IF THE JOB COULD TALK
By Bill Bonnstetter
TTI, Ltd
What would a job say to us about superior performance if it could talk?
Would it clearly define the hard and soft skills needed for superior performance?
Would it describe the necessary behavior of a person who will always be
able to deliver superior performance? What would it say about the attitude
of the people doing the job? How intelligent should the people be to be
superior performers?
We all know jobs can't talk, but we can talk to superior performers.
If only we knew what questions to ask. They would give us all the information
needed to identify someone who could achieve superior performance in every
job.
It seems like it should be easy to identify superior performance but
its not. One of the problems is in definitions of superior performance.
The "best performer" in one organization would be classified
as average at another.
We try to benchmark superior performance using current "team members."
But, even on a sports team not every number one draft pick makes it in
the pros, let alone becomes one of the superior performers.
You can't benchmark superior performance if your top performers are average
compared to the top team in your industry.
Many organizations hire for skills and fire for attitude.
Our own biases about skills and knowledge keep us from understanding
what the job would say about what is required for superior performance.
If skills and knowledge always lead to superior performance, every nurse,
medical doctor, lawyer, engineer, CPA, or any person who has passed a
certification exam would produce superior performance.
Perhaps the reason so much emphasis is placed on skills and knowledge
is because they are the easiest components of performance to define. Many
organizations hire for skills and fire for attitude.
In these organizations, it is ironic that their recruitment, selection,
training, and performance management processes focus primarily on skills
and knowledge but rarely address "attitude," even though there
are valid assessments available.
Our biases inevitably keep us from listening objectively to the voice
of the job. There are three voices we hear when analyzing performance
in jobs. One voice tells us how the job should be performed.
The second voice tells us how we would like to do the job, and the third
voice is how the job has always been done. Most people are not aware of
which voice they are listening to relative to performance requirements.
The most unbiased voice is the job telling us how it should be performed.
Behavioral event interviews and focus groups are simply too labor intensive,
cumbersome and expensive to use for every job in the organization.
Behavioral event interviews and focus groups have been some of the practices
used to define performance in jobs. However, behavioral event interviews
and focus groups need to be facilitated by individuals who have been trained
in the process.
The process requires countless hours of data collection and analysis.
This is why many organizations only use these methodologies to develop
performance requirements for general roles such as leader or team member.
In the end, the value of the results of behavioral event interviews and
focus groups is contingent on having the right process, facilitation and
input from the right people. The right people are people who are currently
performing at superior levels in the job and others who have a thorough
understanding of the job.
When organizations select people to be involved in the process of determining
the performance requirements of jobs they need to ask:
- Who is currently performing the job at a superior level?
- Who formerly performed the job at a superior level?
- What, if any, changes are impacting the job that have implications
for performance?
- Does the manager/supervisor/leader understand what constitutes
superior performance in the job?
- What are the measures for superior performance in the job?
Many organizations have almost given up hope of finding short cuts to
defining the requirements for superior performance. Behavioral event interviews
and focus groups are simply too labor intensive, cumbersome and expensive
to use for every job in an organization.
Even more daunting is the time they take to implement. The changes in
market conditions, industries or technology are impacting jobs so rapidly
that performance requirements can very quickly become obsolete.
... how do you determine just how much consulting a consultant
needs to provide to achieve superior performance?
Defining superior performance in jobs is increasingly contingent on "soft
skills." With information services driving the economy, performance
will increasingly depend on our thinking and relationship abilities.
Daniel Golemen addressed the emerging imperative for soft skill competencies
in his best selling book, "Emotional Intelligence." Golemen's
studies revealed that some emotional intelligence competencies are at
least twice as important as technical skills.
However, the standards for measuring soft skill requirements are more
difficult to develop than hard skills. Bricklaying knowledge and skill
are obvious requirements for bricklaying.
It is a fairly straightforward process to determine how many bricks a
bricklayer must lay each day for superior performance. But, how do you
determine just how much consulting a consultant needs to provide to achieve
superior performance?
.... if you hire "ding bats" and train them, you get
"trained ding bats."
Skills-training works best when it relates specifically to the performance
requirements of jobs. Soft skill competency training must also be related
to the most important performance requirements of jobs.
But, if you don't know the soft skill competency requirements of the
job, how can you design the training so it relates? So, if you don't know
the soft skill competency requirements of the job, how do you know what
to look for in applicants?
Therefore, if you don't know what to look for in applicants, you won't
know which applicant to hire. Even worse, if you hire "ding bats"
and train them, you get "trained ding bats."
Training the right soft skill competencies is a formidable challenge
for any organization. For years we've been training sales people on how
to deliver superior presentations. All too often this results in superior
sales presentations being made to unqualified buyers.
We should also train sales people on how to prospect and pre-qualify buyers
so they don't waste the presentation time. A poor presentation to a qualified
buyer will produce more results than a great presentation to an unqualified
buyer. Salespeople need to be trained so they can tell the differences.
People process what they see more easily than what they hear yet, all
we do is talk. We need to add visual components to our communication to
enhance understanding of abstract concepts like competencies.
