Why would anyone need to correct a correlation? Correlations typically don’t run afoul of the law and certainly no correlation has ever been accused of committing a felony. Now it is true that some correlations are so trivial as to be misdemeanors, but certainly they aren’t deserving of correction either.
The only legitimate reason to correct a correlation might be prior miscalculation, in which case the numbers simply should be run again. But what justification could there possibly be for taking correlations that are at worst misdemeanors and pumping them up to look like relationships on steroids? If the correlation is non-existent or trivial to begin with, why not just admit it?
An unfortunate example of ruthlessly corrected correlations occurs in the Technical Manual for a recently released assessment of “Talent”. The report of the validity correlations for the twelve scales on the Talent measure reveals that only four of these twelve scales reach a correlation of .10 or greater with supervisor ratings of talent behaviors. The table reports that correlations of .10 or greater are significant at or beyond the .05 level of significance. Yet after not one, not two, but three different corrections, nine of the twelve scales exhibit significant correlations with supervisor ratings. Most miraculous of all is the way in which the five insignificant correlations below .10 became significant relationships.
If there really were a Psychometric Department of Corrections, it should be the correlation correctors, not the correlations themselves, that should be targeted for correction! Taking an already significant correlation and pumping it up on steroids should be a misdemeanor, but somehow pulling an insignificant correlation out of the hat and employing three corrections to make it significant clearly should be a psychometric felony.
by Leslie H. Krieger, Ph.D, SPHR, President of ATG
Friday, August 14, 2009
Jargon Jousting - Valid Assessment
VALID ASSESSMENT
Assessments can and should be key elements in such talent management processes as selection, promotion, and development. And choosing the correct assessment is critical for the success and the legality of these processes. A quick internet search or reviews of assessment publisher catalogues yields a bewildering assortment of assessments and equally bewildering claims about their suitability. Perhaps the most problematic of these claims is the pronouncement that a particular assessment is a “valid assessment”. Even more questionable is the claim that a particular assessment has been declared valid by the EEOC or other governmental entity.
Let’s start with the fact that there is no such thing as a “valid assessment”! Validity is not a property of an assessment; validity is a property of the relationship between an assessment and its use in a particular situation with an identified population. Repeated demonstrations of validity do not result in an assessment being valid; each demonstration is unique and must be made in compliance with established professional psychometric and legal guidelines. All that can be said about an assessment that has repeatedly demonstrated validity, is that the assessment has a history of demonstrating validity under certain known conditions.
As for the EEOC or other government entities, none of these organizations are in the business of declaring an assessment “valid” or “invalid”. They know better! What they can and will declare is the finding that a particular assessment has either demonstrated validity or failed to demonstrate validity in a particular situation with an identified population. They also may determine that the use of a particular assessment in a specific situation is not justified by business necessity or that the assessment disadvantages protected classes within the population from which applicants typically are or should be drawn.
So buyer beware. The claim that an assessment is a “valid assessment” is a guarantee that it is not!
by Leslie H. Krieger, Ph. D, SPHR, President of ATG
Assessments can and should be key elements in such talent management processes as selection, promotion, and development. And choosing the correct assessment is critical for the success and the legality of these processes. A quick internet search or reviews of assessment publisher catalogues yields a bewildering assortment of assessments and equally bewildering claims about their suitability. Perhaps the most problematic of these claims is the pronouncement that a particular assessment is a “valid assessment”. Even more questionable is the claim that a particular assessment has been declared valid by the EEOC or other governmental entity.
Let’s start with the fact that there is no such thing as a “valid assessment”! Validity is not a property of an assessment; validity is a property of the relationship between an assessment and its use in a particular situation with an identified population. Repeated demonstrations of validity do not result in an assessment being valid; each demonstration is unique and must be made in compliance with established professional psychometric and legal guidelines. All that can be said about an assessment that has repeatedly demonstrated validity, is that the assessment has a history of demonstrating validity under certain known conditions.
As for the EEOC or other government entities, none of these organizations are in the business of declaring an assessment “valid” or “invalid”. They know better! What they can and will declare is the finding that a particular assessment has either demonstrated validity or failed to demonstrate validity in a particular situation with an identified population. They also may determine that the use of a particular assessment in a specific situation is not justified by business necessity or that the assessment disadvantages protected classes within the population from which applicants typically are or should be drawn.
So buyer beware. The claim that an assessment is a “valid assessment” is a guarantee that it is not!
by Leslie H. Krieger, Ph. D, SPHR, President of ATG
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Jargon Jousting - Irregular Ramblings on the Bizareness of Business Buzzwords
Next Generation Leadership
This week members of the local OD (Organization Development) Network are meeting to talk about “Next Generation Leadership”. But does anyone really know what next generation leadership is? The OD Network members may find themselves the members of the Over Dose Network as they try to parse the ambiguity of this phrase.
Does it mean organizations should be led by those who currently are the followers, a situation where the inmates run the asylum? Or could it mean that each generation requires it’s own leadership, a situation in which several age-linked cadres of leaders compete for ultimate control? Hopefully neither of the above absurdities is the real intent of this phrase. A look at some relevant research may be helpful.
In 1996 the founding event of ATG’s Futures Leaders capability was a gathering of educational leaders from all over the United States who were brought together to create a model of “The 21st Century Educational Leader”. This model became the driver for the preparation, selection and development of community college leaders across the country. Now, thirteen years later, these leaders are at the forefront of the reinvention of the community college and the evolution of many of these colleges into four year degree granting institutions. With thirteen years or two thirds of a generation elapsed since the creation of this highly impactful leadership model, is it really time to consider “next generation leadership”?
Is the effectiveness of leadership really determined by generations? Was leadership in the 1960’s actually very different from leadership in the 1980’s? Will leadership in 2020 be different from leadership today. Even if the answer is “Yes”, that answer doesn’t necessarily make leadership generational. It could just as likely be situational or inspirational.
If leadership truly were generational, than each leadership cadre would operate differently from the one before, creating constant chaos and instability in our organizations. Perhaps that’s what’s actually happening in many of today’s organizations, although the bet would be that they suffer from too little leadership rather than from too much. Either way, endless waves of change aren’t necessarily by themselves beneficial.
But defining next generation leadership ultimately may be a fruitless exercise since data from organizations as diverse as the Center for Creative Leadership, the Society of Association Executives, and ATG’s FuturesLeaders suggest that next generation leadership may prove to be a null set. These data point to the paucity of people prepared to take on the leadership roles of the future. And as if to insure this nullness, many of our largest organizations have used the recent economic downturn as an excuse to ditch whatever leadership development resources they might have had.
So when it comes to next generation leadership we have seen the enemy and they are us. Talent management professionals including those in organization development have failed miserably to make the business case even for leadership replacement planning. And forget about getting ahead of the need for leadership curve. The only useful response to the next generation leadership problem can be found in a paraphrase from the Jewish Rabbinic literature: “In a place where there are no leaders, you must strive to become one!”
by Dr. Leslie H. Krieger, Ph.D, SPHR, President of ATG
This week members of the local OD (Organization Development) Network are meeting to talk about “Next Generation Leadership”. But does anyone really know what next generation leadership is? The OD Network members may find themselves the members of the Over Dose Network as they try to parse the ambiguity of this phrase.
Does it mean organizations should be led by those who currently are the followers, a situation where the inmates run the asylum? Or could it mean that each generation requires it’s own leadership, a situation in which several age-linked cadres of leaders compete for ultimate control? Hopefully neither of the above absurdities is the real intent of this phrase. A look at some relevant research may be helpful.
In 1996 the founding event of ATG’s Futures Leaders capability was a gathering of educational leaders from all over the United States who were brought together to create a model of “The 21st Century Educational Leader”. This model became the driver for the preparation, selection and development of community college leaders across the country. Now, thirteen years later, these leaders are at the forefront of the reinvention of the community college and the evolution of many of these colleges into four year degree granting institutions. With thirteen years or two thirds of a generation elapsed since the creation of this highly impactful leadership model, is it really time to consider “next generation leadership”?
