We found this - stunning - image by chance.
It shows, simply, that there are qualities and traits during our selection processes of employees that we look for but that aren’t explicitly available – maybe even they can’t express that they have these traits – how do they solve problems?
What goes on in their minds as they work?
During selection or development, we try to gain a glimpse of these qualities and draw conclusions based on what we see.
The performance of the employee, their pace, their punctuality, their persistence, their reliability will become apparent to those who work with them in a matter of moments.
When we have the opportunity, when we have the tools, why not use them in selection - measure what the person does, how they do it, not whether or not our perceptions of them "fit".
Image source is fischerandpartners blog
Neither interviews nor paper and pencil questionnaires will discover the daily activity / working style of an associate.
Image was taken in our PsyOn laboratory
We are proud to share the relic that still affects not only our current services, but also our new developments.
This article published in 1989 is titled "Observations concerning the computer modeling of accident situations" (by Judit Farkas). The computer was a Commodore 64.
The results were not only at the forefront of accident research, but also saved lives - at the time, 10-12 fatal accidents in previous years were reduced to zero in one year, and the same has been maintained ever since in plants using our assessment methods.
Image source iMagyar Pszichológiai szemle 1989/4
There is a misconception: women are more tolerant of monotony than men.
The tolerance to monotony is actually an attribute of the nervous system; 30% of people tolerate it well, another 30% barely.
The misconception is based on the experience that more women work in monotonous jobs; the truth is that they are coping with the load monotony causes better than men, as secondary earners in the family.
On Ellis Island, approx. 20 % of early immigrants were tested with intelligence tests.
Based on the results, 2% of them were denied the opportunity to immigrate (history.com).
The photo was taken in the Ellis Island National Museum of Immigration.
Maslow did not claim that everyone has a motivation to work.
In fact, nearly 75% of employees work just because it’s the only legal way to make money; which explains why money has the greatest incentive power.
That is, they are empowered by nothing but money ...
Image source: en.wikipedia.org
In the first occupational psychology laboratories reaction time was measured using a ruler. Based on the distance the ruler lowered on the wall covered until the persons stopped it by sticking it to the wall with their finger.
Image source: pixabay.com
F1 driver reaction test
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ur2AFwhTsM
The common factor of watching movies and fatigue is the resolution capacity of our brains.
There is a frequency at which our brains do not perceive separate images but a coherent sequence of motion.
Workload tests applied at the beginning and end of work show that this resolution changes as fatigue is growing.
Image source: pixabay.com
An example of how our brains' resolution changes with the FPS (Frame Per Second) rate in case of 15-30-60-120 FPS rate.
There is an intelligence test in which the respondent experiences a barrier and an obstacle of having only 25 minutes to answer forty questions.
The intention in the background is just the opposite: the large number of questions allows to achieve above-average value for those who are good at solving only one type of problem (e.g.. only good at logical problems with numbers, do not know what to do with the figures).
Image source: suhailalgosaibi
It looks like anytime, no matter how many times we look, bright, mostly blue-eyed people have to work much more, much better, and harder to gain the trust of others.
Deep-brown-eyed people are in the best position in this respect - they are chosen by most as a travel companion in a train, most people prefer to sit next to them in public transport, they are most likely to be asked for time or directions.
Even blue- and green-eyed people choose them when photos need to be aligned according to their preference of friendliness judged by the pictures.
Image source: wifflegif.com
This contract determines the things for which the employees are willing to mobilize their own resources, i.e. where they draw the limits that the employer cannot cross with its expectations, promises, or increasing benefits.
Knowing the type and content of the contract, it becomes clear how the associates can be encouraged and also to what degree they will be satisfied or dissatisfied, or be staying with the company.
However, the Psychological Contract has a critical feature - as soon as it is communicated, it loses its power.
The answer and question type interviews can not reach so deep into the expectations of the candidates. Only the first months of collaboration can reveal some conflicting elements of this silent contract.
Image source: www.club-promo.com
Rumor is like a chain; goes around and closes on us.
It appears when group members work together in a chain-like way, meaning they don’t give information backwards.
In such cases, the links of the chain only convey the information they receive, adding what they know, or how they understood what they heard.
By the time you reach the third, fourth link in the chain, the information is turning into rumors, which we then call gossip.
Similarly, we can draw strong central control, well-organized collaborative groups, and even solitude.
Image source: mindonwaves.com
There is not a single day when we are not reminded of the harmful effects of stress.
There is undeservedly little talk of positive stress.
In Professor Selye’s original work, good stress is given just as much weight as bad stress.
Unexpected good news, a joyful surprise, also causes stress in the body with the same physiological reactions.
A well-accomplished task, a time that is finally successfully assigned, fills us with satisfaction that drives us to perform better, creatively improve our efficiency, improve ourselves, and increase our self-esteem.
Image source: community-dynamics.com
There are only a few who has not met yet a quiet, restrained but very successful salesman.
Even having some predictive indexes, psychology does not have an ideal sales profile.
What we know for sure:
Image source: allenschool.edu
Dissatisfaction with the job can drive creativity.
There are needs that, even if satisfied by the organization, as a result, employees will only not be dissatisfied; at least for the time being.
Examples are pay rises or changing the type of inconvenient protective equipment.
Then there are things that can make employees happy, but they also need to be satisfied on a regular basis; such is the amount of information they receive from what they expect, such as feedback, encouraging handshakes.
And there is the creative dissatisfaction when employees want more, differently, and do everything they can to bring about their ideas, change.
It is not known (at least we did not find one) whether there has ever been a questionnaire that included all three satisfaction groups, but for most companies, the majority of the surveys focus on the factors that cause dissatisfaction.
And work could be a more enjoyable activity.
Image source: likeafrog-wordpress.com
When we talk about psychology at work, we mostly associate it with tests.
However, labor & organizational psychology also uses instruments to measure skills and abilities; time and error, speed and accuracy to prevent accidents, overload, and fatigue, to personalize job elements
These data are used to make reliable predictions about who will be satisfied and successful in what activity, job, and even organization.
The reliability of these measurements is very high because the results cannot really be influenced by the actual conditions or preparation being defined by the characteristics of the nervous system.
Image source: our PsyOn psychology laboratory
The first Assessment Centers were just the opposite of the methodology currently used: the occupation, age, and abilities of the people enlisted in the World War II army were very different.
To increase the chances of survival, the tactical role best suited to the nature of the soldiers had to be found.
They were given tasks that revealed which soldiers were better at solving intelligence, reconnaissance, supply, and other combat situations.
In the selection, in addition to the correct task solution, the behavior corresponding to the role was the stronger criterion.
Today, most ACs are put together by testing the same predefined competencies in multiple situations to select the candidate who, according to the evaluators, best fits the organizational culture.
Image source: bigram.pl
The lower altitude limit to flights was dictated by the information processing speed of the brain.
After a series of improvements, the planes flew so fast that the image seen by the pilots simply lagged behind the actual position of the plane, so they repeatedly collided with hills and mountainsides thought to be distant.
Thus flight controls had to be given to robots.
Image source: mozaweb.hu
The lower altitude limit to flights was dictated by the information processing speed of the brain.
After a series of improvements, the planes flew so fast that the image seen by the pilots simply lagged behind the actual position of the plane, so they repeatedly collided with hills and mountainsides thought to be distant.
Thus flight controls had to be given to robots.
Image source: mozaweb.hu
Today, I listened to a lecture where the most effective way to deal with conflict was identified as “Let’s Talk”.
In labor psychology, in workplaces, we see that dealing with truly insoluble conflicts needs more.
First, the parties to the conflict must agree that they are willing to cooperate in the future. Without it, no step forward can be taken.
Once this agreement is in place, the second step is to set common goals - why they are willing to continue their relationship.
The third and final step is to establish the rules of cooperation in such a way that all those rules are clear and acceptable to all actors.
Then and only then can come the "Let’s Talk" part.
Image source: kowhaigroup.nz
The first of the color tests were the Lüscher test. The basic test consists of eight colors and assesses the forms of personality cooperation with the outside world, such as activity passivity, need for reinforcement sensitivity, etc.
In order to reduce the projective nature and thus the complexity of the evaluation, the original test was 'reversed'; personality descriptive properties should be chosen and the results expressed in colors.
The test is also used to show the nature of the change in the behavior of the responder in stress or emergencies other than 'normal' operation.
The Lüscher test is curious about how someone feels, how they express themselves, how they relate, how they experience what happens to them - a cavalcade that is variable, agile, full of life.
Simplifying the complexity of personality into one color is enough only to initiate a dialogue rather than form an opinion or judgment - the latter makes both the observed one and the observer poorer.
Image source: neurolifecenter.ch
Success seekers (Rotter) are defined as those who strive to succeed by finding the means to control the things and events they can change and by cooperating with circumstances over which they have no control.
Image source: ust-global.com
The airline pilot aptitude test was introduced after the first 10-yearly meeting of the training school could no longer invite any members of the first class - they were no longer alive.
Research into the reasons for this, among other findings, confirmed Szondi's theory of instinct; many flew until they reached their limits.
Image source: yahoo.com
As early as 1920, Thorndike was already researching what we have since 1998 attributed to Goleman, emotional intelligence.
In fact, it is the only test whose results are not interpretable on a normally distributed scale, i.e. not evenly distributed in the population from low to average to high.
Its validation is better to be based on the results of groups that are demonstrably different in terms of emotional intelligence.
The most successful long-distance runners and deep-water diving champions have the least developed EQ, while the most successful salespeople have the most developed EQ.
If an emotional intelligence test can show this difference, it works well.
Image source: youqueen.com
There were 10-12 fatalities a year and a lot of mutilations in large companies before the introduction of occupational fitness testing - one of the main causes of which was a one-eye vision.
About 30% of people are born with one-eye vision.
The brain is good at correcting for three-dimensional vision, but in blurry factory halls, at great distances or even at too short distances,
it can no longer form a very accurate picture of the spatial positioning of objects and people in relation to each other - for bridge crane operators working at heights of 6-8 meters, forklift drivers, saw operators, good visual acuity was not enough.
Just 25 years after Zuckerman's 1978 Experience Seeking scales were published, we had to raise the average range of three of the four factors because more and more people were falling into the higher-than-average zone.
It looks like we have responded to the increased accessibility of extreme sports and extreme experiences by increasing our demand for thrills and - it seems - we are asking for more and MORE!
Image source: triphobo.com
We would like to share two extreme examples of what a simple personality trait can do.
The first is that of a crane operator who regularly teetered on the edge of discipline and indiscipline.
Sometimes he had coffee, sometimes he had to go to the toilet, sometimes he got a little dizzy at 8 meters. A labor psychology examination revealed one thing: extremely high sociability, a particularly high need for social interaction.
It was not a problem of discipline but of simply not being able to be alone.
Another example is an extreme introvert who was assessed after several tardinesses and unjustified absences; we had revealed that being placed in the onboarding process of a group of new recruits caused too much workload.
Extroverts have a silent nervous system, so they need impulses from outside to keep on moving. Introverts however have a very loud nervous system and are so busy to handle their inner activity that there is little space and time to cooperate with the external issues.
Image source: pixabay.com
As a communication style, assertiveness was invented by sales - originally it was intended to provide the potential buyer with a series of questions, the last of which could only be answered with "Yes, I'll buy".
By nature, we only have three communication positions:
either dominance or subordination, depending on what we want to "get out" of the situation, and the third one, cooperation.
The point is not which style we adopt but rather whether the communicators are partners in maintaining communication and seeking to resolve the situation through complementary styles.
Ergonomics is the most technical branch of labor psychology:
in the design of workplaces, work equipment and products, ergonomics aims to ensure that work is done and equipment, tools, and controls are used in a comfortable posture, with as little effort and strain as possible.
But one of the first experiences/approaches was the other way round: you could only be a tank driver if you were less than 180 cm tall, otherwise, you wouldn't have fit into the tank.
Image source: lifehacker. com
It is mainly the people who take intelligence tests who are asking how much of a disadvantage they have compared to those who do puzzles and solve logic problems - even as a hobby.
From GE's experiments in 1922, and from my own experience, it seems that the disadvantage can be quite large.
O`Connor has shown in GE research that, for example, those with innately excellent manual dexterity or mathematical problem-solving skills retain this advantage over those with average performance in these skills even when the two groups are in the same development program and the average group's performance is above average.
The innate ability that we develop pushes us to do activities and tasks that we feel successful at, so we repeat more and more, leading to further refinement of an already excellent skill.
Image source: pixabay com
When we go from light to dark, it takes on average 30 minutes for the eye to fully regain clarity.
Some pilots have been so light-blinded by the lights being off in the cockpit that they didn't realize there was a mountainside ahead.
That's why forklifts have priority in the plants - entering the sunlit yard and dusk-lit hall, drivers can't see much...
Image source: mek.osk.hu
In the late seventies, the speeding behavior of drivers was studied in a housing estate - braking and accelerating before restrictive and then permissive signs.
At one point on the experimental route, a red polka-dot ball was thrown in front of oncoming cars to measure how the toy, which warned of a small child's approach, would make drivers react.
The results were shocking, and psychologists did not dare to publish them for about 20 years - 90% of drivers showed no reaction at all, not even the slightest sign of slowing down, let alone braking.
It is no coincidence that there should be special signs to warn about children...
Image source: leopoly.com
The Pygmalion effect - if you believe in others, they will start to believe in themselves.
In the early 1960s, Jacobson and Rosenthal discovered the Pygmalion effect by investigating the power of positive and negative feedback.
After teachers had received "near-genius" psychological evaluations of some students, these students began to achieve truly near-genius results.
Those students who were told that another person liked them actually began to behave in ways that made the other person like them.
Of course, it wasn't the students who suddenly changed - it was the more frequent reaching out, the supportive correction of mistakes made, the increased level of acceptance that brought out the best in them.
The experiment proved that the self-fulfilling prophecy works... if you believe in others, they will start to believe in themselves.
Image source: en.123.rf.com
According to Freud, we laugh at jokes because they unlock a hidden part of our unconscious for a moment without shame.
Maybe it's our subconscious having fun...
What's certain is that jokes work because of the unexpected - the punchline is a solution to a question or situation that we don't expect at all, because it's outside the alternatives we think of as possible endings.
The secret of excellent joke-tellers is to bring the introductory situation as close as possible to our personal experience, only to demolish it with elemental force - that's what makes us laugh.
Those without a sense of humor are the most creative people - the punchline doesn't work for them because their brains don't limit the range of possible solutions to what might actually happen.
This is also why children up to the age of about 4 or 5 don't understand jokes - for them, anything is possible and the impossible or the absurd is "normal".
Sadly, it can be a sign that a child is becoming an adult when starts laughing at jokes.
Image source: realestatechronicles.net
There are many dangerous traffic situations, but some in which any one of the three actors could save the day, yet very often end in death, even for professional drivers. One such is a head-on collision when overtaking a slow vehicle on a two-lane road.
The overtaking driver has been forced to stay behind the slow vehicle for God knows how long and is in a serious adrenaline rush to get a clear overtaking situation.
The "innocent" oncoming driver has no idea what has happened - all he sees is an intruder forcing him to slow down or brake, taking up his space and time, a competitor to say the least, but more like an enemy. This driver doesn't slow down, doesn't turn back, but rather fights for what they think is right, or what is "his due"; even if it kills them.
And then the "laughing" third - the slow vehicle, who, if the driver has pulled over, who, if the driver has stopped and let go, or at least helped to overtake... does not often remain on the scene after the accident, following the principle of "go slow", go far...
This is a typical conflict situation, where it would be enough if only one actor acted differently to achieve a common benefit. The pursuit of individual benefit harms the majority.
Image source: pixabay.com
People who take on other people's tasks instead of their own are costly.
It was a Time Management training in a sales company.
The employee because whom the training was initiated and who had the group to be trained in time management turned out to be excellent at fixing printers, delivering mail, restoring databases, and anything else that wasn't sales; because he was willing to do anything, as long as it wasn't sales.
It came out quickly, the problem was not that the person couldn't manage the time, but rather how to find enough 'pseudo-tasks' to fill the eight hours of the working day to justify avoiding any sales-related activity.
I wonder how many training courses are funded by companies and held by ourselves, which we know can give a lot to the participants, but do not even touch the surface of organizational or individual problems..