One of the challenges we face in understanding the nature of superior
performance is communication. Most people process what they see more easily
than what they hear yet, all we do is talk to them. Abstract concepts
like soft skill competencies can be difficult to understand.
Television has trained the human eye to process image changes and information
every few seconds. We need to add visual components to our communication
to enhance understanding of abstract concepts like competencies.
Proficiency in multi-dimensional communication is required if we wish
to advance the learning and capability in organizations. If we truly want
to identify, define and produce superior performance, we must use visual
models to communicate with a variety of audiences; therefore, providing
a broader vehicle for understanding.
We must get out of the training "event business" and
into the process of action-based competency development.
We must get out of the training "event business" and into the
process of action-based competency development. We need to assist and
support people in the development of the competencies required for superior
performance.
"Team building" training has been offered in many organizations
with negligible results. Here are just three of the reasons why is hasn't
worked:
- Team building efforts often attempt to turn "work groups"
into teams without any understanding of the differences between "work
groups" and a team.
- Team building training often teaches people about teams but not how
to behave as a successful team member. Trust is a key issue in team
building.
- Some team building is nothing more than entertainment.
In discussions about superior performance, it is difficult to distinguish
the difference between real performance issues and our personal biases.
Perhaps the biggest challenge is defining superior performance is overcoming
our personal biases. In discussions about superior performance, it is
difficult to distinguish the difference between real performance issues
and our personal biases.
For instance, classic thinking about successful sales performance suggests
that persuasiveness is the most important soft skill competency. In fact,
empathy is more significant than persuasiveness in many sales positions
today.
The reason is that people buy from people who understand what they want.
Today, people don't need salespeople to inform them about products. All
the information is available to savvy customers on the information highway.
Savvy customers don't want to be sold or talked into anything. They want
to be understood and served, this takes empathy.
This type of shift in what is required to produce superior performance
is happening in many jobs. Without methodologies that challenge traditional
thinking and biases, endeavors to define and produce superior performance
will surely miss the mark.
How do you compete for top talent against organizations offering stock
options and BMWs as sign on bonuses when all you have to offer is a paycheck?
In order to compete successfully today, companies must produce more with
fewer resources for customers who demand more for less. To do this, they
must fill each position with a person who has the potential to be a superior
performer, but who may not even possess the minimum qualifications.
There aren't even enough workers to fill available positions today. How
do you compete for top talent against organizations who offer stock options
and BMWs as sign on bonuses when all you can offer is a paycheck?
So what is the solution? Organizations must hire the right people for
the right job and create the rights environments to produce superior performance.
But that can only be done if organizations understand the "job"
in the first place.
Those who are involved in best practices are using assessments to analyze
the soft skill competency requirements of jobs.
Now comes my bias. I believe in using assessments... assessments that
have been validated over time... that can be trusted to identify and measure
the real performance issues. But first, we must start by choosing the
right assessment to analyze the job.
The right assessments measure:
- Hard Skills
- Soft Skills
- Behavior
- Attitudes
- Intelligence
In choosing assessments, organizations face another challenge. No one
assessment company has expertise in each of these areas. It takes expertise
and deep pockets to develop, validate and market assessments.
We have spent a significant amount of both time and money trying not
to jury rig biases into our assessments. The best organizations know that
one of the most valuable aspects of assessments is in collecting data.
Those who are involved in best practices are using assessments to analyze
the soft skill competency requirements of jobs.
The crux of the problem is this: if the only tool you have is a hammer,
every problem looks like a nail.
Our tendency to dive towards solutions, before we understand the problem,
prevents us from resolving issues. A classic example is when an organization's
performance lags, the training development rushes in with a training solution.
Or, marketing rushes in with a marketing solution. A doctor shouldn't
prescribe treatment until the patient has been examined and tests have
been administered. Many organization initiatives fail because they are
implemented before problems have been adequately diagnosed.
The crux of the problem is this...
... if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks
like a nail.
Defining the soft skill competencies that are required to produce superior
performance takes a good detective. To identify what it takes to produce
superior performance, we must ask the right questions of the right people
to be sure we are putting real issues on the table.
The best detectives locate the best sources of information to find eyewitnesses.
The job is the most credible eyewitness to superior performance. When
we listen to the job talk, we will discover the clues we need to follow
to produce superior performance.
If you want the job to talk to you, put all your biases on the table
and listen to the job talk to you about "How the work should be performed."
If you’re looking for a turnkey, proven successful system, Proper
People Placement can help. Proper People Placement is a comprehensive
system that utilizes the most advanced, accurate and in-depth diagnostic,
assessment and measurement procedures and tools available. For more information,
contact the Cutts Group at (800) 482-7280 within US, or (610) 437-4106
or visit us on the web at http://www.cuttsgroup.com.
The Cutts Group partners with clients who are committed to continuous
growth. We provide the organizational development, team building, employee
selection, executive coaching, and sales training resources our clients
demand for measurable results and return on investment. Satisfaction and
investment are always guaranteed, always.
|
|