Measurement or Holes in the Head

Monday, April 30, 2012

My reading list turned up an interesting article about "trephination," an ancient practice of deliberately cutting holes in the skulls of humans. Stone age people were especially fond of exercising this technique, for no apparent reason. The practice appears to be a historical mystery. "It was a delicate procedure, with stone tools used to carefully scrape away and remove the bone without damaging the tissue underneath." The good news is that the survival rate for this operation was over 90%. The bad news is that it was absolutely unnecessary.

Usually these kinds of practices make their advance in medical history after someone experimented with a medically or mentally ill person, and the person miraculously recovered, at which point the procedure is seen as the cause of the healing. The next thing you know, everyone is getting holes cut out of their heads. In learning theory, psychologists call this "superstitious behavior," meaning that we tend to repeat behaviors that we believe have caused a specific outcome, regardless of their power to actually do so.

Baseball players are famous for this. They might go 4 for 4 in hitting one night and attribute their improved hitting to the fact that they tried a new bat size that evening. That same player will tend to continue hitting that new bat size the remainder of the season, despite the fact that their batting average actually dropped subsequent to the change.

So, what behaviors could be considered your organizations "trephination?"

The only way you could possibly discover these is to examine behaviors and tasks, measure, and report them. You've heard the old saying… "What you don't measure, you can't manage." It could also be true that "What you don't measure, may be a hole in the head!"

We have the advantage of peering into many organizations. Some measure tasks and outcomes, and some do not. Most of our clients like measuring tasks, and being able to predict outcomes on past measurements. Others sort of wing it. The ones that resist us asking measurement related questions are typically the ones who have become attached to certain ways of doing business, defensively holding on to them, despite little evidence to do so. Then there are companies who do indeed measure, but blame their result differences on factors beyond their control. Whether it's getting stuck, "only hiring experienced agents" or "interviewing the same way I always have," behaviors might exist that once worked with some people at some point in time, that no longer are effective with most people at this point in time.

Psychologically, organizations that measure and are open to others' interpretation of the results, tend to invite questions, and sometimes even scrutiny, about how they do things and the results they produce. In contrast, organizations that don't measure tend to become uncomfortable around questions pertaining to tasks and outcomes. I imagine that managers of single offices vary in a similar way, even within the same organization.

Clearly, if you want to extinguish practices that don't get results, and increase tasks that do, everyone has to get on the measurement bandwagon, and be open to acknowledging the holes you might be pointlessly boring into heads.

Editor's Note: This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn. Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, a Partner at Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle. Comments or questions are welcome. If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email. If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.

The 20-Million Candidates You’re Missing—Revisited.

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Last spring, I wrote a WorkPuzzle blog on the dismal job prospects for new college grads. In that discussion, I demonstrated how “underemployment” has become a reality for many college seniors looking to start their careers.

If you do not remember reading this article (or you’re new to WorkPuzzle within the last year), it might be helpful to review it before you try to digest what we are going to discuss today.

Last year, BusinessWeek and several other media venues were spouting optimism concerning a problem that seemed to be hanging on for much too long—adult children moving back home after college.

Why the optimism? Because there was a small increase in the number of adult children who were leaving their parents' homes and setting up their own households.

Buried in the research was a shocking metric–over 20 million young Americans find themselves in this state. Even under very optimistic conditions, researchers admitted that this huge backlog of stagnant labor could only diminish to about 11 million within the next five years.

Well, so much for optimistic conditions.

The Associated Press reported last week that for the graduating class of 2012, over 50% of the new college grads will either be jobless or underemployed.

Here are some highlights from the article:

“Young adults with bachelor's degrees are increasingly scraping by in lower-wage jobs — waiter or waitress, bartender, retail clerk or receptionist, for example — and that's confounding their hopes a degree would pay off despite higher tuition and mounting student loans…

About 1.5 million, or 53.6 percent, of new bachelor's degree-holders under the age of 25 last year were jobless or underemployed, the highest share in at least 11 years. Out of this 1.5 million, there is an even split of those who are unemployed versus underemployed…

According to government projections released last month, only three of the 30 occupations with the largest projected number of job openings by 2020 will require a bachelor's degree or higher to fill the position — teachers, college professors and accountants.