Is the effectiveness of leadership really determined by generations? Was leadership in the 1960’s actually very different from leadership in the 1980’s? Will leadership in 2020 be different from leadership today. Even if the answer is “Yes”, that answer doesn’t necessarily make leadership generational. It could just as likely be situational or inspirational.
If leadership truly were generational, than each leadership cadre would operate differently from the one before, creating constant chaos and instability in our organizations. Perhaps that’s what’s actually happening in many of today’s organizations, although the bet would be that they suffer from too little leadership rather than from too much. Either way, endless waves of change aren’t necessarily by themselves beneficial.
But defining next generation leadership ultimately may be a fruitless exercise since data from organizations as diverse as the Center for Creative Leadership, the Society of Association Executives, and ATG’s FuturesLeaders suggest that next generation leadership may prove to be a null set. These data point to the paucity of people prepared to take on the leadership roles of the future. And as if to insure this nullness, many of our largest organizations have used the recent economic downturn as an excuse to ditch whatever leadership development resources they might have had.
So when it comes to next generation leadership we have seen the enemy and they are us. Talent management professionals including those in organization development have failed miserably to make the business case even for leadership replacement planning. And forget about getting ahead of the need for leadership curve. The only useful response to the next generation leadership problem can be found in a paraphrase from the Jewish Rabbinic literature: “In a place where there are no leaders, you must strive to become one!”
by Dr. Leslie H. Krieger, Ph.D, SPHR, President of ATG
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Developing Candidates Before They Apply
Have you ever said to yourself (or to anyone else, for that matter), “These fresh-out-of-school grads understand collections, but they just don’t have what it takes to do it”? Organizations across the board have complained for years that recent graduates have basic job skills and specialized knowledge, but they are lacking “soft skills,” i.e., the ability to get along with others, to handle stress, to keep themselves organized, etc. Wouldn’t it be great if you knew ahead of time that your collectors were trained in both aspects of the job? Through a partnership between your agency, ATG’s FuturesLeaders division, and your local community college, you can do just that.
Candidate Development
Many community colleges offer courses in collections to train students in the technical skills they need to be successful collectors; others would be willing to offer such courses if employers (i.e., your agency) expressed enough demand. This college preparation takes away some of the training time and headaches you undoubtedly experience with brand new collectors. But that’s only half of it…colleges don’t usually teach their students how to be socially assertive, outgoing, or confident.
To remedy this problem, some colleges are offering to their students the opportunity to compare themselves to the job models of their desired positions. For instance, students in enrolling in collection courses can be compared to the job model of a successful collector (i.e., ATG’s “Collector Selector”). This initial comparison allows students to identify where they are currently the strongest and where they still need some work…before they ever set foot in your agency! Once they have this information, they can work with instructors, supervisors, and/or mentors to help them develop the “soft skills” they need to be successful collectors.
Benefits
Agency. Your agency’s candidate pool becomes much deeper and richer with people who have prepared themselves for the collector position. You now have a group of people at your fingertips with the degrees, collector training, and people skills necessary to be successful in the collector position. All you have to do is decide who is the “best of the best”…not a bad place to be!
Students/Candidates. Students who wish to enter the collection business can also benefit from the development and training process. Essentially, they have a sneak peak into what agencies are looking for in their collectors and can work to meet those needs! By understanding what agencies want, the uncertainty and anxiety around whether they may be a good fit is eliminated.
The gap between classroom training and agency needs does not need to exist. By allowing students to understand what agencies need, they can eliminate these gaps to be successful collectors.
by Christina Adkins, Ph.D, ATG Organizational Consultant
Candidate Development
Many community colleges offer courses in collections to train students in the technical skills they need to be successful collectors; others would be willing to offer such courses if employers (i.e., your agency) expressed enough demand. This college preparation takes away some of the training time and headaches you undoubtedly experience with brand new collectors. But that’s only half of it…colleges don’t usually teach their students how to be socially assertive, outgoing, or confident.
To remedy this problem, some colleges are offering to their students the opportunity to compare themselves to the job models of their desired positions. For instance, students in enrolling in collection courses can be compared to the job model of a successful collector (i.e., ATG’s “Collector Selector”). This initial comparison allows students to identify where they are currently the strongest and where they still need some work…before they ever set foot in your agency! Once they have this information, they can work with instructors, supervisors, and/or mentors to help them develop the “soft skills” they need to be successful collectors.
Benefits
Agency. Your agency’s candidate pool becomes much deeper and richer with people who have prepared themselves for the collector position. You now have a group of people at your fingertips with the degrees, collector training, and people skills necessary to be successful in the collector position. All you have to do is decide who is the “best of the best”…not a bad place to be!
Students/Candidates. Students who wish to enter the collection business can also benefit from the development and training process. Essentially, they have a sneak peak into what agencies are looking for in their collectors and can work to meet those needs! By understanding what agencies want, the uncertainty and anxiety around whether they may be a good fit is eliminated.
The gap between classroom training and agency needs does not need to exist. By allowing students to understand what agencies need, they can eliminate these gaps to be successful collectors.
by Christina Adkins, Ph.D, ATG Organizational Consultant
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Employment Center
HOW DO YOU FIND REAL TALENT?
In these tough economic times, you’ve likely found the talent pool much richer than in years past. Former VPs are applying for barista positions at Starbucks, Sales Managers are hoping for the opportunity to “tote bags” – you know the story. But don’t be seduced by titles: even though these applicants have great experiences in other domains, they may not be the best fit for the way your agency hires. So, how do you determine which applicant is a great find and which is a pass?
It’s all about the fit.
When you think about a successful employee, what comes to mind? Assertive, detailed, outgoing? These responses differ according to which position you had in mind. An astute eye for detail isn’t as critical to success for an agency President as it is for an accountant; assertiveness isn’t always needed for an individual contributor role. When it comes to selecting your employees, it’s just as important to know the role as it is to know the person applying for the role.
Job. Understanding a job includes knowing the tasks an employee would have to complete, how important these tasks are to success in the job, and what kind of person would be successful in the job. It’s no longer just about the job description; it’s about the intricacies of the job itself. People in the role now often find it quite difficult to identify such details, especially if they’ve been doing it for a while. It’s not unlike driving a car…once you’ve done it long enough, you forget each step you take to start the car, get it going, stopping, etc. With that said, it’s often helpful to have an objective, outside source help you identify the specifics down to the amount of time a person spends doing each task. An outsider has no preconceived notions about the job requirements and can ask the questions you might take for granted, gathering the answers that will lead to the creation of a profile of the most successful incumbent.
Person. Now that you have a better understanding of the model, you can compare candidates to the profile of one who will be successful in this position. Remember the old adage, “it’s takes a special person to be a ___ ?” It’s true! It takes a special person to be an agency President, to be a Collector, to be an HR Manager, etc. The trick is knowing what “special” means in each of these roles. Each person has a unique personal style that describes how he/she approaches leadership, how he/she gets the job done, relates to others, and processes information.
The missing link in successful hiring is between the tasks that need to be done and the individual with the personal style best suited to do these tasks well. To effectively and accurately gather information on an individual’s style, you’ll need a scientifically valid tool (i.e., defensible in court) to assess each applicant for fit to the position. You’ll then have all of the pieces you need to screen through the talent pool and find the applicants who will best fit your agency’s needs.
by Christina Adkins Ph.D, Organizational Consultant, ATG
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Building the Dealership Talent Pipeline
INTRODUCTION
Contract furniture dealerships face many talent management challenges, but conversations with several dealership leaders and principals indicate that the greatest talent management concerns center on the various stages of building the dealership talent pipeline. Although individual dealerships might differ in the priorities they place on each talent pipeline concern, all agree that four talent pipeline processes are critical for dealership success and sustainability. Those talent pipeline processes are:
I-Selecting the strongest entry level talent who will stay and grow
II-Developing individual contributors into supervisors and managers
III-Powering sales people to optimize their contribution to revenue
IV-Preparing leadership and dealer principal succession
Let’s look at each of these critical talent pipeline processes and explore the systems and activities that would optimize its effectiveness. Many of these systems and activities until fairly recently were available only to organizations much larger than the typical dealership. Now with online communications, scalable talent management architectures and expert system databases, even the smallest dealership can afford to access these talent pipeline resources.