Image source: macmillanenglish.com
Colors of mother and daughter - some info that shades the "science" behind the MBTI personality test
Despite the fact that Edward N. Hay (whose name is best known for his grading systems) introduced the MBTI (Myers-Briggs test) to big-name companies such as GE, Standard Oil, and Bell Telephone in 1947, the authors of the test, mother and daughter, believed that you didn't need to be a botanist to pick flowers, and therefore didn't need to be a psychologist to create an instrument that "measured" personality types.
In 2015, Merve Emre was forced to attend a one-week course costing $1,695 just to get access to the authors' original studies donated by their families to a public library.
As a student, he learned that the test is not a test, but a self-assessment questionnaire and that if we are not satisfied with the results that "came out" about us, it is not the fault of the instrument, but our own, because we wanted to present ourselves in a different, better light than we really are.
It seems that the validity of the instrument is only provided by the citation of Jung's name, and there is no printed original research.
The MBTI training teaches that the relationship between an employer and employee is like a relationship of a couple: once you find the complementary another half, there is nothing else to do, you live happily ever after.
The authors used the results of 550 people to show that people who do jobs that match their personality type perform happily and without complaint because they have found the activity that satisfies them most.
The mother has left behind an unpublished book and a collection of 33 articles (The Ladies Home Journal), one of which is entitled "Why I believe home is the best school", and her daughter won first prize in a crime fiction competition - worth $100,000 today - for her book "Murder is still to come"...
Image source: https://www.thespruce.com/type-of-home-for-mbti-4846259
Whether as a servant, a prince, or a princess the heroes of the fairy tales had to pass at least three tests and harder and harder tests.
The "There can be only one" has been with us since the world began, when it comes to choosing.
We are preparing a presentation on tests, and are in the middle of a series of articles on the validity of selection methodologies, which is the reason for this post.
Looking at tests historically, one finds that the emergence of methodologies has followed social, technological, and economic changes.
Mass schooling gave birth to Binét's IQ test, world wars to the emergence and widespread use of ACs, industrial revolutions to the various skill tests (this is still going on in IT). The need to increase efficiency led to e.g. Maslow's and McLelland's motivation tests, Belbin's group series...
The question about selection tools is not how many-headed dragons to send candidates to battle with (what to test with), but rather what dragons to breed; where are the methods that give reliable answers to the questions we now have.
In a wartime environment, the need to protect the privacy of the draftees may have been overridden by the need to increase the chances of survival.
When overproduction was used to increase consumption, it seemed the right strategy to make employees themselves the drivers of this consumption spiral, with higher rewards for higher results.
The way for firms to hire all applicants on a will-be basis is very costly.
But what will be the most effective selection tools of the very near future are not widely seen -hopefully - only because those are still undergoing a validation process to provide a firm basis for the answers sought to the questions we are now asking.
Image source: https://www.arukereso.hu/puzzle-c3804/educa/lany-es-sarkany-1000-db-os-17099-p359666715/
On his first day at a transport company, the new employee drove the truck forward instead of backwards and immediately knocked down the fence wall.
It was mutually agreed to end the employment contract, but the HR employee was concerned about the issue for a long time.
When we started to dissect the story, it turned out that the young man's mother had called the company to ask if they had received his CV, and then also about the interview appointment.
To the HR manager's knowledge, the mother did not accompany her son to the interview, but it would have been possible if she had waited for him outside the company.
In any case, it was also the mother who called about the outcome of the interview.
The interview went well, there were no concerns about the young man, he was cooperative, sympathetic and his experience was just right.
In the end we concluded that the most likely reason was that he simply did not want to get hired.
As his mother had tight control over the process, and was not satisfied with the information she had received from her son, but supervised the process directly with the company, the son had no way out.
With no other option to avoid being hired, he chose the simplest solution, which would be of great benefit to him and sufficient harm to others, to avoid having to satisfy his mother's motivation.
This is not an isolated case. In a recruitment pre-screening we saw a young person performing so extremely badly in the tests, that even the most unqualified candidates could not.
We thought she would go home and complain that they, like other companies, did not find her good enough (again).
Image source: utrakelo-irodalom.hu
We behave in two ways when carrying a container full of liquid or a tray full of drinks.
Some people don't even take their eyes off the pot in their hands and watch for the drink not to spill.
The others, with their eyes, scan the possible routes, looking for obstacles to avoid falling or stumbling.
The former ones are field independent, according to Kurt Levin, and the latter ones are field dependent.
In Witkin's experiments, in a dark room, only neon tubes were lit on the wall, and there was an armchair that could be adjusted in all directions.
In the experiment, the field dependents "straightened" the chair relative to the oblique tube, and the field independent ones to their own vertical-horizontal sensation.
This quality of ours determines how we perceive our environment, how we learn; field dependents are more inclined to conform to others, to accept their opinions, while those who are field independent need to build their own experience.
Field dependents see things in context, so they adapt easily to their environment, whether it is physical or social.
In contrast, field-independent people are more concerned with the emotions and experiences that things evoke in them, and thus learn.
It amazes me what even a full tray can bring out in us.
Image source: callonfaith.com
If, for example, chickenpox suddenly pops up in the family, the proportion of people around us who also suffer from it suddenly rises, every other conversation on the bus or tram is about it, vaccines appear in the news, most advertisements start to talk about it, and even the Saturday night crime story is about chickenpox.
The selective attention makes us think that the world starts to revolve around our recent and current problem.
In the conversations, in the news, in the commercials, all around us, there has always been the same amount of information, the crime story is broadcast at least seven times a year, but only when and if it becomes meaningful to us, we really do hear it, then only rises above the general murmur.
On the one hand, it's a good thing, because it filters out a lot of unnecessary information, but on the other hand, it also hinders us in a lot of ways.
For example, the problem solving that organizations are so keen to make alive and vibrant - when a machine breakdown or quality failure occurs, it's not our laziness but our selective attention that is the biggest barrier to a new approach and to coming up with a new solution.
Because we see, hear and collect the data and information that confirms the previous, proven solution, and that leads us to the same conclusion over and over again.
We don't need anything new, everything proves it's an operator error again, and can be solved by training the perpetrator...
What prevents us from information overload is the same thing that prevents us from being creative, from letting it all flow through us, from letting the connections show themselves; because maybe what we have been told is chickenpox is the black death itself...
Image source: www.medicaldaily.com
"Security is very important to you, but you often feel an irresistible urge to do something that takes you out of your daily routine.
You are independent and don't really allow the opinions of others to influence your judgment.
You like company, but sometimes you have a great need to be alone and think things through..." In 1948, a psychologist named Forer promised his university students that the test he had devised would give them a very accurate, personalized characterization of the people who completed it.
After a week, most of the students rated the descriptions he gave them as very accurate until they were exchanged.
All the characterizations were the same, and the text contained statements similar to those in the introduction - personalized (because their name was on it) positive statements from a person they recognized as a professional authority.
These three factors were enough for them to 'read' their own strengths into the very generalized assessment.
This phenomenon has already been exploited by circus man P.T. Barnum, who promised to offer everyone an experience of his own, albeit with a limited number of attractions. And it has been - just for you, just here, just now...
This Barnum effect also comes up in reverse during the selection process - when you have to part with a not really qualified person, suddenly you know that you had already had doubts during the interviews that it was written down in the test results, but you rather believed or trusted your good intentions in order to fill the position as soon as possible, and in the end it was not specifically written down as NO.
The Barnum effect is why we like horoscopes and the quick personality tests available on the net, where we can see whatever we want into their general and vague assessments.
Image source: nybooks.com
Back in the 1990s, Perrow joked about H. A. Simon's "Rational Man" model, which, if we left it to people, would suggest that the ideal workplace would be one where we could have pleasant conversations about subjects that interest us, where we could suspend our working hours to relax, where we could make new friends and partners, where we could take the baby, the dog...
It's only been 20 years and the Best Workplaces awards have been won by companies where managers create situations where employees make the right choices - for their own well-being and the well-being of the company.
Image source: livehappy.com
Even if we only spend four, six or eight hours a day at work, it is interesting that when educational channels make films or series about work, the focus is on inventors, the development of technical solutions, special machines and conditions.
Why people are not interested in why we work the way we do work today, how workplaces have evolved throughout history, how cooperation at work has developed?
Why have we left work out of our history education, while it fills almost all our lives?
Image source: memory-alpha.wikia.com
Graphology officially came into existence in 1872 from the pen of Father Michon...
He and his follower, Crepieux-Jamin, compiled serious standardized lists - the Father based on the individual features of writing and the latter based on the dynamics of writing.
The study of writings at that time was based on a comparison with these scientifically validated standards.
Writing is movement, and just as our movements are unique, our writing also reveals what and how much is working within us (the speed of writing, the pressure of the pen on the paper), as well as how it comes out of us (large letters) or remains within us (small, crumpled words).
One of our colleagues who is knowledgeable in graphology looked at their note taken during a phone call one morning and said, "Oh my God, I'm so terribly disturbed this morning!"
Image source: pinterest.com
Until now, we had only one method that, when we gave the instruction, made the candidates fidget, which made them feel uncomfortable - they had to draw little houses as part of the task.
We have previously thought that the reason for this discomfort that they sensed that they are revealing something deeper about themselves than in other tests, like answering questions that assess their technical problem solving or mathematical ability.
Now that we've started online workprobes, we've had candidates who have quickly seen through their differences.
They expected a self-descriptive, self-assessment test, in which - perhaps out of routine - they could present a picture of themselves as they wanted to appear.
By demanding actual work in the work assessment, they no longer wanted to cooperate - this would have revealed something that truly shows how they work, how hard they “push” themselves, or how “lazy” they are, and how much supervision or encouragement they need.
Yet, in the end, in performance situations everyone is exposed because no one can hide their true nature for too long...
Image source: zelda.wikia.com
We have a testing tool called the Thread Board.
The task is to follow the path of a lower red thread with another thread.
There are protruding pins in the path of the thread, which make the task difficult because the path followed may be modified by them.
We noticed that while representatives of every other profession, including financial directors, logisticians, and operators, wind the thread along the path continuously and without stopping, two professions go about it differently.
Sewing professionals work from pin to pin.
They stop at each pin, go around it to see how the next section will be, and only proceed when they are sure everything is in order.
The other group is the accountants, whose work method reveals their profession.
In their case, accuracy and speed go hand in hand like no other, and the time it takes them to complete the task and the number of mistakes they make are consistent even when comparing data from 15 years ago and now.
Image source: allfiberarts.com
In the 1970s, psychology students were tested to see how "falsifiable" the 480-question (!the longest version) California Personality Inventory was.
First, they were asked to answer as themselves, then as Nobel Prize-winning physicists, and finally as homeless people.
The results were surprising - the profiles of almost 300 physics professors were just as identical as the profiles of homeless people, while their own answers showed a wide range of individual differences.
The results suggest that even in the longest test, the test-taker may be able to present a desirable image of themselves, that is, to achieve more favorable results than their true personality.
This not only shows that the test-taker will try to live up to the image they have created for themselves in real-life situations, but also that - especially because of their widespread use - personality tests provide less and less information about the test-taker and more about how well they work with the test users’ processes and how much they try to meet social expectations.
Image source: amazon.com
It's one thing to continuously examine the methods used and determine if they still measure accurately and credibly. At the initiative of a Mexican consulting firm, we recreated the American Wechsler IQ test (known as Terman there) because the questions had become so outdated that some of the respondents didn't even know what they were about.
The other thing, however, is how well we keep up with socio-economic changes in the content of the measurements. It's a frequent experience for us, and the profession writes a lot about it, that candidates don't show up for interviews, or they don't come to work anymore after the first day, despite having signed a contract.
When most jobs are simple manual labor, when most sales and customer service is based on pre-written scripts, when SAP and Oracle differentiate many engineers who only handle a well-regulated part of the process, it's no longer the level of skills and competencies or even work motivation that distinguishes successful from unsuccessful employees, but rather their work attitudes.
I would like to sound a big alarm - we are slowly reaching our business partners that in addition to traditional measurements, we should also look at who among the candidates really wants to do what the company offers (professional interest, commitment or the lack thereof), whether they want to do it the way the company does (role interpretation), and finally, to make it clear at the selection stage who can be retained and incentivized, as every company has its own set of tools and possibilities for this.
No matter how modern and elegant a test or assessment is, if it doesn't provide the results that employers need most, it's useless. You can teach and develop many things in many people, but their relationship with their employer and work attitude cannot be changed overnight, and we must plan accordingly.
Therefore, there are, and there will be, tools that can be answers to the complaints of HR employees - the question is how open and willing the HR profession is for rapid change...
(Since we introduced these measurements at one of our employment agency partners, the previous interview appearance rate of 60-75% has increased to 100%...)
Image source: commons.wikipedia.com
Yesterday, I was almost ready to share a post from an HR professional with extensive interview experience, but the last sentence stopped me in my tracks.
The writing was going well and we got an inside look at what happens behind closed doors after a candidate leaves.
However, there was one sentence, the last one, in which the author suggests that the candidate should not express anything that would be in their own interest, and uses the question "Can I leave early to pick up my child from school?" as a deterrent example.
And then what? Sneak away quietly? Feel sick every afternoon? Or what?
And how is it that a community that supports modern organizational functioning and culture shares such an article?
Just because a representative of a well-known company wrote it?
Or did they not read the last sentence?
Candidates!
Ask any questions that interest you during the interview, tell them anything that is important to you.
You would lose the most if a company hired you that didn't base collaboration on reciprocity, unless you are looking for a "command and control" type of operation because you were born with a whip in your hand and if nothing else, you whip yourselves.
Image source: wiemerra.com
Pointing to the bright yellow sign in front of me, the woman in line who was keeping a constant eye on her two children asked for 25 decagrams of the discounted sliced meat.
As the cashier handed her the package with the price tag, he remarked, "This one is just as good as the other one that's cheaper without the sale...always," and then turned to the next customer.
I know because I learned.
I understand how it works.
Yet every time I encounter it, it hits me hard.
A statement - a piece of information that doesn't say anything more than what it contains.
On sale for this price. That's the truth.
The reader's reality is what gives value to the simple statement... even in a corporate setting...
Image source: 98ft.com
This - at least mixed - job market situation, where there is a shortage of labor, but many are still looking for work, puts more emphasis on coping strategies. We mobilize these when we encounter some difficulty. When a new employee enters a company where the turnover rate is 30 or even 70%, they cannot know how exhausted and stressed the organization is.
However, they see that there is no locker, no one who seriously trains them, but many people tell them different things, and they feel that the old-timers do not look upon them favorably - because they see in them someone who will cause at least as many problems as the last new hires, and so on.
And if someone's coping strategy is not to triple their strength and fighting spirit when faced with difficulties, they are likely to leave what - even a little - requires more effort, adaptation, or stress tolerance from them, and move on. Perhaps breaking out of this vicious cycle would require preparing employees for where they will end up, on the one hand, and companies giving a little more emphasis to integrating new people on the other hand.
Somehow, I see that in the search for new employees, both candidates and companies present themselves as “pink”, while the colorful reality is one in which companies should jointly ensure business results, and employees should ensure their livelihood.
Image source: psycholawlogy.com
Much deeper information about the true nature of organizational collaboration can be obtained by reading the messages on the tea room, bathroom, and refrigerator, and much more from the titles of the diagrams posted on boards and walls and the date of the last update than from the technology accompanying product manufacturing or service.
The "Wash your dishes after yourself" Post-it, but even more so its A4 version preserved in a plastic cover, conveys the message that everyone is fed up with others not behaving as expected - not just in the kitchen... The message becomes impersonal and thus threatening if it is not signed, or if it is signed by the HR department (!!! :))... Someone is watching, seeing, and sending a message... if the organization still has a "soul," humorous comments may emerge that can lighten the mood and offer hope for resolving the accumulated tension within the organization.
The yellowed instructions posted years ago, the Pareto charts sadly sitting under a layer of dust from several months ago are memories of a bygone management culture, whose representatives still live among us but not for much longer...
If we come across such things, we can assume that dissatisfaction is mounting, and firefighting is becoming the everyday form of operation at work. If the consultant sees these things, they can know that they are in the right place because there is indeed a great need for their work.