Most job openings are in professions such as retail sales, fast food and truck driving, jobs which aren't easily replaced by computers.

College graduates who majored in zoology, anthropology, philosophy, art history and humanities were among the least likely to find jobs appropriate to their education level; those with nursing, teaching, accounting or computer science degrees were among the most likely…”

So, what does this mean for the real estate industry? As I mentioned last year in the second part of the WorkPuzzle discussion, some of these new college grads may be well-suited to start a career as a real estate agent.

Rather than rehash the points I made in the previous discussion (all of which are still relevant today), I thought I’d share a quick story from a client I spent time with last week.

This company is a large, independent, multi-generational real estate company on the West Coast. They are leaders in their marketplace and have a long track record and heritage of success.

Here’s the problem: This company has an agent base where a large majority of their agents are above 55 years old. This data didn’t impact me until I saw the demographic ranges they shared during our discussion.

I don’t have the data in front of me, but I believe they had cataloged demographic age ranges as high as 55 to 65 years old, 65 to 75 years old, and over 75 years old….AND, a high percentage of their agents were in these categories. The lowest age range category was “below 40.” And for this company, less than 20% of the agents were demographically in this category.

This company is not an anomaly in the real estate industry. It is representative of the norm. Most companies that we work with find themselves in this situation.

So, here’s my challenge to you: Step back and look at this problem from a 30,000 foot view. Real estate companies are stuck with an aging workforce that will limit their growth and ability to change in the upcoming years. Society is stuck with a large group of educated and aspiring young people who do not have adequate career opportunities. There has to be a way to connect these dots.

Editor's Note: This article was written by Ben Hess. Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle. Comments or questions are welcome. If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email. If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.

12 Mistakes You’re Making in Social Media

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

I’ve been spending a lot of time studying and experimenting with social media since the beginning of the year. I know that some of you will certainly think I’m showing up really late to a party that started some time ago. And, that may be true!

But, the more I study the topic, the more I’m becoming convinced that being an early adopter with such a powerful emerging technology, like social media, is bound to lead to a number of mistakes and missteps. For recruiting applications, some of these mistakes have been both profound (ie. disqualifying) and expensive.

However, I’ve started to observe, in the last six to twelve months, social networking recruiting ideas that will likely be viable for the long term. Makers of the new applications have gained insight from earlier mistakes, and the use of social media for recruiting purposes is really gaining momentum.

One thing that helps this process of improvement is that social media mistakes that companies make seem to be increasingly documented. I’ve read many articles on this topic and thought I'd share one I recently found helpful.

This article is based on a light study recently conducted on LinkedIn, where a group of participants were asked to document the mistakes they most commonly observe. The original write-up included the top 16 mistakes, but I’ve cut it down to the top twelve I thought were most relevant.

The list is arranged so that the mistakes are numbered and listed in bold. Under each mistake is a relevant comment from a user in the study. It may seem a little disjointed at first, but these eclectic comments do paint an interesting picture. If you want more detail, take a look at the original article.

1. Thinking it's a sprint instead of a marathon.

"I find most expect social media to be a sprint not a marathon. They get really into it and then let it fall by the wayside by not posting regularly and not engaging with others. As my partner says, ‘It's a marathon, not a sprint.’ You must give it time, you are building relationships."

2. Not having a plan or strategy.

"I think the biggest mistake is not having a clear strategy around why they are using it that aligns with a strategy of what they want out of it. This is closely followed by not measuring if they are on track.”

3. Talking too much and not listening enough.

"They need to talk less and listen more. Social media is all about making connections and, just like in the real (rather than virtual) world, people will be more drawn to you if you actually listen to what they're saying, than if you try to force your message upon them."

4 Airing bad feelings.

"I think the biggest mistake is airing bad feelings / arguments over sites like Twitter. I watched a CEO debate rather childishly with a PR guy – going so far as to use derogatory and inappropriate language."