THE CRITICAL TALENT PIPELINE PROCESSES
Selecting the strongest entry level talent who will stay and grow
Sourcing and selecting entry level talent may be the single most important talent pipeline process for a dealership, since the depth of entry level talent sets very real boundaries on the dealership’s capabilities to deliver, innovate and grow. The sourcing and selecting process is best supported by implementing an integrated approach that includes hiring management automation, job-relevant assessments, and job-specific interview protocols.
Hiring management automation drives employment applications through an artificial intelligence guided web-based screening and qualification process. No paper is created and no effort is required on the part of the dealership’s human resource function until the process identifies a qualified candidate. Qualified candidates, then, can be routed by the software through job relevant assessments and, if appropriate, scheduled for an interview appointment with human resources and/or the hiring manager. This automation improves candidate quality while eliminating tedious hours of reading through stacks of resumes and then trying to connect with applicants who seem promising on paper.
Job relevant assessments also are web based and can be made available to an applicant either un-proctored at their own email address or proctored at a computer in the dealership. Typically these assessments include a measure of work style and one or more tests of critical thinking and/or job specific skills. If the dealership or a group to which it belongs has invested in building a model of a particular job, the applicant can be matched directly to that model. If no job-specific model exists, the applicant can be compared to appropriate population norms. Either way, the assessment process enables the applicant to demonstrate their suitability and capability to succeed in the available job.
Job specific interviews are much more likely to predict individual job performance than are the informal, unstructured interviews typically used by smaller organizations. In an integrated approach to selection the job specific interview is divided between the automated delivery of the artificial intelligence driven hiring management system and the live in person interview conducted by the human resources and/or hiring manager interviewer. Focus groups with people who have been in the dealership long enough to observe the success or failure of several people who have held a specific job uncover the biodata and behavioral elements that predict these performance outcomes. Then questions are written to assess the extent to which a job applicant displays the elements that contribute to success. An applicant’s response to each question is scored, and these scores tallied to provide an objective measure of likely success on the job.
Developing individual contributors into supervisors and managers
The leap from individual contributor to effective supervisor or manager is much greater than most people estimate it to be. Not surprisingly, therefore, many highly successful individual contributors need help in making this transition to their first role with responsibility for others. This transition process is best supported by implementing an integrated approach that includes early identification of supervisory and management potential, a menu of relevant internal and external training resources, and a structured coaching and mentoring program.
Early identification of supervisory and management potential can be made from a combination of behavioral observations, performance evaluations, and standardized assessment of readiness for supervisory and management roles. Data from these three sources are combined to highlight an individual’s already evolved supervisory and managerial strengths and also their needs for further development prior to taking on this additional level of responsibility. Feedback of this information with the individual should result in the co-creation of a realistic plan for career transition to a targeted supervisory or management position. The career transition plan should identify developmental resources and set target dates for the several recommended activities to be completed, assuring that the individual’s efforts remain focused.
The menu of relevant internal and external training resources is designed to meet the most frequent development needs of individuals making the transition from individual contributor to supervisor or manager. This menu might include books, films, online training, classroom training, vendor or association-sponsored programs, consultant facilitated programs, job rotations or project assignments, as well as formal course work from a college or university. An individual’s choices from this menu should be guided by their career transition plan and completed by the plan’s target dates. Many dealerships offer tuition reimbursement or a career development budget to individuals who elect to work toward a degree and/or relevant professional certification on their own time.
Structured coaching and mentoring often is necessary to provide individualized transition support beyond that available from training experiences. Larger dealerships are more likely to have a mentoring program in which senior executives are trained to offer long term guidance to one or more junior people who are in various stages of career evolution and/or transition. Organizations of any size may invite professional coaches to offer their expertise in working with individuals who are moving through these career stages. The personal connection with a mentor or coach greatly increases the likelihood that an individual will meet agreed upon career development goals.
Powering sales people to optimize their contribution to revenue
Powering sales people to optimize their contribution to revenue is essential to dealership survival, success and growth. Sales person turnover is extremely expensive and disruptive, making the retention and optimization of sales people truly critical to the dealership. This optimization process is best supported by implementing an integrated approach that includes detailed delineation of selling roles and strategies, assessment and training to increase sales potential, and rational compensation models keyed to the demand characteristics of each of the identified selling roles and strategies.
Detailed delineation of selling roles and strategies is essential in providing sales people with clear expectations for their behavior, performance, and revenue objectives. Most dealership have more than a single selling role, and these roles may not always be formally defined. Typically some distinction is made between sales roles focused on new business development, current client penetration, or client management. A more formal process of job definition that includes task identification, selling strategy rationale, and performance evaluation metrics greatly increases the likelihood that a sales person will understand and deliver to the expectations of their particular selling role.
Assessment and training to increase sales potential provide an avenue for continually improving sales person effectiveness. Assessment of individual sales people can identify their competency at each point in the business to business selling cycle and also uncover the underlying behavioral attributes that may be supporting a competency or holding back its development. Sales training, then, can be tailored to the needs of each individual rather than simply spending the money to send everyone through the same packaged sales training experience. And the return on a training investment can be measured by both changes in sales assessment scores and actual improvement in critical sales outcomes.
Rational sales compensation models deliver desired sales results while balancing the financial needs of individual sales people and the dealership. Appropriate models also are the key to retaining and motivating the best performers. These models work best when they are tailored to the demand characteristics of a particular selling role and/or strategy and also to competitive job pricing in the particular job market. Sales role definition, preferred selling strategy, and market compensation benchmarks therefore must be clarified before a rational compensation model can be put in place. It’s not unusual for a dealership with several different defined sales roles to have a different compensation model in place for each of these roles. And plans also need to be made for the sales person who transitions from one selling role to another.
Preparing leadership and dealer principal succession
Preparing leadership and dealer principal succession is the big elephant in the room that few dealers want to address until it’s almost too late to do what’s best for the dealership and its stakeholders. Completely unexpected transition needs brought about by death, disability, or unexpected departure of a leader or dealer principal inevitably create a crisis mentality throughout the dealership that highlights the need for a proactive approach to succession. Preparing leadership and dealer principal succession is best supported by implementing an integrated approach that includes career assessment and development activities, a key person internal vs. external succession strategy, and an “all facets” engagement with the dealer principal.
Career assessment and development activities that support succession planning are an extension of the processes used to identify and develop front line supervisory and management talent. The succession planning activities take a longer term view and are designed to identify individuals with high potential for leadership success and guide them through a series of formal learning and business experiences that will prepare them for increasing responsibility in the dealership. Mentoring and/or coaching relationships are essential in growing people toward the top roles in the organization. And active involvement in industry associations and dealer councils provides additional valuable perspectives on what a leader should be doing to power the dealership forward.
Key person succession strategies inevitably come down to an assessment of the talent available within the dealership and the talent that will need to be brought in from the outside. Although there are many strong arguments in favor of “growing your own”, a completely home grown leadership team may perpetuate an insular view of dealership direction. Bringing on board carefully assessed and selected outside leaders can invigorate the leadership team and bring new energy to drive dealership strategies and growth.
An “all facets” engagement with the dealer principal should be in place several years before that individual expects to transition out of their leadership role and/or give up ownership. Typically dealer principals involve their financial and legal advisors in discussions about their transition but pay little attention to the behavioral impact of the transition on the dealership, themselves and their families. An “all facets” engagement should include a psychologist or organizational consultant as a member of the transition trusted advisor team. Transition preparation activities should include ongoing psychologist facilitated discussions with the dealer principal and the successors to this role. Interventions also may be needed to help other stakeholders within the dealership handle the change of leadership and/or ownership with resilience rather than anxiety. And finally the dealer principal may need guidance in accepting their own changed role and understanding its impact on their self image and emotions.
