The National Learning Institute™

Leadership & Management Development Services

Providing 360 degree feedback, employee surveys & leadership training since 1995

How To Select The Right Person For The Job

- The three essentials

This article may be freely published electronically. It may be reprinted for individual use in hard copy but may not be reprinted in hard copy for commercial purposes.

Have you ever recruited someone who looked good at interview only to find out when they started that they “Were not up to it” or, “They just didn’t seem to fit in”. Most of us have made these mistakes (if you haven’t, then you are probably new to management). Why?

· We often rely too much on the interview as the main selection process, or

· We place too much emphasis on professional credentials at the expense of ability to do the job and best values fit, or

· We recruit too often “in our own likeness”.

What’s the best way of finding out whether someone can do the job? Try them out. Not all of us have the resources to be able to “give someone a go”, unless we are recruiting for a position such as “air traffic controller”. As a regular flyer, I know that I would be worried if the recruitment process for air traffic controllers relied principally on the interview! Having worked with a number of air traffic controllers, I now rest easy knowing that a major part of the selection process is simulations of actual flight control. So, if you have the resources, go for simulation.

Without simulations, we must still rely on the interview. Unfortunately, numerous studies suggest that the interview (by itself) is an ineffective selection method. Why? Let me pose the question – “How similar is an interview to the type of work the person is expected to do?” If interviewing is not a major part of the normal day to day activities of the position for which you are recruiting, then the selection interview is not replicating the work, but is merely a discussion on what the person has done or might be able to do. Take for example the following questions, often asked:

· Tell me about your duties in your last position.

· What did you like most about the job?

· What did you like least about the job?

· Why do you want this job?

· Where do you want to be five years from now?

· How do you feel about working for a demanding boss?

· What is your management [or marketing etc] philosophy?

· What would you do if you were working for a manager who refuses to set priorities for you?

· Tell me what you would do in your first few weeks in this role.

Before you reach for your pen to jot down a “new one” you liked, let me make a point. Not one of these questions works! None of them helps predict future behaviour in the job for which you are recruiting.

So, how can you improve the interview? A technique known as “Behaviour Description (or Event) Interviewing (BDI) has been shown to improve interview effectiveness by as much as four times. Mind you, you should still use more than the interview, but more of that later.

Read the following question asked of a candidate in relation to a job requirement of “managing poor performance” and see how it differs from the previous list of questions:

• Tell me about the last time you faced the situation of an employee who wasn’t performing.

· What was the situation?

· How did you deal with it?

· What did you do?

· What did you say?

· What did he/she say?

· How did you respond?

· What was the outcome?

By comparison to our previous questions, BDI asks for examples of past behaviour that the candidate has experienced, that are likely to indicate how the candidate might perform in similar situations in the current position.

It specifically calls for the descriptions of events, not thoughts, feelings or hypotheses. Additionally, it prevents the candidate from lying or exaggerating as the following parts of the question will soon catch them out.

So, the BDI interviewing process becomes:

1. Describe an event.

2. Describe the behaviour (what happened).

3. Describe the outcomes.

In addition to the BDI interview, what do you need to add to your selection armoury? Depending on the position, there are of course the professional qualifications, but we all know that these merely get the candidate through the gate – it’s what he or she can do with their qualifications that we are interested in. For some positions, you may also decide that IQ, EQ or personality tests are useful (these need to be shown to be reliable tests by correlation with previous successful candidates).

Then of course there’s the reference. Written references are almost useless and phone references are generally ineffective for the same reasons as the standard employment interview. However, you can increase the effectiveness of references by using the BDI method over the phone with the candidate’s referee.

In addition to finding out whether someone can do the job, there’s also the very important aspect of “values fit”. Will the person fit in with the people and the culture? There are numerous values questionnaires on the market that you may try, however I have two simple techniques that could save you money. Both of these are dependent on the fact that you already know what values you are looking for (that’s for another article). The first is to ask the applicant to describe their “ideal organisation”. In doing so, they will always describe the values they hold dear when looking for an employer. The second is to ask your team (the people the candidate will be working alongside) to also do a short interview – this can often be achieved in conjunction with a plant or office tour.