Image source: inspire52.com
Welch's work at GE, Kotter's management theory contrasting with leadership theory, and Steve Jobs' leadership charisma only continue the line opened by Ford, which suggests that leaders almost only need to be born.
We have seen an "overachiever" type of director, determined and constantly pushing, we have seen a quiet, more meditative one who never failed to support his colleagues, who anticipated their needs, and we have also seen someone who seemed to do very little but always achieved results.
These leaders have one thing in common: they can go beyond justifying the value of key performance indicators (KPIs), their own and their organization's work, or the lack thereof, waiting for others and pointing fingers...
Their secret is that they know how to read data. It is not enough for them that the indicator is green - they also know how much energy, sweat, effort, and creativity were needed from whom to make that value green, and they are also aware of who else will be needed and to what extent if they want to keep it green.
And this is what makes them truly leaders and good leaders, no matter how they communicate, their colleagues can always feel that they only ask for what is under their control, that they only ask for what they are capable of, and only ask for it until it really leads to the desired result... SAP, Oracle, and similar enterprise resource planning systems provide as much help as they cause trouble...
Either we see all the data or none.
The biggest problem with all the details that leaders also reach information that they have no control over, but their expertise is limited only by management meetings.
The second greatest leadership virtue is self-restraint - anyone asked for any data (e.g., the scrap% today by the shift supervisor) immediately feels responsible for the value of the indicator, even if they cannot do anything else with it than read it from the system.
This is how the organization is communicated.
The third virtue is distinguishing between information and data.
Just because it is a number, just because a responsible employee says it, it can still be information (we had downtime, but we already fixed the machine) - little information, no data...
Image source: ileanorg.com
"Well, even though they were offered a $150 net reward, they didn't produce any more pieces from the assembly line."
But the problem wasn't with their motivation , but rather that they couldn't produce more.
Really not.
It's a closed production line: the piece goes in at the beginning, and a finished piece comes out at the end.
The operator can only change the number of pieces produced by stopping the line; there's no chance to increase the speed or the number of pieces produced.
They just needed to look around a bit; if they pay attention to problems like oil leaks, grinding sounds, or slow parameter changes, they can prevent unexpected downtime, indirectly increasing the number of pieces produced.
If they stop at the first defect instead of waiting until the fifth, they can identify defects earlier and again increase the number of pieces produced.
They just had to find what they could actually influence and act on it, which they did. I know it's not easy to break away from the obvious, but it's worth it because reality pays off much more... for everyone...
Image source: telapost.com
One of the most frustrating narrow-mindedness in current organizational development practices is that while customer service, production lines, and anything that works at the implementation level is optimized to the bone, the fish still stinks from the head.
Standardization, 5S, efficiency all stop at the execution level, while the real reserves are at the support levels (product developers, process engineers, to name a few).
Organizations that do not channel the problems of the implementation levels into the problem-solving of the support levels, and do not measure their supporters by how effectively they stabilize production and service processes, execute only the easier half of change management, and in vain.
The reverse practice leads much further: if we first fix the leadership and expert roles, they simply "pull" the effectiveness of the implementers, which puts less burden on everyone and leads to much better results.
The standardization of problem solving creates a system of Best Practices across continents, standardizes managerial work, yes, standardizes managerial tasks at a level required to elevate the work of managers and management.
Image source: byjus.com
It seems that no matter when, how many times, or in what way they are examined, people with clear, mostly blue eyes have to work much harder to earn the trust of others.
Those with deep brown eyes are in the best position in this regard - they are chosen by most people as travel companions in a train compartment, people prefer to sit next to them in public transportation, and they are the ones most likely to be asked for the time or directions.
Even those with blue and green eyes choose them when arranging photos according to the degree of radiated friendliness.
Image source: wifflegif.com
The best resume nowadays is the one uploaded to as many databases as possible.
In a job market that is lacking thousands of workers, the question is no longer whether a candidate can stand out from the crowd, but rather if they can find the platforms where recruitment professionals, who have already become independent professions, are searching for their qualities.
On social media platforms, the influx of new appearances quickly pushes the data of candidates who have just emerged in the news feed far behind, just like job offers.
The merging of many small databases into a large one usually occurs when applying for a specific, advertised position. So if they are not approached for that, their resumes become outdated and sudden impulses are left for other recruiters...
Perhaps the most effective approach for candidates is to behave with intermediaries in the same way as they would when submitting applications to companies, based on which ones specialize in the positions or types of companies that meet their expectations.
Because one intermediary specializes in insurers, another in lawyers, a third in manual laborers, a fourth in SMEs, and the fifth in recruiters (! :)), etc., each one camps at the entrance of their respective gates, but they all eagerly await the correct answer to the question of their favorite color... (Based on: Monty Python and the Holy Grail).
Image source: buzzfeed.com
"At an electric charging station, the power goes out just as a group of 12 tourists arrive to charge their bicycles.
As a regional manager, you are supervising the arrival of the "components" for the new bike wash at the nearest charging station, which is 7 kilometers away when you receive a phone call informing you about the power outage.
What do you do in this situation?"
This is a multi-competency AC/DC task - if you send someone or personally take action, it demonstrates your delegation competency; if you contact the power provider, it showcases your leadership competency; and if you unload the truck carrying the components and bring the tourists and their bicycles over, it mobilizes your customer orientation competency - the choice is yours.
It's easy to break away from traditional tasks developed for single competencies. If we assign a task that requires persuasive skills, anyone who wants to cooperate even a little with the situation will mobilize more than just that one skill. They might try to convince the necessary person, but it's not guaranteed that they will recognize that persuasive skills are the key to a successful solution in a real-life situation...
Image source: merchantmaverick.com
While in a company the initial formal job descriptions assign tasks to people, making the division of labor clear, the additional job descriptions are "requests for help" - they contain tasks that the "veterans" no longer want or are unable to perform, or they include new tasks that require different qualifications than what the organization possesses.
And as the number of tasks proliferates, the organization grows... where the creation of newer and newer job descriptions gives the illusion of control over them.
This is how positions like warehouse and production administrators are created, whose business value is highly questionable, which leads sales to be incorporated into the customer service position - resulting in either a detriment to customer service or stagnant sales accompanied by frustration.
A truly good job description is based on the added business value of a position, on the business results we expect from it.
The whole process works in reverse: if we measure the business effectiveness of an engineer by how quickly they restore a process after a problem, then we are looking for an operating engineer and assign tasks accordingly, including shift meetings where they have to report.
If we expect them to increase the stability and capability of the process, then we are looking for a development engineer, with corresponding activities and project reports.
If - and this is the generally prevalent practice - we employ a process or manufacturing engineer, we mix these two functions, taking the risk that in a problem-solving situation they want to develop, and instead of developments, they solve the same problems day in and day out, because the service has to function, and production has to continue.
Image source: qcfoodhub.com
While in a company the initial formal job descriptions assign tasks to people, making the division of labor clear, the additional job descriptions are "requests for help" - they contain tasks that the "veterans" no longer want or are unable to perform, or they include new tasks that require different qualifications than what the organization possesses.
And as the number of tasks proliferates, the organization grows... where the creation of newer and newer job descriptions gives the illusion of control over them.
This is how positions like warehouse and production administrators are created, whose business value is highly questionable, which leads sales to be incorporated into the customer service position - resulting in either a detriment to customer service or stagnant sales accompanied by frustration.
A truly good job description is based on the added business value of a position, on the business results we expect from it.
The whole process works in reverse: if we measure the business effectiveness of an engineer by how quickly they restore a process after a problem, then we are looking for an operating engineer and assign tasks accordingly, including shift meetings where they have to report.
If we expect them to increase the stability and capability of the process, then we are looking for a development engineer, with corresponding activities and project reports.
If - and this is the generally prevalent practice - we employ a process or manufacturing engineer, we mix these two functions, taking the risk that in a problem-solving situation they want to develop, and instead of developments, they solve the same problems day in and day out, because the service has to function, and production has to continue.
Image source: qcfoodhub.com
Communication has three levels: the first one is physically visible, audible, and tangible - the movements, gestures, words, and the atmosphere they create.
This, in a "good girl" manner, often corresponds to the valid social norms and behavioral expectations in the situation.
However, all of this merely wraps up the messages of the second level - what we actually want to achieve in the situation, what we want to persuade the other person to do, or what we allow ourselves to be persuaded into, and, in general, how we want to use the situation and the people involved in it.
But all of this is meaningless until we engage in the everlasting battle of roles on the lowest, third level of the relationship.
Until it is determined between two individuals at this level who is dominant, who submits, or whether they accept each other as partners, the endeavors of the other two communication levels for any kind of dialogue are futile.
This is the explanation for unexpected, sudden emotional reactions in a neutral work situation, one of the explanations why certain promises remain empty words, and also why endless streams of complaints are voiced against individuals and groups within the organization, yet no action is taken to eliminate mistakes or solve problems.
Image source: vectorstock.com
I write it because I write it.
I can't help but read in the literature the kind of statements like "how to motivate your employees."
Motivation, once again: motivation is an internal drive arising from the need for satisfaction.
So motivation is an internal drive that arises in an individual, it sprouts, stirs, and then compels that individual, who has the need, to do something so that the lack caused by the unfulfilled need finally disappears.
Externally, that is, it is only possible to incentivize, not to motivate.
Once again, to incentivize.
Not to motivate.
Because motivation comes from within...
What else can be done is to awaken the need that this individual didn't know about before, as they happily sat with their existing needs, which had already given them a lot (e.g., motivation). Therefore, in its absence, no new, unknown motivation could be born from it.
From within...
I've just poured out the tension of many years (which is also evident in the handwriting I shared), although I feel that I will write it down a few more times, that motivation is an internal drive.
Image source: handwritingacademy.com
I am increasingly convinced that the function of leaders - not the most important, but the only one - is to keep employees in the role for which the position was created by the company.
By delegating tasks and then holding leaders accountable for performance (in any assertive manner), we suggest that the position only exists through the distribution of leadership tasks, and if the leader were not there, the owner of the position would wander lost in the organizational corridors until they starve, or someone finds them with a discarded role.
Of course, I am exaggerating, but still...
With role management, it would be unlikely for a consulting company to hire employees who sell "boxed products" (just because it was successful at other consulting companies) and then reward them based on their compliance with the route plan, even though the revenues are not proportional to the number of acquired clients, and the product does not exist until the consultants create it together with the client.
And if you cannot keep someone in that role, don't just assume that the employee is unsuitable, but also consider that perhaps the role itself is changing... I see this as the key that opens gates for change management....
Image source: linkedin.com
As I use public transportation, I find myself contemplating the dynamics of group formation at every multi-stop station. Today, while I stood alone, another bus pulled in, and I simply stepped back. The driver understood that I wasn't waiting for that particular bus.
When many of us gather at the station, we naturally segregate ourselves from those merely passing through, bound for other stops. So, we form a loose group, connected by time, place, and the shared activity of waiting.
The true bonds within this loose association of people become apparent when individual buses arrive, and those reaching their destinations board. Among those who remain, a select few separate themselves as non-boarders, often solitary individuals who step back if the approaching bus isn't their own. The majority stays put, united as the waiting group.
It only takes the splashing of rainwater by a passing car onto the sidewalk for these strangers to suddenly coalesce into a strong, temporarily united group, bound by their shared inconvenience caused by the drivers. Then - perhaps even unexpectedly to themselves - they take on group roles to handle the various aspects of the situation in line with their adopted roles - there are those who blame the cars, some the plumbing or road conditions, and some are angry for the sudden defensive leap of those in front of them.. Swift alliances for protection and resistance form, but they dissolve as each person's bus arrives.
The group's strength gradually wanes as buses depart one by one, leaving those who remain feeling as solitary as they were when they first arrived at the station. The past and future remain hidden, while the weary travelers stand out as members of a larger group.
This picture was taken at Mátyás Square in the 8th district of Budapest.
The main challenge with group and shift supervisor training programs is that even though participants acquire a lot of knowledge and could implement what is necessary, every other position "above them" in the organization functions "one level below“ ; the production manager does the work of the engineers, the engineer does the work of the technician, and the technician does the work of the shift supervisor...
Until we "elevate" these positions to their proper place, the group and shift supervisors are trapped in the narrow scope of action that the organization provides them with, primarily to rectify the mistakes and issues caused collectively.
Image source: marantz-electronics.com
When we refer to a position as Key Account Manager and in the weekly report, we hold them accountable for the fulfillment of the customer visit route plan, there is only one thing that drives those in the role: obtaining their own commission at any "cost."
Neither customer, product, nor service strategy, nor the company's market position matter, because the contradiction between the designation and the meaning shows them that the organization itself doesn't know what it wants.
If it's a KAM, then there is a customer strategy, and the measure of customer development is the key metric, with complex services or enhanced products being the value proposition.
If fulfilling the route plan is the operating mode, then the sales volume of well-developed products is directly proportional to the number of visited customers - in other words, it's an agency activity that needs to be carried out.
Who would think that - possibly given out of courtesy because it sounds more serious than simply calling someone a salesperson - the simultaneous use of the KAM designation and the route plan (because in the previous company, everyone who worked in the sales of cold cuts meant this) confuses not only the success criteria but also the behavior choices of the employees: if they fulfill the route plan, they are praised, even if they don't sell anything; if they sell, but only to the same nine companies, they still receive the commission, even though they don't actually meet the expectations placed upon them...
Image source:: pieria.co.uk
„Somehow, I forgot about the competencies of stress tolerance and problem-solving in the customer service position, or how was it again?
I know we were talking about it, but what was the conclusion?”
At the company whose HR manager called, it's been almost a year since we implemented the competency system tied to performance indicators.
We said that these are not competencies; these are system flaws...
The scripts are missing that provide guidance for handling potential customer complaints, just as the tracking of customer history is missing (it is technically feasible to calculate "customer error points" - i.e., how notorious someone is for complaining).
The problem-solving system is also missing: one element of this is that a high-error customer is handled by someone else, not the "normal" customer service - the call duration does not fit into the prescribed conversation time norm if we only consider this.
Another element is that a real problem-solving expert should be immediately available (whether it's about a balance, i.e. money, technical assistance (how to set up, handle), or communicating how to minimally use the system during a currently arising, irritating error or disturbance, and when its resolution can be expected).
„Well, now I remember...” - after a long silence, - „so we're back to the point that the problem lies with leadership competencies...”
Well, yes... somewhere there...
Image source:: freedrama.net
I don't understand why, as a leader, my job wouldn't involve taking out an existing job description, checking if it's good, maybe making some changes to a few tasks, and that's it, we can bring in the new employee.I see this as the most basic tool of a leader.A leadership tool?Go online and see what it brings up.Gantt chart, PDCA cycle, fishbone diagram, and things like that.How does the job description fit into this?That's a legal formula.It's in human resources, and that's it.Let's see, let's put together your job descriptions in a matrix like this, or one after another.This here, where does it go?Should it go here?Behind this?Does it come out like one of your processes, nicely, step by step, as one employee takes over from another?Well, no. It's true that many of them have the same task written down, but they don't work the same way... everyone knows their own place in the processes...Do they?Well, they give it to them... they figure it out, with what they need to deal with...What if we put it all together?Now that you mention it, maybe a matrix-like thing would come out, where I could see when and with what information each person should enter the process.Maybe I would see more clearly how many people are actually needed and where the human bottleneck is, not just the processes.I would see if someone is not doing their own job, but "crawling" to tasks that interest them more or are easier for them.Are you talking about something like this?Yes, something like that.I'm talking about leadership...
Image source:: clipartfest.com
The youngest participants are at least 20 years old, and the majority of them are gradually approaching the highest retirement age globally. Generations have matured whose personalities and communication styles have been shaped by vastly different forces and influences than those prevalent in the mid-20th century. Consequently, interpreting the new responses to age-old questions can be challenging and potentially misleading.
Furthermore, in the past, these tests were exclusively accessible to a select professional circle, whereas today, they are featured in tabloid-like formats with simplified questions and evaluations. Those striving to maintain the relevance of these tests now settle for sample sizes ranging from 200 to 300, a stark contrast to the minimum valid sample size of at least 10,000 required half a century ago.