Contract furniture dealerships face many talent management challenges, but conversations with several dealership leaders and principals indicate that the greatest talent management concerns center on the various stages of building the dealership talent pipeline. Although individual dealerships might differ in the priorities they place on each talent pipeline concern, all agree that four talent pipeline processes are critical for dealership success and sustainability. Those talent pipeline processes are:
I-Selecting the strongest entry level talent who will stay and grow
II-Developing individual contributors into supervisors and managers
III-Powering sales people to optimize their contribution to revenue
IV-Preparing leadership and dealer principal succession
Let’s look at each of these critical talent pipeline processes and explore the systems and activities that would optimize its effectiveness. Many of these systems and activities until fairly recently were available only to organizations much larger than the typical dealership. Now with online communications, scalable talent management architectures and expert system databases, even the smallest dealership can afford to access these talent pipeline resources.
THE CRITICAL TALENT PIPELINE PROCESSES
Selecting the strongest entry level talent who will stay and grow
Sourcing and selecting entry level talent may be the single most important talent pipeline process for a dealership, since the depth of entry level talent sets very real boundaries on the dealership’s capabilities to deliver, innovate and grow. The sourcing and selecting process is best supported by implementing an integrated approach that includes hiring management automation, job-relevant assessments, and job-specific interview protocols.
Hiring management automation drives employment applications through an artificial intelligence guided web-based screening and qualification process. No paper is created and no effort is required on the part of the dealership’s human resource function until the process identifies a qualified candidate. Qualified candidates, then, can be routed by the software through job relevant assessments and, if appropriate, scheduled for an interview appointment with human resources and/or the hiring manager. This automation improves candidate quality while eliminating tedious hours of reading through stacks of resumes and then trying to connect with applicants who seem promising on paper.
Job relevant assessments also are web based and can be made available to an applicant either un-proctored at their own email address or proctored at a computer in the dealership. Typically these assessments include a measure of work style and one or more tests of critical thinking and/or job specific skills. If the dealership or a group to which it belongs has invested in building a model of a particular job, the applicant can be matched directly to that model. If no job-specific model exists, the applicant can be compared to appropriate population norms. Either way, the assessment process enables the applicant to demonstrate their suitability and capability to succeed in the available job.
Job specific interviews are much more likely to predict individual job performance than are the informal, unstructured interviews typically used by smaller organizations. In an integrated approach to selection the job specific interview is divided between the automated delivery of the artificial intelligence driven hiring management system and the live in person interview conducted by the human resources and/or hiring manager interviewer. Focus groups with people who have been in the dealership long enough to observe the success or failure of several people who have held a specific job uncover the biodata and behavioral elements that predict these performance outcomes. Then questions are written to assess the extent to which a job applicant displays the elements that contribute to success. An applicant’s response to each question is scored, and these scores tallied to provide an objective measure of likely success on the job.
Developing individual contributors into supervisors and managers
The leap from individual contributor to effective supervisor or manager is much greater than most people estimate it to be. Not surprisingly, therefore, many highly successful individual contributors need help in making this transition to their first role with responsibility for others. This transition process is best supported by implementing an integrated approach that includes early identification of supervisory and management potential, a menu of relevant internal and external training resources, and a structured coaching and mentoring program.
Early identification of supervisory and management potential can be made from a combination of behavioral observations, performance evaluations, and standardized assessment of readiness for supervisory and management roles. Data from these three sources are combined to highlight an individual’s already evolved supervisory and managerial strengths and also their needs for further development prior to taking on this additional level of responsibility. Feedback of this information with the individual should result in the co-creation of a realistic plan for career transition to a targeted supervisory or management position. The career transition plan should identify developmental resources and set target dates for the several recommended activities to be completed, assuring that the individual’s efforts remain focused.
The menu of relevant internal and external training resources is designed to meet the most frequent development needs of individuals making the transition from individual contributor to supervisor or manager. This menu might include books, films, online training, classroom training, vendor or association-sponsored programs, consultant facilitated programs, job rotations or project assignments, as well as formal course work from a college or university. An individual’s choices from this menu should be guided by their career transition plan and completed by the plan’s target dates. Many dealerships offer tuition reimbursement or a career development budget to individuals who elect to work toward a degree and/or relevant professional certification on their own time.
Structured coaching and mentoring often is necessary to provide individualized transition support beyond that available from training experiences. Larger dealerships are more likely to have a mentoring program in which senior executives are trained to offer long term guidance to one or more junior people who are in various stages of career evolution and/or transition. Organizations of any size may invite professional coaches to offer their expertise in working with individuals who are moving through these career stages. The personal connection with a mentor or coach greatly increases the likelihood that an individual will meet agreed upon career development goals.
Powering sales people to optimize their contribution to revenue
Powering sales people to optimize their contribution to revenue is essential to dealership survival, success and growth. Sales person turnover is extremely expensive and disruptive, making the retention and optimization of sales people truly critical to the dealership. This optimization process is best supported by implementing an integrated approach that includes detailed delineation of selling roles and strategies, assessment and training to increase sales potential, and rational compensation models keyed to the demand characteristics of each of the identified selling roles and strategies.
Detailed delineation of selling roles and strategies is essential in providing sales people with clear expectations for their behavior, performance, and revenue objectives. Most dealership have more than a single selling role, and these roles may not always be formally defined. Typically some distinction is made between sales roles focused on new business development, current client penetration, or client management. A more formal process of job definition that includes task identification, selling strategy rationale, and performance evaluation metrics greatly increases the likelihood that a sales person will understand and deliver to the expectations of their particular selling role.
Assessment and training to increase sales potential provide an avenue for continually improving sales person effectiveness. Assessment of individual sales people can identify their competency at each point in the business to business selling cycle and also uncover the underlying behavioral attributes that may be supporting a competency or holding back its development. Sales training, then, can be tailored to the needs of each individual rather than simply spending the money to send everyone through the same packaged sales training experience. And the return on a training investment can be measured by both changes in sales assessment scores and actual improvement in critical sales outcomes.
Rational sales compensation models deliver desired sales results while balancing the financial needs of individual sales people and the dealership. Appropriate models also are the key to retaining and motivating the best performers. These models work best when they are tailored to the demand characteristics of a particular selling role and/or strategy and also to competitive job pricing in the particular job market. Sales role definition, preferred selling strategy, and market compensation benchmarks therefore must be clarified before a rational compensation model can be put in place. It’s not unusual for a dealership with several different defined sales roles to have a different compensation model in place for each of these roles. And plans also need to be made for the sales person who transitions from one selling role to another.
Preparing leadership and dealer principal succession
Preparing leadership and dealer principal succession is the big elephant in the room that few dealers want to address until it’s almost too late to do what’s best for the dealership and its stakeholders. Completely unexpected transition needs brought about by death, disability, or unexpected departure of a leader or dealer principal inevitably create a crisis mentality throughout the dealership that highlights the need for a proactive approach to succession. Preparing leadership and dealer principal succession is best supported by implementing an integrated approach that includes career assessment and development activities, a key person internal vs. external succession strategy, and an “all facets” engagement with the dealer principal.
Career assessment and development activities that support succession planning are an extension of the processes used to identify and develop front line supervisory and management talent. The succession planning activities take a longer term view and are designed to identify individuals with high potential for leadership success and guide them through a series of formal learning and business experiences that will prepare them for increasing responsibility in the dealership. Mentoring and/or coaching relationships are essential in growing people toward the top roles in the organization. And active involvement in industry associations and dealer councils provides additional valuable perspectives on what a leader should be doing to power the dealership forward.
Key person succession strategies inevitably come down to an assessment of the talent available within the dealership and the talent that will need to be brought in from the outside. Although there are many strong arguments in favor of “growing your own”, a completely home grown leadership team may perpetuate an insular view of dealership direction. Bringing on board carefully assessed and selected outside leaders can invigorate the leadership team and bring new energy to drive dealership strategies and growth.