Finally, a word of warning. One of the most frequent mistakes I see is managers recruiting in their own likeness, i.e. people who are similar to themselves in many ways. This is a natural tendency of human nature, but can be avoided if you use the BDI method, together with your team members and perhaps peers assisting in the selection of the final candidate.

Is There A Better Way To Give Bad News?

- a 6 step process

This article may be freely published electronically. It may be reprinted for individual use in hard copy but may not be reprinted in hard copy for commercial purposes.

I well remember the first time I was "corrected" by a manager. I was a young bank clerk and had received a transaction that was incorrect, from a much more senior person (a manager) in another branch of the bank. I sent the transaction back with a note asking for it to be corrected. Next thing I hear was my own manager shouting at me from his office. Apparently, I had upset his "good colleague" and I must now go and apologise in person! There was no discussion as to whether I was right or wrong about either the transaction or what I did – just "Go immediately and apologise!" I decided then and there that when I got to be a manager and had to correct someone, I would treat my staff quite differently.

As managers, we all have to give feedback from time to time that we consider to be "bad news" for the employee. Do you dread the times when you have to do this? Or perhaps, you handle the situation ok, but the employee's performance does not seem to improve as a result of your counselling"?

How can we improve both the way we give negative feedback and the impact it has on the other person?

The most common mistake we make is combining bad news with good news. "Andrew, I've been impressed with the way you handle the planning, time lines and follow up systems for your projects. But, along the way, you seem to develop poor relationships with some of the key stakeholders. As a result, many of the projects are less successful than they should be." On the surface, this sounds like a reasonable feedback message from the manager. Will Andrew accept the feedback and will it lead to a rational discussion of how he might improve his stakeholder relationships?

No. There are two reasons why this conversation is likely to become negative rather than positive. Firstly, when mixing "good" and "bad" news, people are more likely to hear only the good news. The bad news, if heard appears as a minor blimp on their performance. In other words, "everything is basically ok with me".

Secondly, when they do actually hear the bad news it is nearly always because the word "but" has been used to bridge the good and the bad. Using "but" will invariably promote a negative reaction from the employee and the conversation will generate into a downward spiral of argument and counter argument.

There is a positive way to give negative feedback. Here are some of the tips I have learnt through many years of managing people's performance.

Step 1: As the manager, you must take responsibility for the performance problem. After all, if the employee's performance does not improve, whose problem is it? For example you might start the conversation with :"Andrew, I have an (issue / problem / situation) that I need your help with."

Step 2: Describe the behaviour that is causing you the problem. Example: "For the last three weeks, the reports I get each week from your department have been at least a day late."

Step 3: Explain why this is a problem for you. .Example: "This means that I can't get the reports collated with those from the other departments in time to get them to the GM to meet his deadline."

Step 4: Explain the possible consequences for you both. Example: "The GM got a bit annoyed with me last week and I'm sure he expects much higher performance from my department. I know that if this continues, he is likely to come down on us pretty hard."

Step 5: Tell him/her how you feel about the problem. Example: "I am keen to keep a good relationship with our GM."

Step 6: Ask for his/her assistance. Example: "What can you do to help me solve this situation?"

The underlying principles to keep in mind when applying this approach are:

• As the manager, you always maintain ownership of the problem

• The aim of the process is to have the employee take ownership of the solution

• Always describe the action of the employee, not them, their personality or their character

• Use positive words and avoid words such as "but", "Yes, but" - for more information on the use of positive words see "Are You Positive or Negative"

Above all, listen, listen, listen! And be prepared to discuss the employee's suggestions for how he/she intends to solve the problem. My experience has been that often the employee will come up with a better solution than you had first thought of. Most importantly, because it is their suggestion, they will have commitment for its implementation.

Gaining Commitment Or Compliance From Your Team?

Some guidelines for team decision making

This article may be freely published electronically. It may be reprinted for individual use in hard copy but may not be reprinted in hard copy for commercial purposes.