In Mexico City, the answer key to the European Wechsler test's American equivalent was sold for 10 pesos in the subway. I encountered an individual selected for a talent bank who knew precisely which three out of the 480 questions of the CPI they would answer differently to enhance their results, albeit within their desired limits.
Tools in occupational psychology aimed at predicting successful adaptation should gradually shift away from the notion that personality is the sole determinant. Presently, more pressing inquiries in the realm of talent acquisition and retention revolve around the employee's mindset. Questions such as "What aspects of work hold significance to me?" "How should others interact with me in exchange for my performance?" "What level of responsibility am I willing to shoulder?" "How do I envision myself in the long term, and in what environment—be it physical, technological, or social?" "To what extent do I desire to engage in competitive environments?" are proving to be more insightful.
Image source:: i.ytimg.com
The primary objective of performance evaluation is to establish mutual understanding of the role. This entails aligning expectations between the leader and the team member based on the job description, ensuring both parties acknowledge and commit to fulfilling the responsibilities outlined by the organization.
This serves as a cornerstone in change management.
A secondary purpose is to address the challenges associated with role identification and assumption. How employees engage with quality assurance isn't solely contingent upon the competencies of the quality assurance officer—such as performance and persuasiveness—but rather on the overall quality management practices of the organization.
The final function revolves around individual assessment, albeit approached in a manner that contextualizes performance according to task-specific competencies. For tasks executed proficiently, there's no need for extensive discussion. However, if there are shortcomings—such as missing project deadlines—attention should be directed towards constructive solutions to mitigate recurring issues.
It's imperative to recognize that closure isn't defined by a numerical rating that categorizes an individual (a topic deserving its own extensive exploration). Instead, it culminates in a collaborative action plan where the manager shares equal responsibility in identifying areas of improvement and charting a path forward.
Image source:: westsidetoastmasters.com
The 20th century witnessed organizations functioning as social entities out of necessity rather than choice. Initially, individuals involved in organizational work or research had to grasp the concept of human-machine collaboration, followed by the dynamics of group cooperation. Eventually, the spotlight shifted to leadership, delving into the realm of charismatic leaders, mission statements, visions, and long-term business strategies. Continuing this trajectory, coaching and supervision have come to epitomize organizational science.
As we step into the 21st century, the once paramount intention of management to conquer and monopolize markets, albeit viewed as determination, has become antiquated. The companies that emerged resilient from crises were those capable of swiftly responding to abrupt market shifts, primarily on a financial front.
Organizational psychology must evolve into corporate psychology. The convergence of interests between owners and employees lies in wealth generation— a perspective increasingly embraced by millennials towards employment.
Merely shielding the organization from external complexities no longer suffices for management. Instead, they must navigate the intricacies inherent within the company itself. Each position plays a pivotal role in revenue generation and cost control, akin to artisans sculpting value.
In embracing this ethos, we all become craftsmen of prosperity.
Image source::makemoneyexpert.com
In the intricate web of organizational dynamics, the differing perspectives of employees can often resemble a modern Tower of Babel. Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of three Production Supporters, whose divergent views paint a revealing picture of organizational dissonance.
The small vignettes encapsulate the unique outlooks of these three individuals within the circle of their roles. However, it's the panoramic 360-degree view that truly illuminates the disconnect. It showcases the collective expectations of those involved in production support and reveals a stark misalignment between perception and reality.
In essence, the trio falls short of meeting the comprehensive expectations set forth. Such disparities in interpretation not only highlight the varied ways in which individuals perceive their impact on organizational events but also underscore the inherent complexities of communication within the workplace. It's as though each person comprehends a shared sentence through a distinct lens, leading to a cacophony of diverging paths, akin to a bewildering five-way race.
Ironically, those uttering the same sentence aren't merely aiming to run—they aspire to soar. Yet, until an organization rectifies these disparities, any hopes of meaningful progress through training, workshops, or coaching remain futile.
The remedy, however, lies within reach, albeit often overlooked. It resides in the establishment of a common language—a daily communication framework grounded in shared data and knowledge. By fostering a cohesive linguistic landscape, organizations can bridge the chasm of misunderstanding and pave the way for genuine alignment and productivity..
Image source: it is the reality
When I instruct the shift manager to rectify an issue, I anticipate swift action to restore operations according to our plan.
Creativity isn't required here; it's imperative to emphasize the sanctity of our production schedule. Any deviation only leads to surplus inventory, attracting unwanted attention to costs.
When I task someone with resolving an issue, I don't expect miracles; certainly not at the expense of further delays caused by involving additional personnel.
Their contribution lies in ensuring that we, along with everyone else, can resume progress in alignment with our established plan.
Any actions taken contrary to this objective undermine the collective efforts of the team, regardless of the best intentions behind them.
Image source: imasternewmindsets.com
Companifying © - Toolkit for Managers to Enable Qualified and Experienced Employees to Become Successful Performers
As a result of working with the management of 21 companies, including several Top 500 firms, we have concluded the following:
1. Task Completion Defined by Deliverables: A task is considered complete when the employee provides the data or information regarding its completion. This is the performance we expect from employees, which we then evaluate and provide feedback on.
2. Role of Management: The function of management is not to monitor results or launch rescue operations in case of shortfalls, but to manage the process ensuring employees focus on tasks relevant to their positions. When this happens, results will follow, or if not, it becomes clear which processes need improvement or which tasks need to be reassigned. This is the essence of performance management.
3. Organizational Chart to Contribution Map: To understand and manage the tasks associated with each position, the organizational chart must be transformed into a contribution map. This involves identifying the data each position needs to produce, the source of the data, how it should be processed, and ultimately, defining the tasks of the role.fit spider diagrams serve this purpose.
With appropriate qualifications and experience, 80% of employees are suitable for 80% of the positions. The remaining 20% is where Companifying © tools ensure mutual success for both employees and managers.
Image source: kayplaza.com
The key principle of the Companifying© management toolkit is to channel the substantial energy spent on selection and technology management into organizing and maintaining internal cooperation that reflects the company’s business model.
It is time to eliminate the duality between the company and the organization. The needs and work attitudes of the emerging generations, the labor market shortages, and the rapid pace of technological replacement of jobs all indicate that companies will need to cooperate with employees based on mutual interest in income generation and production opportunities.
The Employeefying© system prepares leaders to create a position structure (contribution diagram) instead of traditional org charts. In this structure, every employee understands their own business role (regardless of their previous experience, career, etc.) and accordingly controls and influences the business outcomes that only they can contribute to for successful operations.
Image source: notonthehighstreet.com
Simply put, whether it's a project-based organization or a custom manufacturer, the financial model they use is that of mass production. The most important indicator of this model is capacity utilization.
Since management is required to report on this metric and continuously improve its value with the hope that costs will decrease proportionally and profits will increase, they end up obscuring everything that could provide clear insights.
In project-based organizations, clarity will come when we set profit expectations for each project, ensuring that "cheap" operations are carried out by "cheap" labor, and "expensive" ones by highly skilled, experienced employees. This way, we can know if one of our projects is just breaking even and which project is compensating for it, and so forth.
Of course, I understand that it is not really possible to change KPIs in monthly reports. However, every company leader has the internal capability to understand the financial business model of their operations and to build their and their managers' daily activities based on that understanding.
Image source: Medical Dictionary - The Free Dictionary
Managers often assume that it is sufficient to define their organization and its operations through clear and well-defined algorithms. They believe that as long as the process remains unchanged, these algorithms will be executed like clockwork, consistently and predictably.
In reality, what actually happens is far more interesting. There is a continuous and effective adaptation to reality, akin to a "dance" along the lines of these algorithms. This dance never repeats itself; it changes every day, with every employee and every team.
Despite these variations, it consistently leads to the same outcomes.
Image source:: Pinterest
Both managers and employees would greatly benefit from having a clear, shared understanding of the specific outcomes expected from each position, highlighting the unique contributions each role brings to the company’s overall success. This is what I refer to as contribution.
Currently, our organizational charts depict hierarchical relationships within professional domains, indicating who reports to whom. However, the key task for management should be to design and analyze the expected outcomes at each node of knowledge, autonomy, and process (which we currently call positions or roles).
This approach reveals that success isn't merely the smooth operation of technological or support processes, the production of another unit, or the satisfaction of another customer. True success is when an employee completes the tasks associated with their position, identifies and reports any obstacles hindering their work, and integrates problem-solving knowledge into their workflow—what I call change management.
Creating Contribution Maps isn’t without risks—it may uncover positions or even entire organizational levels that do not generate unique outcomes but merely replicate or act as conduits for results produced elsewhere in the process. These roles may represent resource reserves that can either be eliminated as ballast when the company struggles to soar or redefined with new functions and purposes.
The photo was taken in Bérkocsis Street, District VIII, Budapest.
Month after month, year after year, we plan the values of our KPIs.
Then, month after month, year after year, we find explanations for deviations from the plan. It's problematic if they go down, but also if they go up... because that's just how it turned out, and in reality, many factors influence the outcomes that are beyond organizational or managerial control.
In fact, we have identified only one thing that is not only possible but mandatory to plan: how each position contributes to turning products and services into profit.
This focus should be on positions, not individuals. We neglect job descriptions undeservedly; if we lack fundamental knowledge—shown by how job descriptions are currently handled—about who does what in the organization, isn't it foolish to think we control or manage anything within it?
Image source:: smoothvaporz.com
I often reflect on what the true product of a consulting firm specializing in testing—like ours—is.
In the past, when the job market offered a plentiful supply of candidates, we could claim that we supported the selection process by placing the right candidates in the right positions.
Nowadays, however, as I see it, we have become a strategic factor.
It is a matter of human strategy whether the client company requests information from the suitability assessments that aids managers in adopting an inclusive approach (rather than merely rating the candidates), thereby reducing integration costs, speeding up and enhancing the efficiency of onboarding, and reducing turnover.
It is a strategic decision whether the company consciously prepares its managers to understand that they are not getting ready-made employees but individuals who need to be shaped, and whether it provides these managers with the support needed to leverage individual strengths and weaknesses to achieve performance goals.
I call this Companifying ©.
Image source:: slideplayer.com
The question arose of how to define those leadership practices, which, though not strictly competencies, could still help manage the Big Data coming from the recruitment process as easily as competencies.
Through factor analysis, we have determined that leaders operate on three planes – managing the operational framework, progress, and handling uncertain situations.
They have various tools for these – proficiency in using these tools is the "competence" through which leadership practice becomes measurable.
Image source:: pixabay.com
How do we become innovative?
We don't always need to be innovative, only some of our customers ask for something new - asked the director, whose factory, which has always produced the same thing, only differing in size and level of processing between batches, now needs to incorporate more and different electronics into standard products.
I think it's simple.
Now you plan how many pieces come off per hour - this is non-innovative, standard manufacturing.
You must be very careful not to have more or fewer, so you also set the pace of production.
When innovation is needed, simply schedule the time it takes to produce.
You don't need pieces per hour, just when they start and when they finish.
Leave the rest to the employees, they'll figure it out.
Because you can count on them, their intelligence, their hands, their organizational skills, and their independent creativity.
Image source:: zdnet.com
The question is slowly shifting from whether we should hire the applicant to whether we have enough energy and capacity to integrate them well into the organization - to ensure our teams remain cohesive, our performance doesn't decline, and absenteeism and accident rates don't increase.
The leader should already know what they need to do, what leadership tools to use, and how to prepare the team for the new employee's arrival.
We have assigned the measured competencies of the candidates to the leadership tasks and tools. The blue bars in the image represent the strengths of the candidates, which the leader doesn't really need to worry about because the new employee brings those with them.
The long pink bars represent the employee attitudes that the leader and the team need to address.
The leadership profile (the pink bars) represents three major leadership areas. The first is maintaining operational frameworks, including discipline, work organization, compliance with quality standards, and manageability of work instructions.
The second major area is performance management and leadership communication. If the leader needs to manage these candidate competencies, motivation, supervision, assigning daily tasks, and gaining support for the team are the tools for integration.
The third major leadership area is planning - how to react under pressure, with few staff, introducing new things, when everything is still uncertain.
20 minutes of candidate work, that's all it takes, and a brief discussion with the leader.
Every leader deserves this level of support, considering the time, money, and energy invested in the selection process.
Image source:: Workprobes by PsyOn
But leadership is such a complex thing, with so many aspects, that it could be challenging to handle a similarly complex issue like employee retention. Especially here and now, especially when we're talking about shift leaders who themselves stand by the machine and work.
If you don't approach it from the theories of leadership but rather look at the daily work, the leader has three things to handle, which can only be managed with the cooperation of the employees.
The first is maintaining operational frameworks - discipline, clarity and presence of instructions, organizing and distributing daily tasks, who does what, where.
The second is the progress of work - how much supervision the employees require, when their momentum slackens, to push them through, and ensuring that everyone deals with their own tasks without being swayed from the set goals. And of course, recognition and rewards, which can come not only from the leader but also from the group.
The third thing is handling uncertainty. When many problems pile up, or there's high time pressure, you need to manage the brave ones so they don't cause additional damage by their creative solutions, and so that the employees don't collapse under the burden.
If they understand their "people" in these three things, we could even call them Teslas because they lead successfully even with their eyes closed, but I'd rather call it FRAGOLA, from the expressions framework, goal focus, and planning. So why do we need what we used to call suitability tests now?
Well, yeah.
A map is being drawn, a "treatment manual" for the employees.
They don't work out as cleaners, even though there can't be a simpler job than this...?!
Did you know their attention wanders, they're not really interested in organizing their work, and moreover, they're not interested in the consequences if they get scolded, they get scolded...
You've put them in the worst possible place.
Put them between two people, one pulls, the other pushes, and the one who pulls immediately checks as well.
You can praise them, you can teach them, you can make them successful.
Them, and you too...
It's that simple.
I could tell you so many stories like this!
Image source:: pixabay.com
Our tool launched on workprobes.online a year ago, which measures online employee alignment and provides "guidance" to employees (which area, under which leader, which group, with how much supervision and support they will be most successful), has now been enhanced with a profiling feature alongside the Rank Table.
When the candidate presses the final button to conclude their 20-minute task (because they don't need to answer questions, but they just need to work), they immediately receive three results: one based on the evaluation methods (suitable - not suitable), one based on the 11 factors measuring their relationship to the job (what should we focus on more during the interview), and a graphical-written individual analysis on the most successful leader-employee pairing, the quickest and most effective integration, retention.
At the same time, we have launched our website containing information and sample reports about this.
https://psyon.hu/employeefying/
This is a great celebration!
Image source:: Workprobes by PsyOn
Of course, online assessment works; they're constantly working with touchscreens. "It's a bit better than the tests they made us do.
Those required solving technical problems, finding the right answer to logical, mathematical tasks... But in reality, our job is to signal if there's a problem, and they come and solve it.
These tasks really measure what we actually need to do... whether we push through the work or not..." Said one trial participant about the workprobes method.
The trial showed that some are suitable at a competency level, even more than suitable. But in collaboration with leadership instructions, adherence to rules, there may be room for improvement.
It also emerged that they may not be as precise or as quick, but their belief in their own performance, adherence to rules, and perseverance can compensate for the lack of skills to some extent.
Image source:: pixabay.com, Gratitude
The recent article raised the question: it's not about how recruiters present us in the job market, how good of a company we are, or how great it is to work for us.
What is it that the labor market is seeking?
I believe the labor market is seeking genuine choice. And in this, as recruiters, we have significant opportunities, whether we are recruiters, staffing agencies, or the company's HR or management.
We still convey the message that companies do the choosing, when in fact, we should ensure it's about candidates choosing us. It's not about seizing an opportunity to sign a work contract; it's about a decision made after careful consideration, one that makes them stick with us, stay with us.
You say we should flip the whole thing around? What do we need to do to pique the candidate's interest? At the interview, the candidate should be asking us about our professional background, our business future, how we handle problem or conflict situations, how prepared we are in terms of safety and quality standards. Seriously?
You know, I know that the labor market isn't prepared, trained, or even encouraged for this. But it is prepared to switch companies in a matter of days, based on gossip, advice from friends, neighbors, or the belief that the grass is greener on the other side, even though it's not the solution, neither in the short nor the long term, nor for the next career move.
You say I need to convince myself that we are the best choice for them, rather than assessing if their knowledge, skills, and experience are suitable for us? Where will I find the capacity for that? Where is it coming from? Is it there? Why don't you work instead on being the solution they are seeking?