An “all facets” engagement with the dealer principal should be in place several years before that individual expects to transition out of their leadership role and/or give up ownership. Typically dealer principals involve their financial and legal advisors in discussions about their transition but pay little attention to the behavioral impact of the transition on the dealership, themselves and their families. An “all facets” engagement should include a psychologist or organizational consultant as a member of the transition trusted advisor team. Transition preparation activities should include ongoing psychologist facilitated discussions with the dealer principal and the successors to this role. Interventions also may be needed to help other stakeholders within the dealership handle the change of leadership and/or ownership with resilience rather than anxiety. And finally the dealer principal may need guidance in accepting their own changed role and understanding its impact on their self image and emotions.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Supreme Courts Stance on Validated Assessments
(July 1, 2010) Dr. Steilberg of ATG comments on Supreme Court ruling…
The recent Supreme Court ruling overturning Ricci v. DeStefano reinforces the criticality of using properly validated tools and processes in making employment decisions. In this case, employees argued that they were adversely treated by the employer’s decision to not certify the results of a test used for promotion purposes. In the summary writing, Justice Kennedy stated, “[t]he City [employer], moreover, turned a blind eye to evidence that supported the exams’ validity.”
Scientific assessment of people at work allows us to make better, more accurate and efficient decisions. But it is not always easy to establish the circumstances of valid, defensible assessment procedures. In this case, a sophisticated employer was found to be at fault even though they thought they were doing the right thing.
Employers are cautioned to insure the processes they use to make decisions are valid, free of bias and the best possible solution available. We are now seeing that the courts are ruling in favor of scientific assessment. In this era, employers would be shortsighted not to apply the science of proper selection procedures in order to make better, legally defensible decisions. The financial and reputation-based implications of not using science at work are becoming too significant to avoid. Why risk it?
The recent Supreme Court ruling overturning Ricci v. DeStefano reinforces the criticality of using properly validated tools and processes in making employment decisions. In this case, employees argued that they were adversely treated by the employer’s decision to not certify the results of a test used for promotion purposes. In the summary writing, Justice Kennedy stated, “[t]he City [employer], moreover, turned a blind eye to evidence that supported the exams’ validity.”
Scientific assessment of people at work allows us to make better, more accurate and efficient decisions. But it is not always easy to establish the circumstances of valid, defensible assessment procedures. In this case, a sophisticated employer was found to be at fault even though they thought they were doing the right thing.
Employers are cautioned to insure the processes they use to make decisions are valid, free of bias and the best possible solution available. We are now seeing that the courts are ruling in favor of scientific assessment. In this era, employers would be shortsighted not to apply the science of proper selection procedures in order to make better, legally defensible decisions. The financial and reputation-based implications of not using science at work are becoming too significant to avoid. Why risk it?
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Despite Cutbacks, Firms Invest in Developing Leaders
Despite Cutbacks, Firms Invest in Developing Leaders1
Companies Renew Focus on Employee Training, Betting That Strong Managers Will Help Through the Recovery
Despite layoffs and recession-starved budgets, many employers are investing in leadership-development programs, hoping not to be caught short of strong managers when the economy recovers.
Identifying and grooming leaders is important in good times, says Bret Furio, senior vice president of consumer lifestyle for Philips Electronics North America. "In times of crisis when the economy is struggling," he adds, "it's imperative."
Like many companies, Philips Electronics NV is trimming its training budget this year. A December survey of 117 large U.S. companies by Watson Wyatt Worldwide Inc. found 23% of respondents had recently cut training programs, and another 18% planned to do so this year.
But Philips will offer its annual Inspire program for 30 high-potential employees, stressing subjects such as business strategy and personal leadership. Participants are assigned to teams to work on a business project. Mr. Furio reasons that investing in leadership development will help Philips through the recession and the recovery.
In a nod to the tough times, Philips trimmed the budget for Inspire, eliminating one tutor and tapping more employees, rather than outsiders, as trainers. It's holding the program near Seattle and Boston, where Philips has many employees, saving the company transportation costs. Last year, one seminar was held in Huntington Beach, Calif.
Philips is typical of many companies, according to Bersin & Associates, a research firm that studies corporate training. Bersin estimates that companies cut overall training budgets 11% last year and projects another decline this year, based on a recent survey of human-resources executives. President Josh Bersin says the deepest cuts are in training for "soft skills" such as communicating with co-workers and conducting meetings. He says leadership development is taking a growing share of training budgets.
Yaarit Silverstone, global managing director for the organizational-effectiveness practice at consulting firm Accenture Ltd., says the emphasis on leadership development is a departure from the past. Ms. Silverstone says companies historically cut leadership-development programs during downturns, but the moves backfired, prompting midlevel managers and top performers to leave when the economy recovered. Now, she says, executives believe that without capable managers, "their ability to come through [the recession] in a healthy fashion is diminished."
Consider Estée Lauder Cos. The New York cosmetics maker Thursday reported lower sales and profit for the period ended Dec. 31, and said it would eliminate 2,000 jobs over the next two years. But Lauder is continuing its leadership-development programs, albeit more cheaply. Lauder typically sends 120 executives to a two- or three-week summer program at Vassar College. This year, it plans to send 60, for one week. In all its leadership programs, Lauder will emphasize innovation and managing change in volatile business conditions.
The budget cuts are hurting business schools, which say companies are sending fewer employees for executive-education courses and ordering fewer custom programs, which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. David Newkirk, CEO of Executive Education for the University of Virginia Darden School of Business, says the school began to feel the downturn early last year, as financial companies deferred decisions. He says few companies have dropped programs completely, but many are delaying custom program enrollment by six months or so as they watch expenses.
But leadership coaches say they're still in demand. Author and consultant Paul Hellman has been expecting a slowdown, but says December was his busiest December ever. Mr. Hellman, president of Express Potential, says employers know employees are less likely to jump ship during the recession, and are exhibiting a "let's make sure people are developed" mentality. He says he sees companies cutting costs by using more Web training than in past years; he hosted four "Webinars" in January, compared with six for all of last year.
That's the case at Canon USA Inc., which launched "Canon Academy" in 2008 to expand leadership development. This year, the camera and office-equipment maker is combining Web tools and instructor-led courses to offer training to more newly promoted managers than in the past. The program will touch on strategic decision-making and influencing employees. "Certainly times are tough, but we recognize that employee development needs to continue," says David Metzger, Canon USA's director of management development.
Some consultants see a renewed focus on leadership development, even at companies that are laying off employees. Patrick Sweeney, president of Caliper, a Princeton, N.J., management-consulting firm, says companies are trying to grab managers' attention and focus them on "keeping the ship afloat." Mr. Sweeney says much of Caliper's current work is geared toward identifying employees with high potential and developing their leadership skills.
1- Dana Mattioli, (2009, February, 09). Despite Cutbacks, Firms Invest in Developing Leaders
Companies Renew Focus on Employee Training, Betting That Strong Managers Will Help Through the Recovery. Wall Street Journal, B4.
Companies Renew Focus on Employee Training, Betting That Strong Managers Will Help Through the Recovery
Despite layoffs and recession-starved budgets, many employers are investing in leadership-development programs, hoping not to be caught short of strong managers when the economy recovers.
Identifying and grooming leaders is important in good times, says Bret Furio, senior vice president of consumer lifestyle for Philips Electronics North America. "In times of crisis when the economy is struggling," he adds, "it's imperative."
Like many companies, Philips Electronics NV is trimming its training budget this year. A December survey of 117 large U.S. companies by Watson Wyatt Worldwide Inc. found 23% of respondents had recently cut training programs, and another 18% planned to do so this year.
But Philips will offer its annual Inspire program for 30 high-potential employees, stressing subjects such as business strategy and personal leadership. Participants are assigned to teams to work on a business project. Mr. Furio reasons that investing in leadership development will help Philips through the recession and the recovery.