Rob worked as a qualified, but junior physiotherapist in a busy hospital. He along with three of his colleagues were asked by their manager to discuss amongst themselves how they would like their rosters to be organised (i.e. who would do what shifts etc.) and put forward their proposal. Rob and his colleagues were very happy with their final choices as they had considered all of their personal and professional needs and felt that their decision was the best for all. A day before the new rosters were to start, Rob found out by rumour during his lunch break that their roster recommendations were not to be implemented. Worse still, the rosters decided on by their manager did not suit any of the four. This decision by their manager resulted in a severe lowering of morale within the team and created a culture of mistrust with management. In future, they would be very wary of any suggestion from management.

Ever been a member of a work team where the manager threw a difficult problem over to the team to solve only to see the manager implement a completely different decision to that of the team? If the implemented solution affected the ongoing congruence and cohesiveness of the team, how did this make you feel? Why does this happen and is it a legitimate management strategy for group decision making?

Often this occurs because the manager does not understand the importance and nature of group decision making within teams. It can also occur because of the manager’s feeling of comfort with one particular style of group decision making irrespective of the circumstances or context of the problem.

Decision making within groups ranges on a continuum from “by the leader with little or no discussion” through to “complete consensus”. Here are the stages along that continuum:

· By the leader with little or no discussion

· By the leader following group consultation

· By an “expert” (either within the group or advice received by the group)

· Averaging (e.g. using a mathematical process to assess options, then averaging)

· By a minority (can be through personal or positional power)

· By majority vote

· Consensus

Surprisingly, each has its place and can be a very successful method. As a manager, the method of group decision making you decide on, depends on whether you want commitment or compliance from your team. Of the seven methods, only “consensus” is most likely to produce commitment to the team decision. Using the other six methods will bring compliance (because you are the manager). Commitment will then depend on:

· How well you are perceived as a leader

· How effective (for all concerned) is the final decision

Much has been written by managerial experts about the “appropriateness” for managers to use consensus decision making in order to build staff morale. This is also supported by the study of jury decision making where it has been found that juries required to make unanimous decisions consider the evidence more carefully and thoroughly and report higher levels of juror confidence in the ultimate decision, than juries operating a majority verdict system (American Judicature Society http://www.ajs.org/jc/juries/jc_decision_research.asp)

Managers should also consider that although it generally takes a lot longer, consensus more often comes up with a better result. Again in the legal system, a recent study of the difference between judges’ opinions of the outcome of 48 trials (ranging from a day to five weeks duration) and the ultimate outcome decided by the actual juries using the consensus method, resulted in only three differences. (Law Reform Commission of NSW http://www.ajs.org/jc/juries/jc_decision_research.asp)

However, if you do not need commitment, but merely compliance, then it can be legitimate and effective to choose a method other than consensus. Sometimes this may be necessary because of time, context or other pressures. For example, it would be inappropriate (and quite hazardous) for an army officer to hold a group consensus meeting with the troops on how to hold back the imminent approach of the enemy!

Irrespective of which decision making approach you adopt, the most critical point for managers to remember is:

“Always inform your team beforehand how the decision will be made.”

For example, if you decide that in a particular case, this is your decision to make but you would like the input of your team in order to make an informed decision (by the leader following group consultation), say so. You will find that if you do this on all occasions, then the team will become more involved (and ultimately committed) to both the decision making process and the decisions themselves.

You should also consider what your preferred style of group decision making is and most importantly, how appropriate is it for the current situation. Think for a moment about the last 5 or 6 meetings you have run with your team where there was a critical decision to make. What style of decision making as a leader did you adopt? What style do you feel most comfortable with? My suggestion is to read the list again prior to each team meeting and decide at the outset what method you will adopt for this decision. This will prevent you from becoming locked into your natural or preferred method.

Above all, having decided on a method for this decision, stick with it. In the case of Rob’s manager (whom I mentioned at the start of this article), we can all probably see that she adopted consensus as the most appropriate and effective method, but then changed her mind after the event. Initial commitment was certainly lost, grudging compliance was gained and my bet is that staff morale would be very low for some time to come.

National Learning Institute established 1995