Image source:: pixabay.com
Do you want to give more significance to the average range?
Do you think we should be looking for candidates or employees who show average values? Not those who score high in one or more of the most important factors?
Should we consider deviations within the average range for profiles?
After all, we are looking for those who show average values...
Right?
Them?...but in many tests, only the low or high values are described. These tests are not really equipped to interpret the average... the "normal"... if they are, they phrase it as neither high nor low.
When we test, we hope that the person being assessed shows average values in every factor because that indicates they are balanced, reliable, cooperative, and will get their work done, whether as an operator or a research engineer.
Don't you see it this way?
So, is average not gray, but green?
...
Image source:: pixabay.com
When two sets are as independent of each other as job advertisers and job seekers, they must move in parallel tracks.
In the era of print media, employers learned which newspapers to use for which positions and how large an advertisement should be.
With the internet came creative job advertisements—the more colorful and original, the better.
Then came the "yuppie" era—advertising was almost unnecessary, or just a formality, because job seekers suddenly became visible and active. Sometimes, they did this only for formality, as the competition for professional recognition was won by those who were approached by a larger number of, especially foreign, recruiters.
Now, the networking characteristic of the early professional era has returned—most of the intermediary profession has become advertisement organizers based on reach and target group hits.
Throughout all this time, one thing hasn't changed—the dominance of employers seeking employees.
Employers provide as much information as they want, set specific requirements, instruct how to craft resumes, and then see what happens. This is one side of the dominance.
The other side is that after submitting a resume or filling out a provided questionnaire, the curtains are drawn before the job seeker, and everything happens behind the scenes.
Even if there is an opportunity to ask questions, the chances of getting answers to questions such as whether one can be a mother with young children or start at 8:30 are low, if not impossible.
We have opened a job seeker group ("Looking for a Good Job" ("Kéne egy jó kis állás" in Hungarian) is its name, and we warmly welcome active members) with the rule of banning job advertisements—we want companies and intermediaries to read the seekers' stories, talk with them, and find solutions together before the process is directed onto the dry and cold official path.
A lot of time, disappointment, and failure can be avoided if we start this way.
Our initial experiences show that employers and intermediaries are still learning to walk from this perspective (we haven’t had to ban anyone yet, but soon might have to), but we hope they will quickly progress to hurdling.
And the "Looking for a Job" FB group's numerous job advertisements will be replaced by people who truly belong there..
Image source:: pixabay.com
For those who filled it out, this serves as a memory refresher, and for those who didn't, as information: the questionnaire was divided into four sections: general questions about job searching, a brief overview of job search channels, a more detailed look at job search tools, and the social aspect of job searching.
Most responses involved a rating on a scale of 1-5, with two questions requiring a choice between two alternatives.
We naturally analyzed the results provided by Google Forms and conducted the required analysis based on age groups. If there's interest (please indicate under this post), we can share this in another post.
The most interesting findings were grouped based on job search behavior.
These groups are: those active in the job market in 2017 who changed jobs once or multiple times, active job seekers, those who have been at the same job for 2-3 years, over 4 years, and more than 10 years.
The 155 respondents are roughly equally "distributed" among these groups, with only the number of those who changed jobs multiple times last year being lower.
Overall - those who changed jobs multiple times last year find it very easy in their field.
How easy do respondents find it to get a job in general and in their own profession?
Job seekers rated the difficulty of finding a job at 4.2 on a five-point scale, both generally and in their field.
Those who changed jobs multiple times last year generally rated the difficulty close to four, but found it very easy in their own profession.
The opinions of others are around the middle value of three in both respects.
Channels - active job search experience reduces confidence in CV databases.
The two extremes: simple data upload to the most important online database is rated one, while two is for needing good recommendations.
40% of those who changed jobs multiple times last year and those who changed jobs 2-3 years ago think that registration in a database is enough.
Job seekers and those who changed jobs once last year are the least likely, at 3.5%, to think they can find a job through a database; 97% rely on recommendations and personal support.
Tools - more active individuals are more likely to see hiring influenced by external factors.
Good news for CV writing trainers: every group considers a CV essential and also values its format and organization.
The cover letter didn't fare as well: those who changed jobs multiple times last year rated its obsolescence at 4.6, with those who have been at one job for over 10 years clinging to it the most.
The interview made a greater impression on those less active in the job market, with those working at the same place for 2-3, 4, or over 10 years rating it one point higher than the more active groups (the former 4.6, the latter 3.6). (This is a recurring argument in discussions about using AI for pre-screening: "If I get an interview, I'll sell myself...")
Community - solidarity increases as competitive pressure decreases.
Those who changed jobs multiple times last year and those who changed jobs 2-3 years ago are the most active in supporting others' job searches (83%).
Next are those who have worked at the same place for over 10 years (64%).
Then there's a gap: 22% of job seekers support others, 14% of those working at the same place for over four years do, and only 8% of those who changed jobs once last year are active in this regard.
First time publishing;
Employee behavior is a matter of choice, unlike personality, competencies, and skills.
The latter of course influence these choices, but employee behavior
can be changed because it is composed of habits, established or adopted routines, responses, and reactions.
These elements are not only personal but also come from the many groups one has been part of, whether simultaneously or sequentially, at various workplaces.
If we accept this - and why wouldn’t we - then we must also accept that during interviews, we need to look for answers to entirely different questions and ask from a completely different perspective.
Image source:: pixabay.com
We should finally hold meet-ups, conferences, and workshops on the topic of... holding meet-ups, conferences, and workshops on something that can actually happen here and now, without big words, just simple actions, that anyone can do...
I don't really see the point of listing the tasks in a warehouse job advertisement that every proper warehouse worker already knows and does at their current job. Nor do I see the point in listing the requirements that every proper warehouse worker, whose application we're waiting for, already meets.
Why not just say this is a usual warehouse job, nothing special, there are five of us, we've been working here for 10 years, there's more and more work, so we're expanding. We're looking for a sixth person who will work just as hard as we do. Our forklifts are new/old, we have a warehouse management and good maintenance system, both of which are very helpful. The pay, including allowances, is satisfactory even for our colleagues with large families.
If you're interested, let us know how much pay you'd want to make the switch or join us. If it doesn't cause tension, we'll have a chat. If we like each other, we'll work together. We organize interviews on Fridays because that's when we're free. We might be shocked, but it might be worth it.
The picture is from the Mutant Reviewers collection.
Both the leader and the employee "use" the employee's skills and competencies. Just as the employee relies on the leader's skills and competencies. Personalities can either cooperate, dominate, or submit—the leader manages individual integrity but cannot control or change it (nor is it their job to do so). So, what exactly does the leader lead?
I can say it in English, though they don't have a word for it. If there's leadership, then there should also be employeeship (which in Hungarian we refer to with two words: "employee behavior"), a dimension that both work psychology and OD (organizational development) have undeservedly overlooked. Or maybe they didn't overlook it, but if they discussed it, they spoke of it as something to be hidden, like not mentioning in a job interview that we've had conflicts with every previous boss, or that we often felt our boss was slow and cumbersome in decision-making, while we could have solved everything long ago, but were delayed because of them.
This dimension is not new; it always has been and always will be. However, now, understanding and managing it has become a competitive advantage in the "battle" for workforce acquisition and retention.
Source of the image: PsyOn Workprobes Introduction
While preparing for professional workshops with consultants and HR professionals, the question arose: what aspects require the reevaluation or replacement of 20th-century OD (Organizational Development) tools? We started listing:
- Companies themselves have become products (startups).
- Data Science is increasingly opening up areas for understanding and managing internal complexity, while managing external complexity must become simpler.
- Competency models can no longer provide adequate responses to changes in the labor market.
- The lifespan and predictable business periods of companies are shortening, requiring interventions to be quick and yield financially measurable results in the short term.
- The significance of organizations as carriers of social relationships/prestige is diminishing in the face of the growing power of social media.
- The emphasis in leadership roles is shifting from managing people's behavior and controlling technology to planning the business contributions of positions.
- The nature of work itself is changing...
Can it go further?
Source of the image: pixabay.com
Last week, I came across an article (unfortunately, I can't remember where) discussing how large companies are starting to learn from small ones.
It was high time for the large companies to realize how much they complicate their lives by viewing themselves alternately as workplaces, organizations, or market players.
For small companies, it's simple—they are a COMPANY, with labor laws, internal informal networks, and business contributions—every employee is building and operating the company; the goal is shared, and everyone is part of the success and the profit achieved.
It would be great if the learning process could be swift because the framework of the command & control system, based on the division between employee, management, and owner, is already hindering successful market and business operations....
Image source: pixabay.com
It has always been right under our noses, but it was hidden by the many competency models. For how long have we been repeating that everything can be learned, yet we still judge candidates as good or bad? We need to forget the idea that everything depends on the candidates and get used to the organization using its leadership resources to shape, develop, and maintain employee habits. Because these habits—whether they arrive on time, understand their tasks without explicit instructions, follow processes, or require a lot of supervision—can be quickly shaped, unlike competencies and personality traits.
Employeeship, as the collection of habits "picked up" from workplace to workplace, determines how well a new employee will perform with us. In this time of great shortage, why would we allow the company to lose projects just because we are unwilling to shape this simple system of habits to fit our needs and serve the company's performance, especially when we already have the tools to do so, and we just need to use them?!
Image source: pixabay.com
The usual low, average, and high categories we use for tests don't apply to Emotional Intelligence (EI).
When measuring the EI of elite athletes, such as long-distance runners or deep-sea divers, we often find low scores. However, these individuals can perform at world-class levels.
In this case, performance and ability are inversely "proportional." Those with high EI tend to be top salespeople, while teachers beloved and successful with students, and mothers of many children, generally score at an average level.
It's quite interesting that, for example, auditors, finance professionals, and engineers who might traditionally be considered to have below-average EI actually perform better in their fields. High EI, including high empathy, tolerance, and sensitivity, might actually hinder their effectiveness.
Thus, we have departed from tradition and categorized Technical and Engineering EI as one end of our scale (not the lower end) and Strategists, who manage emotions well—whether their own or others'—at the other end (not the upper end).
In the middle are Mediators (such as auditors or public officials), Coordinators, and Supporters.
This is how the PsyOn EI questionnaire functions.
Image source: pixabay.com
Tolerance to monotony is not a skill, but a neurological trait... always, once more.
If you have to repeat the same thing for 5 minutes, it doesn't measure anything, even if you're doing it on a task designed to test monotony tolerance.
One to three minutes can measure attention concentration, but to test monotony, you need to guide the nervous system into a monotonous state first, and only then can you measure how good the tolerance actually is...
For this, a test lasting at least seven minutes, or preferably longer, is needed.
It's not enough to just calculate the total results for all the minutes; the performance for each minute separately is interesting to see how long a person can maintain their performance despite the monotonous conditions, or when their nervous system signals, "I don't want to do this anymore."
The person evaluating these tests, however, will surely have their monotony tolerance tested, unless they utilize the capabilities offered by online or computer-based systems.
Image source: pixabay.com
Data management, business information, financial risk...
Now that some company employees have tried our Moral Maturity Reliability (LPO) test, we found ourselves facing the fact that people who have proven to be moral through many years of work, decisions, and behavior cannot "fool" the test, even if they try their hardest.
A group of participants agreed to answer as "villains."
They couldn't.
Not instinctively.
The questionnaire is just a tool, albeit a well-functioning one, but the essence lies within the person.
This is a very interesting result.
The moral simply cannot think like the less moral because they lack that behavior, response, and problem-solving set.
Even if opportunities that contradict their true nature are presented to them on a silver platter, they still won't take them.
Image source: pixabay.com
It’s interesting that the relevance of suitability assessments has been raised in the context of GDPR.
Work psychology has ALWAYS (written in all caps) worked in the interest of the employee.
If someone has night blindness, they shouldn't be driving forklifts in dimly lit areas; if they have monocular vision (which affects 30% of the population, many of whom are unaware), they shouldn’t be operating saw machines; if they were born with a nervous system that doesn't tolerate monotony, they shouldn’t be hired as a call center employee.
Companies that consult with work psychologists in addition to occupational physicians are interested in understanding the resilience and coping abilities of applicants so they can handle daily challenges without exceeding their limits.
Administering tests is easy. Evaluating them is too (unless it concerns monotony tolerance, although even this is now straightforward online), but the difference lies in interpreting the results and applying them in daily work... for the benefit of the employee, which is also in the company's interest. Employee stability is a competitive advantage, and shared success in secured projects.
We never exclude; we always include.
Image source: pixabay.com
The following list was taken from an article published in HVG. (Weekly World Economy news)
Which organizational development approach does it describe?
Classic OD, Lean, or Agile?
All three, two of them, or none?
• Greater customer focus, value-oriented perspective
• Faster, more flexible processes
• Increased employee empowerment and motivation
• Supportive, servant leadership
• Supportive, people- and value-oriented organizational culture and mindset
• Flatter organization, quicker response to changes
• Organizing people and teams into networks rather than hierarchical structures
• High level of knowledge sharing and willingness to experiment
• Closer collaboration and communication between teams, instead of the previous "siloed" operation
• Transparent, clear operations and information
• Avoidance of unnecessary processes
Are we not trapped in a cycle of repeatedly doing the same things, aiming for the same goals, but fundamentally not changing our methods?
As long as we do not organize and develop companies based on their financing model, internal cooperation, job roles, compensation, incentive, and performance management systems, the labels may change, but the degree of progress, change, and success will not.
Image source: pixabay.com
Three years ago, the ratio of suitable to unsuitable candidates in the selection process for operators in the automotive, electronics, and pharmaceutical industries was 3 to 1.
By now, this has changed to 15 to 1. According to our statistics, the truly capable and motivated segment (inner drive) of the labor market is "moving" in search of stability.
They are looking for workplaces that offer tasks most suited to their success-seeking and coping strategies (such as monotony, stress, performance expectations, incentives, and leadership communication) and cooperation.
Image source: pixabay.com
Let's translate "choose the one who we think will integrate most easily and perform best (whatever that means)" to
"hire the candidate in whom those colleagues and leaders, whose support is necessary for the candidate to succeed, will truly invest their time and energy."
Because even before the interview, we know we don't have to spend three months or more in a "peacock dance" to figure out
what kind of worker they are, whether we need to check on them or let them return with results,
what kind of colleague they will be, whether they will help others, fill in for absentees, and
what kind of "subordinate" they will be, whether they will have conflicts with their supervisor or cooperate well, whether they will complete their tasks or focus only on what interests them or is new, and how to personally motivate them.
For the new employee to truly flourish, it is not enough for them alone to be good.
If they are not given tasks that suit them, or if they cannot work in the way they prefer, they will leave.
Their stability and performance depend on the acceptance of their strengths and weaknesses, and personalized integration.
The name of the measurement tool: workprobes.online.
We want it to reach more and more people, because it's good and easy to make people successful, you just need to „do it."
Image source: pixabay.com
The issue of workforce stability is not solved by new generation tests, nor by abandoning 100-year-old tests.
As long as we use the same candidate data and information, we will only go through the ingrained decision-making processes, always ending up with the same result.
What could be the receptiveness index of a company?
Image source: pixabay.com
Now that we are building our own foreign sales network, we are gaining interesting experiences.
Our partners are all calculating commissions, figuring out who gets what percentage for which part of the sales chain.
However, the outcome shows something different:
1. We measure the person who brings in leads by whether they can provide 3 qualified prospects per month. This means they need to accurately assess the company so that we only need to go in and make the sale, rather than gauge interest.
2. We measure the representative by the number of products sold. We have both inexpensive and expensive products, and if we try to break this down into a plan, we get a very complicated and hard-to-overview set of conditions.
However, if we calculate the other way around, looking at how many units of the cheapest product need to be sold to meet the planned revenue, not only can they earn more, but we can also quickly intervene if the sales curve shows signs of breaking.
Image source: blog.es.logicalis.com
One of the greatest challenges of the Industrial Revolution was teaching people how to work with machines, and now, Industry 4.0 is teaching us how to work when robots take over our routine tasks.
Everyone goes through this learning journey in their own lives.
We ask for CVs to see where the applicant has learned to work and collaborate.