5. Too much time spent on self-promotion.

"One big mistake small business leaders make in social media is to spend a lot of time trying to promote themselves. They also forget to keep an eye on how their brand is being perceived.”

6. Not making it relevant to me.

"I don't want to get ten tweets a day hearing about YOU. I want to hear things that are valuable for me and my life… and they need to be fast. And not too frequent: I don't want to incessantly hear about your business. It won't make me think of you more, it'll just make me annoyed with you. So: short, sweet, pertinent, and valuable to me."

7. Blurring the lines between personal and professional.

"They blur the line between personal and professional. If you are using Facebook, use it only for personal or business, not both. Same applies to Twitter. I think LinkedIn is ideal in that it is all business/professional."

8. Creating a business profile first and a personable profile later.

"They make their profiles appear as their company portals, trimmed with lots of company/brand information. It results in viewers bouncing out of the profile quickly—ie. professional visits the profile, but flips to another profile without scrolling down the entire profile. You should create an interesting profile first, engage people, and then propagate your message."

9. A serious underestimation of the amount of resources it takes to administer a social media effort.

"The number one mistake I've seen is a serious underestimation of the amount of resources required to engage and maintain a social program."

10. Expecting social media to do all the work.

"You can't just blast the world with your ideas, products, and services, then sit back and expect everyone to think you're so wonderful. That is unrealistic."

11. Getting on social media just because everyone else is doing it.

"I see many businesses getting on social media because 'everyone else is' or 'we just have to' but without clear purpose or a plan. One wouldn't open a new store, address a new market, or open a new sales region without extensive planning, goals, organization and thought. And yet, many small businesses (especially sole proprietors) just up and register for Twitter, etc. one night and wade right in."

12. Not understanding that it's all about relationship building.

"What I see so often is that a business decides to jump into social media because they're afraid they might be left behind, but then they fail to put a well thought out strategy in place. They end up throwing a bunch of profiles on the internet, trying to market and sell to everyone, and basically failing."

Do an inventory or your organization’s social media efforts. Are you making any of these mistakes? If so, put a plan in place to make corrections. I do believe your effort will pay off. Social media is here to stay, but you’ll need to apply effort and focus to make it work for you.

When You Can’t Predict Talent; Foster It

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

While we make our living by assisting our clients through the murky waters of predicting a candidate's future performance, we've learned an important lesson: there are always exceptions to every sourcing profile, pre-screening process, and well-intentioned interview. And these exceptions come in every shape and size–good, bad or indifferent.

So, if you can't always predict who is going to be successful, what can you, as a manager, do to foster talent? Margaret Heffernan, an entrepreneur and author, explains how she was able to create an environment where those whom she selected to work for her were able to thrive.

Margaret explains that it wasn’t so much her innate ability to see and select talent, but rather her ability to create the conditions in which her staff could grow. So what were those conditions?

An open atmosphere. Every team Margaret ever ran had been profoundly democratic—which is to say that any good idea got attention. She never cared about status, except in disliking those who did. She took in good ideas from anywhere for anything…from making the lunch room more pleasant to improving the core technology. Ideas didn't have to fight their way through a structure. They could be blurted out.

Extravagant diversity. It wasn't just that they employed Russians, Taiwanese, Indians, Americans, Brits, and Italians. Their youngest employee was eighteen and the oldest was 68. They'd worked in different countries, states and industries. Some demonstrated enormous emotional intelligence; some had virtually none.

Time didn't matter. She never cared when the work got done—as long as it did get done and in a way that didn’t cause co-workers undue inconvenience. Hours are not what count; productivity is. The same applied to maternity, paternity, and family leave. Individuals figured out what worked for them, and for their families—and that worked for the business. Too many companies seem to feel they have to fight for priority over family life and in that jealous feud, vast amounts of energy and goodwill are dissipated.

Stretch goals were just the start. Almost everything her team tackled was hard. And if they cracked it, work got harder. They liked big challenges and cheered anyone who met them. People coming in for interviews witnessed that the company was fun, but not an easy option.