In a nod to the tough times, Philips trimmed the budget for Inspire, eliminating one tutor and tapping more employees, rather than outsiders, as trainers. It's holding the program near Seattle and Boston, where Philips has many employees, saving the company transportation costs. Last year, one seminar was held in Huntington Beach, Calif.
Philips is typical of many companies, according to Bersin & Associates, a research firm that studies corporate training. Bersin estimates that companies cut overall training budgets 11% last year and projects another decline this year, based on a recent survey of human-resources executives. President Josh Bersin says the deepest cuts are in training for "soft skills" such as communicating with co-workers and conducting meetings. He says leadership development is taking a growing share of training budgets.
Yaarit Silverstone, global managing director for the organizational-effectiveness practice at consulting firm Accenture Ltd., says the emphasis on leadership development is a departure from the past. Ms. Silverstone says companies historically cut leadership-development programs during downturns, but the moves backfired, prompting midlevel managers and top performers to leave when the economy recovered. Now, she says, executives believe that without capable managers, "their ability to come through [the recession] in a healthy fashion is diminished."
Consider Estée Lauder Cos. The New York cosmetics maker Thursday reported lower sales and profit for the period ended Dec. 31, and said it would eliminate 2,000 jobs over the next two years. But Lauder is continuing its leadership-development programs, albeit more cheaply. Lauder typically sends 120 executives to a two- or three-week summer program at Vassar College. This year, it plans to send 60, for one week. In all its leadership programs, Lauder will emphasize innovation and managing change in volatile business conditions.
The budget cuts are hurting business schools, which say companies are sending fewer employees for executive-education courses and ordering fewer custom programs, which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. David Newkirk, CEO of Executive Education for the University of Virginia Darden School of Business, says the school began to feel the downturn early last year, as financial companies deferred decisions. He says few companies have dropped programs completely, but many are delaying custom program enrollment by six months or so as they watch expenses.
But leadership coaches say they're still in demand. Author and consultant Paul Hellman has been expecting a slowdown, but says December was his busiest December ever. Mr. Hellman, president of Express Potential, says employers know employees are less likely to jump ship during the recession, and are exhibiting a "let's make sure people are developed" mentality. He says he sees companies cutting costs by using more Web training than in past years; he hosted four "Webinars" in January, compared with six for all of last year.
That's the case at Canon USA Inc., which launched "Canon Academy" in 2008 to expand leadership development. This year, the camera and office-equipment maker is combining Web tools and instructor-led courses to offer training to more newly promoted managers than in the past. The program will touch on strategic decision-making and influencing employees. "Certainly times are tough, but we recognize that employee development needs to continue," says David Metzger, Canon USA's director of management development.
Some consultants see a renewed focus on leadership development, even at companies that are laying off employees. Patrick Sweeney, president of Caliper, a Princeton, N.J., management-consulting firm, says companies are trying to grab managers' attention and focus them on "keeping the ship afloat." Mr. Sweeney says much of Caliper's current work is geared toward identifying employees with high potential and developing their leadership skills.
1- Dana Mattioli, (2009, February, 09). Despite Cutbacks, Firms Invest in Developing Leaders
Companies Renew Focus on Employee Training, Betting That Strong Managers Will Help Through the Recovery. Wall Street Journal, B4.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
FACT: IN GREAT COMPANIES, CEOS SPEND OVER 50% OF THEIR TIME THINKING ABOUT PEOPLE.1
(And here’s a secret: These CEO’s are
thinking about talent, not just people,
because talent drives results whereas
people may just be driving
expenses.)
Talent: Is the main concern of great
CEOs. They continually assess, select
and position talent to meet strategic
needs. And what do you think the direct
reports of these CEOs do? They do
what the CEO does. CEOs cast a large
and influential shadow throughout entire
organizations.
THREE TRUTHS ABOUT TALENT:
1. Talent (not people) is your most valuable
asset. Talent is what distinguishes
the good from the great. Studies show
that a great employee is worth over ten
times an average employee in the same
job. Just think about the difference in
contribution between your best employee
and an average one.
2. Talent is scarce in South Florida. This
one is so well documented you don’t
even need the details. Education, housing
and a host of other factors make it
difficult to recruit and retain great talent
here. Shouldn’t you do everything you
can to insure your organization has a
robust supply of great talent for years to
come? If talent isn’t your competitive
advantage, then it’s someone else’s.
3. ATG is the source for talent solutions.
ATG is a practice of business psychologists
focused on strengthening leadership in
organizations. By applying the science
of talent assessment and psychology
we’ve helped organizations lower
unwanted turnover, distinguish ‘great’
leaders from ‘good’ leaders, and develop
talent practices that deliver
tremendous financial results.
SO, HOW MUCH TIME ARE YOU
SPENDING ON TALENT ISSUES?
1. Do you have the quality talent you
need to win?
2. Do you have the pipeline of future
leaders to grow?
3. Are you sure that your “A-Players”
would never think of leaving you?
BOTTOM LINE:
Great CEOs spend over half of their
time on talent issues. They know great
talent is the top priority and isn’t easy to
build and sustain.
At ATG we spend 100% of our time
on talent. It’s your job, but it’s our
obsession. So, let ATG show you how we can
help you lift your talent to drive great
results.
R. Chris Steilberg, Ph.D. is vice president of Talent
Management at ATG, a business consulting
firm specializing in leadership
development. He is also an adjunct professor
at the University of Miami where
he teaches courses on talent management
and it impacts business results. He can be
reached at Chris@assessment-tech.com.
1How top companies breed stars, Fortune 2007
thinking about talent, not just people,
because talent drives results whereas
people may just be driving
expenses.)
Talent: Is the main concern of great
CEOs. They continually assess, select
and position talent to meet strategic
needs. And what do you think the direct
reports of these CEOs do? They do
what the CEO does. CEOs cast a large
and influential shadow throughout entire
organizations.
THREE TRUTHS ABOUT TALENT:
1. Talent (not people) is your most valuable
asset. Talent is what distinguishes
the good from the great. Studies show
that a great employee is worth over ten
times an average employee in the same
job. Just think about the difference in
contribution between your best employee
and an average one.
2. Talent is scarce in South Florida. This
one is so well documented you don’t
even need the details. Education, housing
and a host of other factors make it
difficult to recruit and retain great talent
here. Shouldn’t you do everything you
can to insure your organization has a
robust supply of great talent for years to
come? If talent isn’t your competitive
advantage, then it’s someone else’s.
3. ATG is the source for talent solutions.
ATG is a practice of business psychologists
focused on strengthening leadership in
organizations. By applying the science
of talent assessment and psychology
we’ve helped organizations lower
unwanted turnover, distinguish ‘great’
leaders from ‘good’ leaders, and develop
talent practices that deliver
tremendous financial results.
SO, HOW MUCH TIME ARE YOU
SPENDING ON TALENT ISSUES?
1. Do you have the quality talent you
need to win?
2. Do you have the pipeline of future
leaders to grow?
3. Are you sure that your “A-Players”
would never think of leaving you?
BOTTOM LINE:
Great CEOs spend over half of their
time on talent issues. They know great
talent is the top priority and isn’t easy to
build and sustain.
At ATG we spend 100% of our time
on talent. It’s your job, but it’s our
obsession. So, let ATG show you how we can
help you lift your talent to drive great
results.
R. Chris Steilberg, Ph.D. is vice president of Talent
Management at ATG, a business consulting
firm specializing in leadership
development. He is also an adjunct professor
at the University of Miami where
he teaches courses on talent management
and it impacts business results. He can be
reached at Chris@assessment-tech.com.
1How top companies breed stars, Fortune 2007
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Aiming to Put the Right People in Charge
New online tools will help prospective assigning editors see whether they have what it takes to succeed.