For recent graduates, the question is whether we should be the ones to teach them how to work or let others have that privilege...
If someone learned to work in an SME where they had to make decisions in the CEO's absence, made coffee, and installed the invoicing software, can they let go of this knowledge when, in a large corporation, they need approval for even the simplest decisions and only one person can run queries in the SAP/Oracle system?
Or are they looking for a company where they can work like this because their current way of working has become tiring?
And since their way of working has become a company norm, no one even notices how much they do, so it’s not “rewarded”...
If someone has spent a long time at a company, we fear we won’t be able to change their work habits, and they’ll want to work with us the same way they always have...
If previous workplaces encouraged asking for help and considered it a strength, not a weakness, how willing and able will they be to form new habits and face challenges alone in a different culture?...
If someone has learned and is used to working in well-functioning groups, won't they continue to seek such environments?
Isn’t it time to let go of competencies as the small building blocks of success and instead focus on the totality that dominates at least a third of our lives: our work habits?
In the current labor market situation, the critical issue is that we believe a growing number of participants have not been taught how to work, or at least not in a way that we can build upon.
Image source: pixabay.com
After conducting our "Discover Your Working Self" workshop with the third group of participants from Japan, India, Germany, Poland, the USA, France, Ukraine, Lithuania, and Hungary, aged 20-40, we have observed that most job seekers do not view companies as "work-performing organizations" but rather as opportunities to fulfill their personal success needs.
Several consequences of this have emerged, in a nutshell:
1. They are more likely to seek employment formats rather than specific professional tasks; it's more important how much influence they have over their work schedule (i.e., how flexible the working hours are), whether they can identify with the company's business vision and mission, and the amount and type of support they receive from the corporate community (!) than what salary and benefits are offered or what professional challenges they face.
2. They increasingly feel that the tasks to be performed are not profession-specific; they believe that how they work (implementing their ideas, the extent of managerial supervision, working alone outside the company, at night, or precisely from 8 AM to 4 PM, etc.) is more important than what tasks they have to perform.
3. The "status" value of positions is undergoing a significant transformation and is slowly disappearing; on one hand, traditionally unskilled jobs are increasingly operated with advanced technologies, environmental and climate protection elevate low-prestige jobs, and few believe that a leader's role is to manage others and thus be "above" them.
Many think a leader is someone who helps others overcome problems, provides the necessary conditions and tools, and after all, it is just a position that should design the content of other roles.
These are signals to us that traditional organizational cultures offering continuous/step-by-step development, performance evaluation and incentives, and - not least - the selection process operate on criteria that are becoming less significant to today's job seekers and some of the current employees.
More and more companies are beginning to use the new tools we have developed to measure and manage this new dimension of the Working Self, and promising results are seen in retention and career management.
The question is not whether these new tools are needed, but when we will start using them generally.
Image source: pixabay.com
Difference Between Satisfaction and Contentment - the Base Line
We are once again working with a client who was "sorrowing" over the fact that they ranked last in last year's engagement survey and the exit interview results compared to other European locations.
What we did was not only to ask questions specific to the company with the questionnaire, but we also gauged the respondents' opinions on the labor market in general.Relative to this baseline, it has already emerged that they consider their own company to be better than average, and their opinions were influenced by the general labor market sentiment just as much as by their personal experiences with the company.
Moreover, the fact that they could fill it out online ensured complete anonymity, as everyone enters the response interface with the same code; the spread of responses reflects the degree of freedom in opinion formation.
Image source: pixabay.com
The biggest change we see in the relationship between employees and companies is the shift in the content of the psychological contract.
The personal belief in mutual commitment between the employee and the company or leader (what each party feels it is "entitled" to expect from the other, and what they are "obligated" to give in return) is shifting towards expectations related to sharing control over the employee's life management and organization, especially with the expansion of employment forms.
While the Builders, those focused on career building, accept the dominance of corporate control in order to fulfill their upwardly mobile career path, micro-workers (even if they are full-time micro-workers at a company) want to maintain full control over their own lifestyle.
Image source: manfredsteger.com
What if we had Tesla's demo steel ball in our hands, the one that could at least crack the glass wall between employers/managers and employees?
Is it just me, or does it seem strange to read sentences in articles and marketing materials targeted at HR professionals and leaders, like "We help you gain insight (insight!!!) into your employee's work situation, who, after all, are essentially people just like us..."?
Even after 25+ years of experience, HR professionals are still performing human quality assurance based on competencies aligned with job descriptions, struggling to accept that these models are outdated.
Despite knowing every little trick, disadvantage, and pitfall of tests and selection processes, in today's labor market, these methods no longer lead to real results—ironically proving the HR professionals right all along.
There is no "Us" and "Them"—a new dimension connects leaders and non-leaders, and this is the shift in who exercises control.
In the 20th century, the key issue was the extent and manner of managerial control over employees' actions, decisions, and access to information.
We evolved from techno-autocracy to charismatic leadership.
Now, in the 21st century, the question is how much control employees (including leaders) are willing to accept from the company over their private lives, general approach to work, and employment habits.
The following are merely transitional steps in a process where, ultimately, new generations view the "leader" as someone who unlocks their potential...
- The institution of home office: working whenever and from wherever they want, at a pace that suits them.
- The preference for part-time work: more personal life.
- The emergence of gig workers: working for multiple companies, on their own schedule, as much as they want.
- The spread of coaching: private solutions to company problems handled at an individual level.
A new dimension has thus emerged in organizational science, one that can no longer be ignored—the Working Self, which exercises control over itself.
Employees (including leaders) "sell" their sense of usefulness, their awareness of contributing to something, to companies.
This is how they measure the time and energy they are willing to invest.
The glass wall, on one side of which leaders try to peek in and form a picture, while on the other side employees guess the management's intentions, is only maintained by current HR and leadership practices and the lack of new tools.
People (including leaders) are choosing a business model that aligns with their own individual employment model.
That's why some people do volunteer work in exchange for food and accommodation, while others start their own businesses, etc.
And yes, there is the steel ball—let's throw out the old interview questions, replace job descriptions with contribution maps, swap out 50-100 year-old tests for new methods that explore and measure the Working Self, and shift retention efforts towards unlocking potential and mutual support.
Let's break down the glass wall.
The tools are ready, the steel ball has been cast and tested.
It shatters the glass.
Counterexamples only confirm the safety of clinging to established practices, the lack of adaptability and willingness to change—not the necessity of change.
Image source: pixabay.com
A startup, a rapidly growing IT company, and an engineering project office... Working with them, it quickly became clear that they seek, manage, and develop individual portfolios that align with the company's business portfolio.
And not just now, but also those they will implement, design, and develop in one, two, or three years.
The real offer is not just about excelling in daily work; it’s about how both the employee and the company can enrich their portfolios together through collaboration.
Because completing daily tasks is about realizing, maintaining, developing, building, dusting off, polishing, and nurturing this shared portfolio.
What if we viewed current and future employees as people with rich portfolios filled with knowledge, experiences, colorful memories, developed business thinking and behavior, and working methods, all alongside personal life, experiments, failures, and successes?
Compared to this, the list of job positions and competencies squeezed into a résumé is merely a visual illusion—the author might have intended it to be a rabbit, but we see a woman with a fur scarf from behind.
One operator’s portfolio is vibrant, filled with group experiences, lean training, a good company canteen, and successful problem-solving. Another’s is gray, worn-out, and sleep-deprived because four hours of their day was just spent commuting... but the company and the applicant share a set of colored pencils—what if we finally started using them...
Millennials are still in university but already walking through company doors with portfolios that many CEOs would envy... with goals, lives to build, and determination.
An employee’s portfolio is just as much a business opportunity as market demands, not merely a resource.
Even if the working conditions and salary are excellent, if it doesn’t fit into their individual portfolio, they won’t show up for work on the first day.
But they will be committed if their knowledge is used in a way they find meaningful, if their experiences are considered, if their portfolio—what they bring with them and what can be filled with new experiences, knowledge, and people—is utilized.
Image source: pixabay.com
People are not just a collection of competencies. They are shaped by their personal experiences—experiences with leaders, teams, and tasks where they've had the opportunity to test themselves.
The lessons they draw from these experiences influence how they relate to their workplace, colleagues, and responsibilities. These lessons guide their decisions and determine what they give in exchange for what is offered to them.
We have portfolios, not CVs.
Image source: pixabay.com
We’d like to share a recent finding that supports certain testing methods, often met with resistance or even outright rejection in the industry.
I'm not talking about tests in the traditional sense—no questions to answer or "problems" to solve.
This is just one of three tasks, but I want you to see how informative the results can be and how they can be applied in today's turbulent job market.
In the experiment, 10 employees already working at the company participated. We didn’t know their roles when they completed the online application.
Here, there are no "right" answers, and as a result, no good or bad outcomes. I’ve tried to make it clear in the image how one measurement can easily reveal how someone works and what job or tasks might be a good fit.
Those who handle monotony well (everyone except the two highlighted employees) thrive on an assembly line because they naturally work as if the job has a fixed pace—they don’t speed up or slow down.
The two framed results show that their owners are dynamic, enjoy handling different small tasks, and like to be where the action is—expressed in numbers.
One of them is a warehouse worker, the other an SMT line operator. One more thing: one of them completed 88 operations, while the other did 271 in the same amount of time.
And yes, the SMT line operator was the one who completed nearly 100 more operations than average—they have high expectations of themselves and the energy to pursue tasks without needing anyone to direct or monitor them.
And yes, while the warehouse worker enjoys the dynamism, they still completed 100 fewer operations on their own; their time is allocated by the tasks to be completed, filling the eight-hour workday.
This isn’t about personality, skills, or competencies. It’s not about how we think of ourselves, but how we act.
It’s the way people work, the way they go about their daily tasks.
And yes, these are numbers, and if they sit down again, their results will be the same—we tested this...
If we do something different, the result will also be different... By ensuring that employees are doing the right tasks, they tire less, feel less burdened, fall ill less often, and are less likely to leave.
Retention starts here—it doesn’t guarantee they’ll stay with the company, but at least we know they won’t leave because they can’t meet performance expectations, handle the workload, or endure monotonous tasks... not to mention how much easier it is for their manager to assign them tasks that are truly suited to them from the start, ensuring they will be successful.
Image source: www.psyon.hu
We've completed our third major project, where we built an entire company around talent management because their true product is the knowledge they sell in the market.
The key to all three projects was the development of a knowledge management system—one that systematically channels new knowledge to those who need it and ensures that no knowledge is left unshared.
This isn't just about whiteboards, searchable folders, or professional workshops that are regularly overshadowed by urgent daily tasks. It's about integrating (leadership) activities into the everyday fabric of the company, providing a solid foundation and clear pathways for the true development of talent.
When you think about it, talent management is also "floating" without a solid foundation in companies where only selected individuals are involved in so-called talent development programs.
Similarly, performance evaluation systems are "floating" too, along with competency models and job descriptions that rely on task distribution rather than business contribution and engagement.
I believe that as long as we continue to think that companies are driven by management or ownership intentions rather than market forces, this will remain the case. The sustainability—and even the completion—of organizational development efforts will last only as long as the consultants are present.
As long as we don't step out of the employer-employee dimension, as long as employer branding is at odds with employee experience, the true experts on how companies operate will remain the employees. Yet, they won't talk about what everyone knows.
Image source: pixabay.com
Top Down Support Chain – From Crisis Communication to Leadership Tool, HR and OD Game Changer
I fully support the advice circulating in countless LinkedIn and Facebook posts: every day, ask your colleagues via phone, online, SMS, or video conference, "How are you?"
Because what lies behind this question is a new, different leadership practice where the only tangible tool leaders have is communication.
Companies are handling the current situation by transitioning to new operational frameworks (Home Office, online, etc.).
Leaders are now paying special attention to ensuring that employees have all the tools, circumstances, and empowerment needed for effective work.
Daily discussions focus on employees' well-being, emotional and physical state, the level of workload, and if necessary, how it can be reduced or increased.
Only after these considerations comes the monitoring and checking of performance.
The first question upper management asks middle or frontline leaders is whether there are any employees or groups that need more support, or if the leader themselves needs help to effectively maintain and strengthen their team.
The emphasis in leadership communication has shifted to where it always belonged: on the individual. Finally, it's not just about what someone achieves but also about what tools and resources are truly supporting their work.
Leaders and employees have become partners who can only solve their business and life situations together. Not that this wasn’t always the case, but now it has become evident.
The command and control scheme has been replaced by the Help Chain.
Maintaining communication based on the Support Chain will be a critical success factor and a competitive advantage in the changed labor market, as well as in supplier and goods and services markets.
This will transform performance evaluation systems, meetings, selection processes, retention tools and systems, and not least, leadership training programs.
Image source: pixabay.com
When the work begins with a small number of people, team members inevitably become multifunctional, taking on tasks that were previously handled by dedicated individuals.
To ensure a smooth partial return, it’s advisable for leaders to plan ahead and then consult with the team on who will now "own" which tasks.
Who will communicate with whom, and how will this be done? What needs to remain the same as before (e.g., how reporting will be handled)? What is not a priority at the moment? What should be done if someone can't access the system or can't find something? HR can be a great help by supporting leaders in this communication, increasing organization and the sense of security that we all need right now.
Image source: pixabay.com
It's not the quote attributed to Steve Jobs, which appears on LinkedIn at least once a month: "There’s no point in hiring smart people and then telling them what to do. We hire smart people so they can tell us what to do."
Instead, it’s the underlying shift in the business model that has begun to dismantle the "organization" as we knew it—a structure that still informs organizational diagnostics, development techniques, and the prevailing image of leadership and employees.
In these new business models, employees are no longer just workers paid by the owner to reflect their market value. Initially, performance-based compensation emerged, which later evolved into personal rewards tied directly to business outcomes.
Since the early 1990s, the traditional organization, based on a social community of interests, has been increasingly replaced by a collaboration grounded in the financial community of interests among the company's stakeholders.
These new business models demand consultants who can directly enhance the company’s financial performance, while minimizing the burden of change management on the employees within the organization.
Image source: wired.com
I consider the greatest challenge for companies to be crisis management and recovery.
Since 2004, we have been working with companies that are either in crisis (local, life-cycle related, or industry-specific) or preparing for one (things are going very well, but we don’t know why).
The master key to the solution has always been placing the management of adaptability and flexibility ahead of performance management. We built their business processes around this. (By business process, I mean how market demand turns into profit and reported financial results.)
The key to unlocking the lower end was relying on the business impact of employees, not on their existing competencies.
Leaders did everything to ensure that employees were aware of their contribution to business results. This awareness liberated their energy, transforming employees from "resources" and "capacity" into business partners.
There are certainly other unconventional, tried-and-tested crisis management solutions out there. It could be useful if we shared and discussed these.
Image source: pixabay.com
Industry 4.0 presents the most significant leadership and HR challenge: creating and maintaining employee engagement.
Industry 2.0 was about managing satisfaction, and Industry 3.0 focused on managing commitment.
The "Home Office" scenario provided a small-scale preview, and Industry 4.0 will demonstrate on a much larger scale that digitalization will revolutionize internal communication—its forms, tools, and data-driven approaches—affecting the way leaders, employees, and teams interact.
Since 2004, experiences gained in crisis management or preparing for it have shown that while the walls between professional organizational units may be dismantled, the connection of employees to each other, to collaboration, and to goals can also weaken.
For leaders and HR, the greatest task is ensuring that employees feel not just like a piece of a puzzle but as an irreplaceable component of the whole.
The tools are already available; now, leadership and HR must shift their focus from technology to building relationships.
Image source: pixabay.com
Tomorrow, there will still be a constant: the Working Self.
Yesterday, a maintenance manager suggested that if he truly understood the personalities of his employees, he would be a much better leader. We did not confirm this for him.
Today, a Facebook group complained about companies preferring to conduct surveys instead of making leadership decisions and actions to improve morale.
Three separate studies—whether in a fully employed, oversupplied, or undersupplied labor market—demonstrated that behind skills, personality traits, and competencies, there is a constant: employee behavior.
We know that it’s difficult to align this with current selection and performance evaluation practices. However, it exists and explains many behaviors and decisions of employees.
This is a learned set of attitudes and actions that we expand, contract, and shape as we move from one workplace to another.