Sure, you can see great potential and talent as you have candidates sit before you during interviews, but even the most talented people need an environment where they can grow. This is not only true for hiring, but most certainly for retention. One of our tenets is that people look less at compensation in career choices and more at where they feel they will fit and flourish. Creating and showcasing that environment will draw talent to you, and keep it there.

Inevitably, you will hire a few exceptionally creative individuals who may then attract others like themselves. “But none of that will matter if the work itself isn’t joyful and hard. It may sound like a contradiction, but doing great work is hard—that's why great people love it.”

Editor's Note: Lee Gray is the Senior Account Manager at Tidemark Inc. Lee is a guest contributor to WorkPuzzle. Comments or questions are welcome. If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email. If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.

Are you a Trusted Leader?

Monday, April 16, 2012

Leaders who can be trusted have a tremendous impact on those they influence. Trust is certainly a part of the "level 5 leader" that Jim Collins refers to in "Good to Great."

In a recent article, Dan McCarthy lists…The 20 signs that you can't be trusted as a Leader:

"Are you a trustworthy leader? Take the assessment below. Sure, everybody may do a few of these now and then. However, if there’s a consistent pattern of multiple behaviors, then I’d say there’s a serious issue of trustworthiness.

You don’t do what you said you were going to do.

You over-promise and under-deliver.

You’re unpredictable and inconsistent.

You always seem to have a hidden agenda.

You’ll agree just to avoid conflict.

You never share anything personal about yourself.

You never seem to finish anything you start.

You have a reputation that says you can’t be trusted.

You’re never willing to take a stand.

You won’t listen.

You don’t seem interested in what’s important to others.

You gossip about other people and disclose confidential information.

You make decisions but don’t explain how and why you made the decision.

You often change your plans or mind and don’t tell others about it or explain why.

You come across as uncompassionate and insensitive.

You won’t admit your mistakes or acknowledge your weaknesses.

You misrepresent other’s views.

You’ll say anything to achieve your objectives and results.

You sugarcoat the truth.

You see others as a threat when they are successful or come up with good ideas."

And here are some quotes that you might enjoy:

“Trust is the lubrication that makes it possible for organizations to work.” – Leadership Guru, Warren Bennis

“In leadership, there are no words more important than trust. In any organization, trust must be developed among every member of the team if success is going to be achieved.” – Duke Basketball Head Coach, Mike Krzyzewski

“The lion and the calf shall lie down together but the calf won’t get much sleep.” – Woody Allen

Assessing the Real Problem

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

In my practice as a clinical psychologist, it has become clear to me that the initial problem reported at the first meeting rarely turns out to be the REAL problem. In well over 35,000 hours of psychotherapy and individual evaluations I've found that, more often than not, the "presenting problem" turns out to be an external symptom of a deeper underlying problem. I learned early on that deciphering the underlying problem is the key to alleviating the symptoms, disorder, or pain.

Within our own business, and certainly within the realm of recruiting, we witness the same scenario. Humans are incredibly stubborn, short-sighted, committed to their biases and unable to assess their own blind spots. Because of this blindness we need the input of others. We need fresh eyes. We need experts who know how to see through the symptoms and locate the core roadblocks.

In order for an organization or office to flourish, the leader must be humble enough to actively be on the watch for what they might be missing. They need to seek out their blind spots. They should welcome critique. Even Jim Collins found the best leaders to be "humble" in his well-known book, "Good to Great."

Humility can be seen in several characteristics. One that Ben and I have noticed is that humble leaders ask questions…lots of them. They always want to know…"What's going on out there? What could I be missing?"

When leaders are humble, they demonstrate a greater tendency to actively search for the "real problem," rather than trying to fix the superficial symptoms…or worse yet, ignoring the symptoms all together. Humble leaders don't experience a mistake or a failure in the company as an insult to their ego. Because of this, they are free to self-examine and improve. Companies and offices with this kind of leadership are the ones that thrive.

In the next edition, I'll share some characteristics of poor leaders.