What makes a good assigning editor? Knight Ridder has offered more than 20 seminars for assigning editors during the past seven years and, at the start of each class, we ask every participant: "Who is the best assigning editor you've ever known, and why?" They always cite the same qualities, using many of the same words: She trusted me. She pushed me. She believed in me. ... He was patient. He cared about me. He helped me. ... A great coach. Set clear goals. Could see the story. ... Demanding. Generous with her time. ... Energetic. Passionate. Confident. But in almost every group of editors, someone stands and says, "I've never known a good assigning editor."
I always want to apologize for that. We should be ashamed of how many assigning editors are not good enough-not good enough to help our reporters do better work, not good enough to grow readership. It's a tough job, getting tougher all the time. Every problem seems to land on the desk of the assigning editor. Yet doing the job well is critical to the success of the newspaper. Those of us involved in the Frontline Editors Project want to increase the odds of success. Our goal is two-fold:
1. We can help prospective assigning editors determine whether they are well suited for the job.
2. We can help assigning editors identify their most critical developmental needs.
Exploring the Job's Fit
Through the Poynter Institute's News University, which offers online training, journalists will be able to learn more about the frontline editor's job and whether it would be a good fit for them.
To give a realistic preview of the job, working assigning editors have been videotaped talking about the good, the bad, and the ugly parts of the work, telling what surprised them most, sharing their passions, and warning about pitfalls. We also plan to provide samples of raw copy and offer case studies on management and editing issues. For those who want to take the next step, we will tell how to go about shadowing an assigning editor in their newsroom and how to apply for cross-training in that job.
Originally, we planned to provide a self-assessment questionnaire, specifying desirable traits for this job, with questions such as, "Do I like giving honest feedback?" "Am I a good teacher?" "Well organized?" "A problem solver?" Can I juggle several tasks at once?" "Do I meet deadlines?" "Am I comfortable with tension and conflict?"
Then we wondered if job fit could be even more accurately predicted. Psychologists say there is a scientific way to predict success. If we are able to accurately describe an assigning editor's critical tasks, attributes and competencies, a sophisticated software program will be able to tell an individual just how good the fit will be.
In October, we asked Dr. Leslie Krieger, a consulting psychologist and president of Assessment Technologies Group, to meet with about a dozen assigning editors to start to develop such an interactive "job fit" tool. The group spent hours analyzing and describing how they do their job, and this information was digested by a computer. Its software then produced the first draft of our instrument.
Krieger said that in 30 years of research he had never encountered a job with such intense problem-solving demands. The assigning editors were not surprised to hear this. Based on their input, the report generated by the computer listed three essential attributes for the job (all involved problem-solving), seven important ones ("detail-conscious," for example) and 16 that are also relevant ("tough-minded" and "conscientious" are just two of these). Each attribute was scored from 1 to 10, and a shaded area marked on the scale where the ideal candidate would score.
Of course, that session was just the start of a process to create a credible instrument. Additional sessions in Atlanta, Kansas City, and San Jose will repeat the exercise of defining the job, to vet the instrument and gain new insights. Our target is to offer this "job fit" tool to all journalists by fall 2006. Once it's available online, prospective editors will be able to respond to a series of questions and receive a confidential report showing how they scored on these essential, important and relevant attribute scales and see how their scores compare with those of the ideal candidate.
Obviously, there is no such thing as an ideal candidate. But the right "job fit" tool could help journalists see how well suited they are for this demanding job. By showing how their strengths differ from those of the ideal candidate, it will help them identify developmental needs. It could also help the industry determine training priorities.
Having such a tool could avoid the harm done by having the wrong person in the assigning editor's job or having an assigning editor who doesn't clearly understand the demands of the job and the consequences of performing poorly in it. And it could decrease the chances that an experienced journalist would ever say, "I've never known a good assigning editor."
Marty Claus, a former vice president/news for Knight Ridder, was an assigning editor for more than 12 years at the San Bernardino (Calif.) Sun-Telegram and the Detroit Free Press. She is now a consultant, specializing in recruiting and training.
By Marty Claus
What makes a good assigning editor? Knight Ridder has offered more than 20 seminars for assigning editors during the past seven years and, at the start of each class, we ask every participant: "Who is the best assigning editor you've ever known, and why?" They always cite the same qualities, using many of the same words: She trusted me. She pushed me. She believed in me. ... He was patient. He cared about me. He helped me. ... A great coach. Set clear goals. Could see the story. ... Demanding. Generous with her time. ... Energetic. Passionate. Confident. But in almost every group of editors, someone stands and says, "I've never known a good assigning editor."
I always want to apologize for that. We should be ashamed of how many assigning editors are not good enough-not good enough to help our reporters do better work, not good enough to grow readership. It's a tough job, getting tougher all the time. Every problem seems to land on the desk of the assigning editor. Yet doing the job well is critical to the success of the newspaper. Those of us involved in the Frontline Editors Project want to increase the odds of success. Our goal is two-fold:
1. We can help prospective assigning editors determine whether they are well suited for the job.
2. We can help assigning editors identify their most critical developmental needs.
Exploring the Job's Fit
Through the Poynter Institute's News University, which offers online training, journalists will be able to learn more about the frontline editor's job and whether it would be a good fit for them.
To give a realistic preview of the job, working assigning editors have been videotaped talking about the good, the bad, and the ugly parts of the work, telling what surprised them most, sharing their passions, and warning about pitfalls. We also plan to provide samples of raw copy and offer case studies on management and editing issues. For those who want to take the next step, we will tell how to go about shadowing an assigning editor in their newsroom and how to apply for cross-training in that job.
Originally, we planned to provide a self-assessment questionnaire, specifying desirable traits for this job, with questions such as, "Do I like giving honest feedback?" "Am I a good teacher?" "Well organized?" "A problem solver?" Can I juggle several tasks at once?" "Do I meet deadlines?" "Am I comfortable with tension and conflict?"
Then we wondered if job fit could be even more accurately predicted. Psychologists say there is a scientific way to predict success. If we are able to accurately describe an assigning editor's critical tasks, attributes and competencies, a sophisticated software program will be able to tell an individual just how good the fit will be.
In October, we asked Dr. Leslie Krieger, a consulting psychologist and president of Assessment Technologies Group, to meet with about a dozen assigning editors to start to develop such an interactive "job fit" tool. The group spent hours analyzing and describing how they do their job, and this information was digested by a computer. Its software then produced the first draft of our instrument.
Krieger said that in 30 years of research he had never encountered a job with such intense problem-solving demands. The assigning editors were not surprised to hear this. Based on their input, the report generated by the computer listed three essential attributes for the job (all involved problem-solving), seven important ones ("detail-conscious," for example) and 16 that are also relevant ("tough-minded" and "conscientious" are just two of these). Each attribute was scored from 1 to 10, and a shaded area marked on the scale where the ideal candidate would score.
Of course, that session was just the start of a process to create a credible instrument. Additional sessions in Atlanta, Kansas City, and San Jose will repeat the exercise of defining the job, to vet the instrument and gain new insights. Our target is to offer this "job fit" tool to all journalists by fall 2006. Once it's available online, prospective editors will be able to respond to a series of questions and receive a confidential report showing how they scored on these essential, important and relevant attribute scales and see how their scores compare with those of the ideal candidate.
Obviously, there is no such thing as an ideal candidate. But the right "job fit" tool could help journalists see how well suited they are for this demanding job. By showing how their strengths differ from those of the ideal candidate, it will help them identify developmental needs. It could also help the industry determine training priorities.
Having such a tool could avoid the harm done by having the wrong person in the assigning editor's job or having an assigning editor who doesn't clearly understand the demands of the job and the consequences of performing poorly in it. And it could decrease the chances that an experienced journalist would ever say, "I've never known a good assigning editor."
Marty Claus, a former vice president/news for Knight Ridder, was an assigning editor for more than 12 years at the San Bernardino (Calif.) Sun-Telegram and the Detroit Free Press. She is now a consultant, specializing in recruiting and training.
By Marty Claus
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Talent Matters
Two beliefs are essential for taking a well-planned approach to building a strong team:
1) People make a difference.