Tests and surveys aim to get closer to this Working Self. However, it’s not some hidden psychological dimension but rather practical knowledge and experience related to leader-employee relationships, group dynamics, embedded successes and failures, communication habits...
Uncovering this is straightforward, but—using an analogy—if we try to identify our symptoms through a medical interview or questionnaire instead of a stress test, we might miss it entirely.
With digital skill development, we’ll be dealing with this more and more.
Image source: pixabay.com
Gamification revolutionizes selection and development by measuring the expectations that candidates and employees have of themselves. These expectations are the ones that will drive them in their work and performance situations, and with which their leaders will need to "work."
In these measurements, we can demonstrate how much energy someone mobilizes, how they manage their strength, and whether they learn during the assessment process or simply complete the next task.
In contrast, traditional tests, even those conducted online, measure how someone performs on an "external" expectation scale—evaluating their score within a set amount of time or a specific number of questions.
As independent work becomes more widespread, where time management is no longer dictated externally by a leader, and "multifunctional" employees are needed, traditional ability- and personality-based methods no longer provide the information that HR and leaders can reliably base their human decisions on.
Image source: pixabay.com
The concept of Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) originally emerged in the context of social media. It is the fear of missing out or falling behind, the feeling that others are having better, more enjoyable experiences, or any experiences at all, while we sit at home alone and isolated.
The partial return from Home Office work carries the potential for this anxiety to manifest. This often appears among employees who work from home in the form of frequent, seemingly "unnecessary" phone calls, emails, and internet calls to their colleagues. This could be considered a new psychosocial risk factor that, with digitalization, might remain with us in the long term.
Image source: pixabay.com
Recently, a consulting firm asked me to analyze the results of their OD index survey. Out of the 75 questions, 60 received the same response from every participant.
Creating a truly effective survey or test that yields useful results starts with drafting a large number of questions. These questions can be self-generated or taken from an item bank, especially in the case of tests.
The latter option contains already validated questions from various widely used tests. For example, if you want to measure dominance, it includes questions or statements that have been scientifically proven to assess the dominance factor.
Once we have a substantial list of questions, we test them on one or two focus groups. Any questions that yield uniform answers are immediately discarded. Only those that elicit a distribution of responses—following a normal or Gaussian curve—are kept. This means having a few 0s and 9s, a lot of 5s, and a mix of 4s and 6s, or if it's a yes/no question, then a 50-50% split.
This process might leave some questions in the tests that seem odd. However, as long as the responses vary appropriately, the question or statement remains—even if it mentions a purple elephant.
Sometimes, it takes multiple rounds of testing and refining questions to get it right.
When the final set of questions is ready, we conduct a factor analysis to determine whether the questions measure one or several things. We check if they correlate and form factors, or if they are entirely independent of each other. By following this method, we increase our chances of obtaining meaningful and interpretable results from the responses. This ensures that we don't have to disqualify irrelevant questions afterward and, most importantly, that the time and effort people invested in completing the survey or test aren't wasted.
Image source: pixabay.com
One of the many reasons is that they simply feel the job isn't for them. But how can that be, considering they've previously worked as operators, possibly in a similar factory for quite some time? Why does it suddenly occur to them here?
The truth is, even operator roles can vary greatly. At one job, you might be doing the same task all day at a single workstation. In another, tasks might rotate every two or four hours, or weekly. At a third job, you could be part of an autonomous workgroup solving various problems, while a fourth might involve an SMT line requiring meticulous organization, attention to detail, and administrative work.
When asked, most people claim they can't stand monotony. Yet, when measured, it turns out that their nervous system actually thrives on it—it's just that we tend to look down on such work. On the flip side, if the job involves too much variety, people start feeling uneasy without knowing why. They become tense, irritable, and so on.
The reverse is also true. If someone can't handle monotony, they'll find ways to escape the situation—going for a coffee, urgently needing to ask someone a question, fetching more materials. Eventually, they might wander so far that they don't come back. Perhaps their previous job was monotonous too, but their coworkers were within earshot, providing opportunities for conversation.
Whether someone can tolerate monotony or prefers variety can be measured in just 12 minutes. The length of this test is crucial to obtaining accurate results. In 12 minutes, it's possible to determine which work environment will best satisfy a worker's basic need for well-being.
A five-minute search for a letter or symbol on an A4 sheet is not a proper test of monotony tolerance—it only measures attention for the first three minutes and monotony for eight to nine minutes. A five-minute test, especially in this "free" form, doesn't reveal much.
Of course, it's true that if the test isn't done on a machine or isn't conducted online, assessing monotony tolerance can require significant monotony tolerance from the evaluator as well—something we know from nearly 30,000 test experiences.
Image source: pixabay.com
In a brief comment on Facebook, someone "complained" about receiving false, cliché, and generic responses during exit interviews. Many speculated that the departing employee simply doesn't care, especially if they are a blue-collar worker.
Among the many possible reasons for this, one stands out—the "Day labor site phenomenon." Many workers begin their shift, or even start a new job, by being picked up from a gathering spot and taken to the worksite where they are needed at that moment.
I've seen this at several companies—strangers standing around, not really engaging with each other, not even attempting to get to know one another due to a lack of shared experience. It's hard to form connections in such an environment when colleagues and supervisors change daily or weekly, when there isn't a "personal" space—a bench where you can casually reach for your water that's always in the same spot. If someone leaves a place like this, there's often nothing substantial to say, because they haven't gathered enough information to form an opinion on anything.
Another common reason is when the company, the manager, or the coworkers breach the unwritten psychological contract, which was implicitly understood from the beginning. These are unspoken expectations like fairness and equal treatment—subjective matters. If something could have been done about it, the person wouldn’t be leaving... so they remain silent.
The lack of connection is the common thread between these two reasons—it either never forms, or it isn't what it promised to be.
And when something was never there, or no longer exists, it's the hardest thing to talk about—and perhaps, why bother?
Image source: pixabay.com
The crane operator was at risk of being fired due to lack of discipline. He was everywhere except in the crane cabin—up and down, grabbing coffee, using the restroom, or attending urgent meetings.
Before the dismissal, they requested a work psychological "assessment" to determine which job role might suit him better, hoping he could stay with a reassignment.
All he needed to keep his job was a walkie-talkie-like phone—he was so extremely extroverted that solitude, lack of interaction, and absence of conversation were unbearable. So, he left, went down, and kept going down repeatedly.
Since then, he has remained a crane operator but now enjoys a rich social life with a microphone at his mouth and headphones in his ears.
After experiencing several panic attacks at work, questions about his suitability and dismissal arose again. He worked for many years at a lonely, isolated workstation until he was eventually assigned a new trainee and later another.
He was found to have extremely high introversion, to the extent that it led to overwhelming stress from the constant need to speak, ask questions, and answer. "Only" the burden of training needed to be lifted from him, and he became like he used to be—a well-performing, reliable, and most importantly, healthy colleague.
Extroversion and introversion are generally known as personality traits, but as Eysenck's research has shown, they are also neurologically determined.
If we are unaware of these traits because we don't measure them during selection, an unsuitable workstation or task can lead not only to dismissal but also to health issues.
To prevent such outcomes, that's where we, work psychologists, come in.
Image source: pixabay.com
A portfolio is the sum of one’s investments. When a company “shakes off” its job descriptions and performance evaluation system, it benefits from it.
What’s common among companies that continually, or annually, or biennially—whether with internal or various external consultants—want to streamline their organization is that the well-thought-out system they introduce is often swept aside by a sudden major project, a multiplication or loss of clients, or key personnel accepting irresistible job offers, taking with them essential knowledge crucial for the new product development. What’s common is that they live in constant product, service portfolio, and market development.
Of course, there’s agile and teal management for processes, but what about job roles and performance evaluations? What can be written in job advertisements when employees are constantly in different roles or multiple roles because a “jack of all trades” is not feasible?
In the past six months, we have already replaced job descriptions with personal portfolios at three different companies.
At each company, we created a map of the business areas they operate (e.g., compliance, knowledge management, administration, growth hacking, product development). We then worked with employees to determine which tasks they would handle in the coming quarter to meet business needs, fulfill orders, and coordinate internal processes.
We collaboratively assigned the “white spots,” sometimes even to the executive director.
Weekly face-to-face meetings always offer the chance to exchange or even discard elements of the portfolio when a major project concludes, a new product is completed, or financial management is outsourced to an external contractor.
This requires a significant investment of energy from both employees and leaders but pays off handsomely.
In this organized chaos, everyone moves securely, with all tasks being equally important, whether it’s time tracking or negotiating with the largest client. Leaders focus on their people (whether they know and want to do it, if all conditions are met) not to judge but to assist them.
Development is built-in; automatable processes are automated to save time, and employees explore new areas they didn’t think were accessible to them (e.g., marketing or product development). There are no silos, only results to be achieved together.
Image source: pixabay.com
Why is it difficult to select candidates, whether internal or external? Why do we find it challenging to discuss the criteria for performance evaluations?
Today, the question arose: Can professional and personal competencies be managed under a single umbrella, or do they differ? And indeed...
Professional competencies are the knowledge, skills, abilities, and behavioral traits required to perform a specific job role. In other words, they represent the totality of suitability criteria for the position.
Personal competencies, which include similar elements of knowledge, skills, abilities, and behavior, support alignment with the company's culture. They facilitate smooth collaboration with both internal and external clients, enhancing efficiency and effectiveness, and overall success.
For example, communication is considered a professional competency for roles like educators, trainers, salespeople, coaches, and bird song researchers. However, communication might be regarded as a personal competency in roles such as auditors, engineers, technicians, or astronauts.
Image source: pixabay.com
If we examine this under a "microscope" and ask employees the reverse question—what performance metrics they directly influence or impact—we find that:
- Employees in the same role respond according to the web of the left-side diagram, meaning that as many as there are employees, there are that many different perceptions of their own impact.
- Comparing this with the management's view of the same role's impact (right-side diagram), we obtain a completely different set of pictures.
It’s hard to believe that tools like performance evaluations and attempts to motivate, engage, and retain employees can truly be effective if role interpretation and commitment can vary so widely.
Unless the company conducts this self-examination, every spoken word, every sentence uttered, and every lived dialogue will merely reinforce the existing individual perceptions of themselves, others, and their leaders. Without order in this, they will not achieve their goals.
There are about 40 companies where we have conducted this analysis and the accompanying development.
An additional result is that employees felt personally responsible for ¾ of all metrics in their companies.
Just imagine the relief we can provide if we actually assign only 3-4 metrics to them—metrics over which they genuinely have an impact.
And think of the sense of achievement we offer when, not only do we let them focus on what matters, but leadership also communicates their expectations clearly!
Image source: companifying.com
A global company's trainer once irritated me by saying that they don't care about test results and have no interest in what tests new hires undergo.
This made me think of the following game: with tests, we can show where someone is stronger or weaker, what doesn't need to be taught anymore, and what needs to be emphasized.
Should the new hire be assigned to monotonous tasks where they excel, or perhaps be made an internal material handler? Should they be rotated because they perform better that way, or should they stay on one operation because it takes them a long time to adjust to new tasks?
Meanwhile, there are companies where the HR department locks away this information. Whether the candidate is a "star," "triangle," or "rhombus" shaped, the manager or trainer still treats them as a "square." They place them in the "new employee" box and then wonder what lies within and how to bring it out.
Of course, the type of test varies... What interests the manager or trainer is how the person works. This is what they probe by measuring adherence to the learning curve, deciding which machine, route, or client to assign them to. It's not easy to figure out how to handle "how assertive their communication is" or "whether their internal motivation is high or low."
The good news is that for every one of these frustrating cases, there are at least 15 professionals who care. The consultants and employees conducting the tests don’t just hand over the results; they integrate them into existing processes—training, performance management, career development—because otherwise, what could be the foundation for the new hire’s corporate future and collaboration becomes disposable and discarded.
Image source: magocboxjatek.hu
Decision Tree - When We Don’t Use Test Results for Just Light Switching
The number of our partners who review and adapt their incentive and retention systems based on test results is steadily increasing. This includes those who base their internal communication and leadership behavior on these results, using them far beyond simply determining whether a candidate receives a red or green light.
The results are structured like a decision tree, with roots, a trunk, and branches.
We don’t create a profile of the candidate; instead, we proceed step by step, examining whether the leader is ready to handle the necessary adjustments, provide the required supervision, and offer the needed support. We also look at whether the candidate seeks a short- or long-term psychological contract as an employee, and whether the company can currently meet these conditions or if adjustments to the benefits or communication systems are needed.
Moreover, we consider how much the candidate values teamwork. Does the candidate support their work with team collaboration, work within a group, or prefer solitary work? Even in challenging times, we can find the best form of group support for everyone.
Some may get a pizza delivery; others might receive an invitation to a fun online challenge.
Another decision tree might involve evaluating monotony tolerance: if it’s high, they go to one operation; if not, they go to another. In the next step, if we find they have good monotony tolerance and enjoy moving between tasks, they will be placed where rotations occur within shifts. If they don’t enjoy this, they will be assigned to a specific operation.
Asking the right questions yields appropriate answers.
If this approach continues, the "no tests here" job advertisement slogan might gradually be replaced with "come to us, because we test to work 'tailor-made' for you," similar to how universities select the most suitable mentor and supportive group for their students during admissions.
There is indeed a difference in candidates’ settings and competencies, which is why well-functioning workplaces operate so effectively. They see opportunity and creative energy in diversity, recognizing the need for different types of people—those who observe, those who inform, and those who calculate.
Let’s climb that tree.
Image source: pixabay.com
"We do it with mirrors"… it wasn't short, but it certainly wasn't simple either.
Discussing the test results, I often hear, "Well, it hit the mark, psychologist," and not infrequently, "I didn't know that about myself," or even, "I don't think I'm like that." I've pondered what might be behind this, because when a diagnosis needs to be made, no one offers an opinion on the expert's assessment.
It’s only when participating as a candidate or in internal surveys—when it’s about daily operations—that agreement or disagreement comes up. Whether the test results accurately interpret the answers or whether there are doubts based on the outcomes "revealed" by the responses.
Here’s what I’ve concluded; perhaps it will be useful to many regarding interviews and testing. I’m writing it down here first and am curious about what supports it and what goes against it.
We acquire skills and knowledge at various levels, related to our work, our lives outside of work, and our hobbies. We use these skills when we work, shop, cook, go on vacation, or assemble a model railway, in other words, whenever we act or engage in activities.
But this isn't "empty" action; the very process of action evokes emotions and provides experience—whether it’s difficult, easy, or "too much work for us." We might remember to pay better attention during a YouTube video or a past lesson. We struggle after the third failed glue attempt, or we give up on the whole thing because we can't find the glue... or perhaps because it’s important to us, we promised someone important to us, or it’s necessary because if we don’t fix it, it won’t work anymore.
So, we gain an experience—the feeling of our difficulties, what comes easily, what genuinely interests us, and what we only thought would keep us engaged.
Then comes the reflection—the output, the result, how we interpret things for ourselves. Was it a success or failure? Was it a duty or indifferent? Later, "everyone adds their own seasoning, it’s not my favorite anyway."
And then come the questionnaires, the interview questions: "What did I feel when I did something? When I experienced it, what was it like for me? How do I judge it? Do I agree, and to what extent?"
The person taking the test has three options:
1. To indicate that yes, it was like that, no, it wasn’t, but they still feel the absence of other questions because it can’t be that simple; there was much more that couldn’t be fully expressed with simple yeses, nos, or perhaps a question mark.
2. To interpret their own interpretation—they know what they felt but don’t underline it as yes, it was like that, because of how it would come across.
3. To politely mark the obvious—"Why unnecessarily upset the evaluators?"
All this while, from the perspective of the interviewer or evaluator, there’s a "profile" that they use to interpret the applicant’s interpreted experiences.
What did I conclude from this? It’s pointless to measure abilities if we don’t know if they will be used. We can ask about experiences, but we must understand how the question or situation influences the available responses.
I see a magical possibility if we can simultaneously and directly measure both the personal experience of the action and its interpretation.
This reveals where someone needs support and where they are independent, whether they are seeking success or avoiding failure, which tasks they will succeed in, and which they won’t.
From how they work, we can learn everything; from how they talk about "working," only their interpretation.
