on company-wide competencies developed by the HR department.

keep reading…

article by Dr. John Sullivan & Master Burnett

As advisors to a number of leading organizations, it is safe to say that we have seen multiple implementations of nearly every recruiting model and tool available not just in the United States, but abroad as well. That scope of access lends one an insane ability to look at an organization, its characteristics and people, and within seconds assess the probability of success or failure at adopting a new tool or model. For more than nine years, we have observed as organization after organization implemented competency profiling relative to training and development, recruitment, retention, and workforce planning efforts (including succession planning). Early adopters included the throng of U.S.-based industrial giants, most of whom employed hundreds of organizational psychologists. Since then, competency profiling has been deployed in nearly every type of organization, from small high-technology start-ups, to federal, state, and local governments. What has been amazing is that nearly every implementation has followed the exact same path.

What Is a Competency-Based Approach?

Using the language of those who earn their living selling and marketing competency-based solutions, a competency-based recruiting approach relies on using a series of assessment tools that identify not only the technical skills a candidate possesses, but his behavioral competencies as well. A competency is often defined as “an underlying, deep, and enduring personal characteristic of an individual that predicts behavior in a wide variety of situations and results in effective or superior performance.” The approach relies on building complex job profiles that look at the responsibilities and activities of the job and the competencies required to accomplish them. The detailed process looks like this:

1. Define organizational culture
2. Define essential job activities and responsibilities.
3. Define technical competencies and skills required.
4. Define behavioral competencies.
5. Define competencies and behavioral indicators.

This approach is intended to take candidate assessment out of the realm of subjective evaluation and place it squarely under the realm of science, providing organizations with a consistent process and common language with which to assess talent.

If It Works, Why Do So Many Organizations Abandon Their Implementations?

Earlier, we mentioned that nearly every implementation has followed the exact same path. Those of you who have gone down the competency road probably guessed immediately what that path was, but for those of you who have yet to learn your lesson, that path includes internal evangelism, adoption, implementation, confusion, defense, defense, relative clarity, abandonment! That’s right, almost every major competency project we have witnessed has ended in failure, usually right around the three-year mark. For some large organizations the decision to abandon their approach came after investing millions of dollars in new tools, training, job assessment, and technology to power the new model. For one Fortune 500 organization, the 31-month price tag totaled more than $18.6 million. So why, you may ask, do so many implementations fail? The answer to that is long and complicated, but the short of it is that most implementations are nothing more than extremely expensive processes that ensure maintenance of the status quo.

Four Primary Drivers of Failure

Prior to deciding to write this article, Master Burnett and I discussed what we have observed as well as what others in our position have observed. What became clear during the course of this discussion is that most implementations have the following three characteristics that drive failure. Each of these is discussed briefly in the following paragraphs:

• A process that does not re-evaluate how work is broken down into specific jobs to ensure that the bundling of activities is consistent with the available workforce
• A job analysis process that is reliant upon observing incumbents to determine past success characteristics
• A guiding perspective that considers time sensitive team dynamics such as leadership personality, economic conditions, new technologies, and geography irrelevant

Just Because Work Has Always Been Broken Down a Certain Way, That Doesn’t Mean It’s the Right Way!

One of the most irritating elements that we witness during the development and implementation of competencies is that no one ever asks if the way work is broken down into specific jobs is relevant, according to current labor market conditions. New technologies, as well as variations in the supply of labor that impact labor costs, should impact how work is delegated. In the past, it may have made sense to hire a labor generalist that had enough depth in a variety of technical skills to carry out a bundle of activities, but that doesn’t mean that approach will always be the right one. For example, let’s look at financial auditors. Historically, auditors were charged with identifying and procuring information needed, analyzing that information for breaks in patterns, documenting errors, and writing reports. The typical educational profile for an auditor emphasizes the financial analysis skills required, yet one of the job activities requires both personal and written communication skills. A competency profile developed against this traditional job would dictate that strong written communication skills are essential to success irrespective of the current labor market. Financial analysis is an activity that can be accomplished much more quickly using specialists, which are in far greater supply if you remove the language component. Splitting this job could allow the actual analysis to be outsourced offshore, and the use of English-language specialists to document and write all reports ó a combination which would increase quality, decrease cost, and increase volume. While redistributing work may not always be required, the question should at the very least get asked!

Historical Job Analysis

This element is perhaps the most comical. Every vendor of competency-based solutions states that job analysis is conducted against the position itself, not people. However, in reality, the process requires that you look at top performing incumbents to map their behavioral profiles. That’s pretty much where the process stops. Several assumptions are made, including:

• That the top-performing incumbents previously hired possess the right skills and competencies possible. (What if you haven’t hired the best talent to do the job?)
• That because this profile has worked in the past, it will work in the future.
• The present skills and behaviors that map to success are not influenced by team dynamics. (If dynamics were to change, would the top-performer profile change?)

The world is changing at a phenomenal pace, and how we accomplish work is changing just as quickly. Most competency-mapping methodologies rely on job analysis processes that are historically oriented and time consuming. On average it takes 90 days to complete a profile for a single job family. It’s quite possible the job could have changed significantly in the time it takes just to create the profile!

Irrelevant dynamics

A friend recently started a diet plan that is managed by a bariatric physician ó a diet doctor. At the consultation, the doctor placed her on a 1,200-calorie diet, the same diet he prescribes to everyone. He didn’t ask anything about day-to-day activities, exercise routine, etc. Upon hearing this I told her the doctor was a quack and she should seek a second opinion. Since the doctor was a board-certified diet doctor, she opted instead to follow his advice. Weeks later, her hair was falling out, her thyroid was out of control, and she could not stand without getting dizzy — not a good combination for a massage therapist who runs six miles a day and works with free weights for an hour, four days a week! What this doctor did is similar to what most competency projects do. He ignored the dynamics of the situation. On-the-job performance is impacted by a number of factors, including:

• The relationship of an employee with his or her managers and peers
• The economy
• The work environment
• Family events

To assume that a profile will be consistent across a job family is to assume that employees operate in a vacuum controlled environment; something we all know is not the case. I am sure every organization can find at least one example of a top-performing sales professional whose performance declined following the introduction of a new sales manager. Did that top performing sales professional’s competency profile change, or did the dynamics change?

Conclusion

One should never say that’ll never work, and that is not what we are saying here. Failure is a phenomenal educator, so if we learn from past mistakes, maybe we can craft a better solution in the future. Lots of organizations have tried competencies; lots of organizations have failed. This article has outlined three possible causes of failure that, hopefully, those of you who are using or are considering using competencies will take into consideration. One additional element that could have been added is that most employers and managers perceive the systems developed using competencies to be no less subjective or more clear than previous systems, so don’t rely on that as your sole defense.