2) A difference can be made with people.
I haven’t met anyone who debates the first statement. Even kids on a playground have a point of view when choosing sides for a ‘pickup’ game, “I’ll take Bubba {even if I don’t like him that much}.”
And few doubt the validity of statement two: Otherwise, I’m happy to provide a limitless supply of candidates for your organization (and, by the way, you’re wasting money on your children’s education).
Cheap Talk: We’ve all heard it said in a variety of ways, “People are our most valuable asset”; “People are our source of competitive advantage”, and so on. What we don’t always hear is the unspoken ‘trailers’ to these statements. For example, “People are our most valuable asset … {just not you}.” Or, “People are our competitive advantage… {as long as we don’t have to spend any more money on them}.”
In search of a quick fix: Many are the organizations in search of the perfect process that will solve all of our talent issues. “If we: ‘Install a new software system’…, ‘Send a few people to classes {but not me}’..., ‘Post our new values and mission statement’, etc., “We’ll get what we want.” Good luck. You will do what you want, but I’m pretty sure you won’t get what you NEED. As anyone simply awake in a car today knows, great roads do not make up for bad drivers.
Get Real: No amount of background checks, resume searches, or even the sacred interview (which everyone I know thinks they’re great at) will guarantee that the person you think you’re hiring will be the one who shows up at work. {Note to bosses: People manage their resumes and their presence – especially in interviews -- just like you do.} Sure, you may weed out the documented thugs, but have you ever seen embezzlement listed as a key strength on a resume? Ever heard an applicant confess that they occasionally engage in acts of petty theft? Or, do ‘a little’ drugs? -- No? It happens all the time -- at work! As for background checks the most dangerous candidates are the ones who haven’t been caught yet.
Do you REALLY mean it? People say what they think, but do what they mean. If you (or your organization) really believe in these principles, then why aren’t they at the top of your agenda? Is your HR manager the most critically important person in your company? If people do make a difference, and a difference can be made with people – then shouldn’t you be doing everything you can to make your people the best? Shouldn’t you be GREAT at attracting, selecting and growing talent?
Good News: There are proven ways to make better decisions about talent. Done well, talent assessments, of both external and INTERNAL candidates, not only predict who will do well in the first month (a ‘slam dunk’ since we’re on our best behavior), but also predict who will do well in the twelfth (and who won’t make it that far). Additionally, we now know a lot more about what can be done to make a difference in people. Yes, people can be changed at work. Are you the same manager you were 10 years ago? Could you give career-enhancing advice today to the ‘you’ of 10 years prior?
The Bottom Line: If you spend more time reviewing your finances than you do your people, you may have your priorities wrong. Valuing money and investments is fairly straightforward. Valuing people is a complex task with mission critical implication. Is the risk of making ‘gut decisions’ or selecting talent that’s “good enough” really worth it?
1) People make a difference.
2) A difference can be made with people.
I haven’t met anyone who debates the first statement. Even kids on a playground have a point of view when choosing sides for a ‘pickup’ game, “I’ll take Bubba {even if I don’t like him that much}.”
And few doubt the validity of statement two: Otherwise, I’m happy to provide a limitless supply of candidates for your organization (and, by the way, you’re wasting money on your children’s education).
Cheap Talk: We’ve all heard it said in a variety of ways, “People are our most valuable asset”; “People are our source of competitive advantage”, and so on. What we don’t always hear is the unspoken ‘trailers’ to these statements. For example, “People are our most valuable asset … {just not you}.” Or, “People are our competitive advantage… {as long as we don’t have to spend any more money on them}.”
In search of a quick fix: Many are the organizations in search of the perfect process that will solve all of our talent issues. “If we: ‘Install a new software system’…, ‘Send a few people to classes {but not me}’..., ‘Post our new values and mission statement’, etc., “We’ll get what we want.” Good luck. You will do what you want, but I’m pretty sure you won’t get what you NEED. As anyone simply awake in a car today knows, great roads do not make up for bad drivers.
Get Real: No amount of background checks, resume searches, or even the sacred interview (which everyone I know thinks they’re great at) will guarantee that the person you think you’re hiring will be the one who shows up at work. {Note to bosses: People manage their resumes and their presence – especially in interviews -- just like you do.} Sure, you may weed out the documented thugs, but have you ever seen embezzlement listed as a key strength on a resume? Ever heard an applicant confess that they occasionally engage in acts of petty theft? Or, do ‘a little’ drugs? -- No? It happens all the time -- at work! As for background checks the most dangerous candidates are the ones who haven’t been caught yet.
Do you REALLY mean it? People say what they think, but do what they mean. If you (or your organization) really believe in these principles, then why aren’t they at the top of your agenda? Is your HR manager the most critically important person in your company? If people do make a difference, and a difference can be made with people – then shouldn’t you be doing everything you can to make your people the best? Shouldn’t you be GREAT at attracting, selecting and growing talent?
Good News: There are proven ways to make better decisions about talent. Done well, talent assessments, of both external and INTERNAL candidates, not only predict who will do well in the first month (a ‘slam dunk’ since we’re on our best behavior), but also predict who will do well in the twelfth (and who won’t make it that far). Additionally, we now know a lot more about what can be done to make a difference in people. Yes, people can be changed at work. Are you the same manager you were 10 years ago? Could you give career-enhancing advice today to the ‘you’ of 10 years prior?
The Bottom Line: If you spend more time reviewing your finances than you do your people, you may have your priorities wrong. Valuing money and investments is fairly straightforward. Valuing people is a complex task with mission critical implication. Is the risk of making ‘gut decisions’ or selecting talent that’s “good enough” really worth it?
by R. Chris Steilberg, Ph.D.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
WorkForce Development
“KEEPING MATURE EMPLOYEES ENERGIZED”
The best, richest organizational knowledge often resides with our most mature employees, individuals whose deep expertise and experience through several business cycles can be invaluable in challenging times like these. There’s a real risk, however, that some of these long-tenure people will start to retire on the job. One bank chairman I know once mused about some of his longer-tenure Tellers, “I think they’ve become Tolders!”
Fortunately, there are many things that an organization can do to prevent its most tenured employees from becoming past tense. Reminding them of their value is just Management 101. What about inviting them to use their expertise and experience in new or creative ways? Or launching periodic “lessons learned” forums that share their unique successes with others in the organization?
Often these long-tenure employees are overlooked when it comes to training and development initiatives. What about engaging them in career transition activities that focus on the unique value they can bring to the organization and encourage them to redesign their own roles to reflect the value they can add? And contrary to the stereotype that older employees are the most resistant to change, many of the most mature people in our workforce have become bored with their work and would welcome a chance to learn new technologies or expand their functional expertise so that they once again feel energized about what they do on the job.
What is your organization doing to prevent its Tellers from becoming Tolders?
by Leslie H. Krieger, Ph.D., SPHR
The best, richest organizational knowledge often resides with our most mature employees, individuals whose deep expertise and experience through several business cycles can be invaluable in challenging times like these. There’s a real risk, however, that some of these long-tenure people will start to retire on the job. One bank chairman I know once mused about some of his longer-tenure Tellers, “I think they’ve become Tolders!”
Fortunately, there are many things that an organization can do to prevent its most tenured employees from becoming past tense. Reminding them of their value is just Management 101. What about inviting them to use their expertise and experience in new or creative ways? Or launching periodic “lessons learned” forums that share their unique successes with others in the organization?
Often these long-tenure employees are overlooked when it comes to training and development initiatives. What about engaging them in career transition activities that focus on the unique value they can bring to the organization and encourage them to redesign their own roles to reflect the value they can add? And contrary to the stereotype that older employees are the most resistant to change, many of the most mature people in our workforce have become bored with their work and would welcome a chance to learn new technologies or expand their functional expertise so that they once again feel energized about what they do on the job.
What is your organization doing to prevent its Tellers from becoming Tolders?
by Leslie H. Krieger, Ph.D., SPHR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