An additional note: when speaking with partners who use action-based tasks, even after two or three years, they still say, "I have the tests filled out," even though they know well that one must work and act, not just answer questions. They interpret it this way—if it’s a test, then it’s about filling it out.
Image source: pixabay.com
I accidentally came across this - heart-stopping - illustration. It strikingly expresses how we search for and evaluate qualities in employees during selection and development. We look for what happens within them, in their souls, what stirs in their thoughts, and what they might not even be aware of or find difficult to articulate. We try to peek inside and draw conclusions, making assumptions that later prove to be accurate or mistaken based on what we see.
Knowledge resides in the hands, and motivation is also in the legs. Just as empathy truly manifests in action, the power of persuasion is felt on our skin. Risk-taking doesn't start with speeding in a race car, but with assessing whether we can complete a task correctly within a given time frame.
An employee's work performance, pace, accuracy, perseverance, and reliability quickly become evident to their colleagues.
When we have the opportunity and the tools, why do we not use them in the selection process—to measure what the employee does and how they do it, rather than whether our preconceived notions about them "work out" or not?
Image source: fischerandpartners blog
In analyzing the employment difficulties faced by the champion of deep-sea diving, it was suggested that a lack of emotional intelligence might be one reason for the failures in interviews. Direct, brief, and matter-of-fact responses to questions, the invisibility of any intent to make a good impression, and the absence of signs of cooperation with the interviewer’s "wavelength changes" were among the issues raised.
However, how is this possible, considering that on the other hand, there is an outstanding performance, a celebrated champion who is hard to match?
If we consider emotional intelligence as a factor that aids performance and problem-solving, then the question should revolve more around the "quality" of the performance. In other words, how true is the assumption that there are activities or professions in which the lack or low level of emotional intelligence is a critical factor contributing to success?
What if, instead of examining the level of emotional intelligence based on traditional criteria like age, gender, or educational background, we analyze it by activity groups?
To check this, we assembled a group of six exceptionally successful individuals in their respective fields for the first sample survey. In questions related to knowledge about personal emotions, others' emotions, and emotions experienced together with others, salespeople performed the best. The second was the group of psychologists, with teachers and mothers of many children tied in the middle, followed by auditors, and finally, elite athletes.
Since the first measurements in 2003, hundreds of results have been collected, confirming that if the emotional load of an activity or job is higher or lower than the employee’s emotional intelligence, it can more easily lead to burnout or unhealthy stress levels. Despite this, we measure and utilize it less frequently.
Of course, it might not even be necessary to measure it with self-descriptive, almost personality-questionnaire-like tools, as their results only suggest that high scores are good, and low scores are bad.
Image source: pixabay.com
We "discovered" the repertoire that falls between soft and hard skills when we transitioned three traditional instrument-based tasks to an online platform.
During in-person measurements, everyone was engaged—pressing buttons, searching for specified figures, and drawing diagrams—some with more enthusiasm, others with less. They utilized the allotted time to complete the tasks.
However, the online results revealed a different pattern. In tasks lasting 4 to 9 minutes, some participants would work a little at the beginning, again in the middle, and once more at the end, but in between, they did nothing. They knew the system was recording something since they were working on a computer in a selection process.
This observation has several interesting implications, but the most important one for us is that in these online tasks, candidates or employees are more likely to meet the performance expectations they set for themselves rather than those set by the evaluators or the situation. They don't compare themselves to others—if they see others progressing faster, it might prompt them to speed up, but here, they set their own pace, decide how many tasks to complete, and determine the quality of their work.
It's similar to working alone with SAP, strategic planning tools, or CNC machines.
As Kelly (1955) puts it, "tasks serve to measure individuals, not the constructs of psychologists." This refers to something that cannot be uncovered through interviews, ability tests, or personality tests, as these only reveal what the interviewer is curious about, but not what's truly inside.
Image source: pixabay.com
We tested the Kelly Repertory Grid method in satisfaction surveys, and it works exceptionally well in three dimensions: personal opinion, how satisfied the respondent believes others are, and where they position the employer brand in the labor market.
The subsequent decisions go far beyond painting dressing rooms or offices, or replacing phones...
This is a fascinating tool.
Image source: pixabay.com
We were preparing to enter the emerging service market as work and organizational psychologists. The publication date was 1989, and the article was titled "Some Experiences in Computer Modeling of Accident Situations."
The computer used was a Commodore 64.
The results were groundbreaking not only in accident research but also in saving lives. At that time, the number of fatal accidents was reduced from 10-12 per year to zero within a year. Since then, the factories that applied our measurements have continued to maintain this achievement
Image source: *Hungarian Psychological Review*, 1989/4
Thanks to the Onlife Conference, we published insights on why the traditional "wave" model of management is no longer valid.
We explored how a business model is only effective if supported by a financial model.
Finally, we delved into the connection between a butterfly's wing flap in China and the evolution of KPI values.
Image source: 21-re lapot - Onlife Conference
The introduction of the 8-hour workday gave people enough free time, and the regular, predictable income it provided gave them enough money to bring the entertainment industry to life, boost its growth, and continuously push for enhanced experiences.
Could the current extent of remote work bring about a similar level of change? And in what ways?
It is still unclear whether the current state of home delivery, online commerce, and entertainment is driven by necessity, solidarity, or genuine market demand. However, it would be fascinating to witness a breakthrough similar to the emergence of cinemas, restaurants, and amusement parks—just because the way we work is changing.
Image source: pixabay.com
Through our involvement in selecting nearly 100 companies, we've consistently observed that only about 15-20% of job tasks are critical for success. The remaining tasks can be effectively managed by anyone with the appropriate qualifications and experience.
This is why assessments that focus on these critical tasks for job performance are so effective, even when they involve specific measurements (such as spatial awareness for forklift or crane operators, or monotony tolerance on assembly lines).
It also explains why those who oppose personality profiling have a point—knowing a candidate's general behavior type adds very little value. What really matters is how they will behave, make decisions, or communicate in situations that are critical for success.
I should have written this a long time ago...
Image source: pixabay.com
When job descriptions start to multiply like this, we often see labels like Job ABC I, Job ABC II, and so on. One of our clients even had numbering that went up to XIII.
Each person in the same role ends up with their own job description, with only slight variations of a sentence or two. The excessive number of individual agreements that underlie this multitude of job descriptions is often a tool for "wooing" talent. However, it's not uncommon for a leader to use these to highlight the importance of their own organizational unit.
One thing we’ve observed—when there are so many job descriptions, employees find the paths for internal career growth unclear. They perceive the distribution of salary increases as illogical and therefore unfair.
An effective solution isn’t just a transparent and objective job classification system but also ensuring that leaders understand the system and are actively involved in its development.
No matter how sophisticated the tools like Hay (Korn Ferry) or Mercer may be, they are of little use if they remain confined to HR.
Image source: pixabay.com
Whether in servitude or of princely rank, heroes in tales have always had to endure at least three trials, each one harder than the last. The notion that "only one can remain" has been with us since the dawn of time when it comes to selection.
As we prepare for a lecture on tests, we find ourselves in the midst of a series of articles examining the validity of various selection methodologies. This post was born out of that ongoing analysis.
Historically reviewing tests, one can see that the emergence of different methodologies has mirrored social, technological, and economic changes.
Mass education brought Binet's IQ test to life. The world wars led to the emergence and widespread application of assessment centers (ACs), while the industrial revolutions spurred the development of various skill measurements (a trend that continues in IT today). The need to increase efficiency led to the creation of tools like Maslow and McClelland's motivational tests, and Belbin's team roles.
From this perspective, one might even agree with test critics. Nowadays, the question regarding selection tools isn't so much about what challenges—what tests—should be used to challenge applicants, but rather about what kinds of challenges we should create. Essentially, where are the methodologies that provide reliable answers to today's questions?
In a wartime environment, the protection of an individual's privacy could be overridden by the need to improve survival chances. When overproduction aimed at boosting consumption, it seemed like a sound strategy to reward employees for higher achievements, turning them into the engines of this consumption spiral.
The path of hiring every applicant without discernment is incredibly costly. But as for what will be the most effective selection tools in the very near future, we hope the reason they are not yet widely visible is simply that they are still undergoing validation. This ensures they can provide solid answers to today's pressing questions.
Image source: [http://arukereso.hu/.../lany-es-sarkany-1000-db-os.../15/
Are both the test-deniers and the test-supporters equally right?
It's challenging—almost a hopeless endeavor—to share thoughts on work psychology tests, as the topic often provokes strong—and sometimes justified—negative reactions from most readers.
In my experience, the two opposing camps don't understand the term "test" in the same way, even though both sides agree on the principle of "the right person in the right place." This can be explained by the dual-pole development of work psychology.
In the market and business environment, even from the early days (Taylor, Gilbreth), the focus was on increasing efficiency by assessing employees' abilities, willingness, and motivation. These tests are either "exam-like" or self-descriptive questionnaires, showing how closely or differently someone aligns with an "ideal" profile. Searching for and selecting "the best," those whose results closely match the profile, raises serious discrimination issues, which test-deniers rightfully criticize as these tests indeed encourage competition and the formation of value judgments by those who use them.
The other pole was the full-employment labor market, where the goal wasn't to find "the best" but to ensure that the employee didn't endanger their own or their colleagues' safety or cause damage to tools or products.
These tests, rather than measuring performance or capability, assess which work-related factors (the nature and content of tasks) overwhelm employees to the point that it could negatively impact their well-being and, yes, even their performance. These methods (like the Perception Meter shown in the image) serve as a defense line for maintaining physical and mental health. These measurements are merely tools to observe what behaviors a person chooses and what decisions they make in performance-related or dangerous situations.
The two poles only met during the World Wars when large masses of people with very different levels of education and (work) experience had to be protected from serious injury or even death. The goal then was not to increase efficiency but to ensure survival.
Image source: PsyOn Laboratory PR Meter
I find myself needing to explain more and more often that work psychology is a legitimate field of study with living representatives, and it is still taught at universities.
I feel that we have "blended in" with the multitude of consultants supporting HR processes and leaders, making it difficult for us to find our own identity.
The view held by many that the work psychology of the 21st century is primarily shaped by keeping pace with technological development or examining its impact limits our possibilities.
However, our opportunities are vast—the flourishing of business models (Osterwalder, Business Model Canvas, 2000s) has opened new doors for employment models and, consequently, individual career paths. Employees enjoy much greater freedom in deciding how much and when they want to work than ever before.
In the past 20 years, employees have been more active and direct contributors to a company's financial performance and efficiency than ever; the nature of the relationship between employer and employee—once strictly hierarchical—has fundamentally changed compared to the previous century. Tests and action-based simulations have shown that, alongside skills and personality, we can measure the decisions employees make regarding their own performance-related behaviors.
These three aspects alone would be enough to open new directions for work psychology, allowing it to step out of the shadows of HR and management science and return to where it originally belonged: supporting the collaboration between companies and employees in the world of work.
Image source: Pixabay.com
The current research from KRTK (linked below) not only confirms the results of our study conducted in 1999-2000 with nearly 2000 participants proven to be involved in corruption, but also its practical implications.
Our LPO, a questionnaire measuring ethical maturity based on this research, not only identifies "opportunity-born fraudsters," but also demonstrates the tools we can use to reduce the personal risks arising from the "situations that arise" mentioned in the article, as well as the number of such situations.
Our experience also shows that ethically neutral situations are exploited by fraudsters for their own gain, but only if we provide the opportunity.
Alongside "opportunity makes a thief," we would add, "better to be afraid than to be surprised."
Source: https://www.portfolio.hu/krtk/20241026/alkalom-szuli-a-tolvajt-718679
Image source: KRTK Blog
In the gray market of the 1990s, an oil distributor was looking for gas station lessees who would operate them as independent businesses. This operational model, however, led to the early failure of candidates who matched the "ideal" profiles set by traditional competence and personality tests.
After meeting with ten long-standing, successful lessees, I was certain that their diversity couldn't be captured by tests, so we decided to approach it from a different angle. I asked sales managers to share situations where they felt an uneasy, gut reaction — the feeling that something was off or inappropriate, potentially jeopardizing a lessee's success.
Seven such scenarios emerged, perfectly illustrating why the company sought lessees, not employees, for these roles. Success in this position meant recognizing that in the market, a business had to operate in shades of gray, if not black, for both survival and profit, yet had to appear entirely "white" to the parent company, adhering strictly to every rule.
Personality tests, which measure on a factor scale, allow only one score to be recorded — honest (white) or not (gray). Average results provided no meaningful insight. Since the tests measured below the required level for success, they didn’t work; true success was determined by the ability to judge these situations, followed by the ability to evaluate the "correctness" of responses.
In these seven scenarios, we standardized the responses from successful lessees and assessed applicants accordingly. To this day, I don't fully understand the reasoning behind why each successful lessee would offer a parking attendant 200 forints to allow quick, unpaid parking rather than paying the full 500 forints for an hour. But that was their shared approach.
The most interesting result came when a sales manager signed a contract with a candidate who answered each situation differently than the successful lessees had. The manager said he understood he’d have to teach the candidate everything and was confident he could.
This was the first time I realized that a manager might choose a candidate based on their own future behavior if they have complete information on what the candidate is taking on — meaning our assessments provided genuine decision support.
It was equally important to recognize that without an understanding of the company's operation (since it was never explicitly stated that gray market behavior was not only overlooked but also expected for business success, while complete compliance was demanded toward the parent company), our assessments were futile.
One more takeaway emerged, which would have long-term implications: success wasn't indicated by 360-degree evaluations, but by financial results. This idea — though just a thought at the time — would resurface multiple times over the years.
Image source: Pixabay.com
Insights from Assessing 300 People: Measuring Collaboration with Numbers
In a short time, we had to "replicate" the culture of a distinctly characterized retail company as a new store was about to open.
Many different team members participated in the assessment centers (ACs), and preparing evaluators – even with the simplest competency framework – was a mission impossible.
Fortunately, it wasn’t necessary; success wasn’t about ticking off competencies but rather about embodying an attitude of equality and cooperation.
The AC task was simple and collaborative, and the evaluators’ role was just to note on the registration form (click on the image) what they observed each candidate doing.
At the end of the 20-minute task, the distribution of marks spoke volumes, as did the candidates' level of activity. The evaluators’ job was easy – there were no late-night debates, no need for justifications. We all saw that if marks gravitated towards the center, the candidate demonstrated the culture that the company stands for.
Here, what mattered wasn’t why a candidate chose a particular way of collaborating, but rather how well their overall behavior reflected the company’s values of effective cooperation.
Image source: Pixabay.com ACRegistration.pdf
The facelift of questionnaires around 60 years old reveals much more about those filling them out than a simple competency profile.
Together with our Mexican partner, we used item validation to 'cleanse' outdated items from the Terman, Raven, Kostick, Gordon, LIFO, Barsit, and Cleaver questionnaires.
The item validation was conducted on samples of between 2,000 and 10,000, depending on the available data for each questionnaire.
We validated the questionnaires with 132 employees of our partner company. First, they completed the shorter (20–25 minutes) version online, then the original, longer version (1.5–2 hours).
The correlation between the two results was 0.8, but even more significant results emerged when we asked about their test preferences:
The group that preferred the longer version felt that they would be ready for an even longer assessment, even though it was already lengthy, to provide as much information about themselves as possible for a highly accurate evaluation.
Those who preferred the shorter version emphasized their decision-making efficiency; they had less time to second-guess their initial responses and felt this helped them.
Another point they made was that if they had to complete questionnaires, the assessment should be quick and efficient, taking as little time as possible, thus treating the assessment operationally.
Despite the item wording being the same in both versions, as we kept the original, author-validated formulations, each group felt that the items in their preferred version were more accurately and clearly phrased.
Those who preferred the shorter version scored higher in the competencies of
while they showed lower scores in the competencies of
The preference for the questionnaire (tool) indicated a cultural difference between the two groups – those who preferred the longer questionnaire leaned more toward a 20th-century mindset, while those who preferred the shorter version were more aligned with current corporate culture.
Another interesting result was that the participants from different generations (Baby Boomers, Generation X and Y, Millennials) were equally represented and distributed proportionately within each group’s preference for the two versions.
Image source: Unsplash.com