Organizational Diseases

By Chloe Lemelle

Have you ever had this thought come through your mind…? ‘Bob’s constant negativity is draining and de-motivating to everyone. My company would be a much better place to work if he wasn’t here...’ Or how about this one…? ‘Sue is the only thing about my job that I don’t really like. Her overly critical attitude gets on my last nerve.’ These Bobs and Sues are what I like to call organizational diseases. They are the type of people that basically come into organizations and infect people. No one wants to get caught in their wrath and people are somewhat sickened by their presence. In essence, these organizational diseases can take a person who is otherwise satisfied and what I like to call organizationally healthy and make them unhappy and organizationally fevered. The more influential they are, the worse the disease becomes. In fact, these diseases can be more like a plague or an organizational pandemic that permeates throughout the entire organization and corrupts everything in their path. So, why are so many organizations fraught with these organizational diseases?

Here’s the thing. Oftentimes these organizational diseases gain clearance into the organization, because they are not detected at the outset. They are typically people who are good at what they do and capable of performing the job. That’s why they get hired. Their bearing on other people and subsequent infestation has little to do with whether or not they will get the job. So then, is a person who is really good at their job, yet noxious to those around them truly a good hire? If a person is causing other highly qualified people to feel less satisfied and potentially leave the organization, then aren’t they more detrimental than effective? If only there was a vaccine to screen and prevent these organizational diseases from coming onboard… ah, the beauty of personality assessments.

HR "Fear of the New"

By Kim Hefley

Sometimes HR policy drives me crazy. It’s legalese based on fear rather than providing relevant guidelines. A recent article from SHRM on HR policy on social networking sites fell squarely in the “fear of new” category, and I’m frustrated with the out of touch advice. http://www.shrm.org/LegalIssues/FederalResources/Pages/BlurredLines.aspx

The article warned HR managers on the dangers of Linked In recommendations, and encouraged policies prohibiting managers from posting recommendations on networking sites. Supervisors should not be allowed to provide informal comments on Linked In, because they “may cause a lot of problems.” Supervisors should stick strictly to the company review! And by the way, we should remind supervisors to monitor work friends on Facebook for signs of harassment or discrimination.

Wow. I’m trying to imagine that discussion. I’m also trying to imagine the credibility of HR if we persist in this kind of antiquated outlook.

We want to hire smart and innovative employees. They look for jobs on these sites. They put more stock in what colleagues say about them voluntarily on their profile than the requisite “meets expectations” performance review. Linked In connections are the new version of the rolodex. That is the real world. It’s also one in which HR can take a leadership position. I see our clients using Twitter, Facebook and Linked In for recruitment and marketing. It’s working. Instead of trying to pigeon hole these sites into circa 1970’s HR policy, we can look at the possibilities these forums offer in finding and keeping the right people.

Jane's Epilogue

By Kevin Impelman

The business owner decides to go ahead and hire Jane. She works for 3 months and does a great job. Such a great job, in fact, that she is promoted to a manager position. In the meantime, the business owner has changed their policy on tattoos in the workplace which has significantly increased their recruiting pool. The business owner feels good about their decision.

One day, a customer comes in and complains about the service they received from an hourly employee. The customer asks to speak to the manager, and in walks Jane. When Jane explains she is the manager, the customer is appalled that this “young girl with the tattoo” can in fact be a manager. Upset by the experience, the customer walks out and doesn’t return. The business owner hears about the situation and immediately institutes a policy restricting management staff from having visible tattoos.

Is this a fair policy given the customer’s experience?

How many delighted customers need to outweigh alienated customers?

Do a few star employees compensate for a few upset customers?

If you can’t see your managers or directors with tattoos - why hire them at the hourly level?

Jane's tattoo

By Kevin Impelman

You're a business owner and you come across Jane who is an enthusiastic, hard working, and smart worker who has a lot of experience in your industry. Her application and resume look outstanding and everyone who has interviewed her has great things to say about her. As she stands up and turns around after her interview, you notice a tattoo on the back of her neck. Everything about her felt so right, but you have a strict policy about employees not having visible tattoos. She can't grow her hair out immediately, so what do you do??

I have had several conversations recently with clients who are running into this issue more often than they would like. Currently, 14 percent of people in the United States say they have a tattoo, however one-third (32%) of those ages 25-29 and one-quarter (25%) of those 30-39 have tattoos (Harris Interactive Poll, 2008). So managers and owners are having a much more difficult time staffing their businesses with this growing trend. I completely understand the necessity of promoting a "professional environment" and the dress code that supports that climate should certainly be determined by the business owner as it relates to the strategy. However, I think this all points to a larger issue.

As humans, we like to categorize people and group similar things together (even if they are not so similar). This helps us get through life easier. This helps us not run away from someone with a gun as long as they have a shiny badge and blue uniform. This also is the source of stereotypes and group bias. We make broader inferences and assumptions about someone from one small observation. So what does this have to do about Jane and her tattoo? Many hiring managers make assumptions about a person's work ethic, stability, and character based on their external appearance. When there are clear and reasonable standards about not having certain piercings or tattoos as they impact the customer experience, it makes sense to draw the line on acceptable appearance. However, when a hiring manager is clouded by their personal assumptions and biases when evaluating someone based on their external appearance, we get into problems.

I enjoy helping our clients build selection systems that drive their success and profitability, but I am also proud that we curb biases and assumptions in the hiring process for the candidates' sake. I am happy to see people being evaluated as individuals as it relates to the job as opposed to a just another group member. As a hiring manager, you should be evaluating one person - the candidate - not the candidate who had a similar tattoo as someone who quit, or the candidate who went to the same high school as someone who failed, or the candidate who came from the same company as someone who alienated their co-workers. You are evaluating one person and their fit to the job.

Maybe as we begin to incorporate a fairer, more objective way to evaluate people for their jobs we will eventually live in a nation where candidates will not be judged by the presence of a tattoo but by the content of their character. Maybe it's just a dream....

Can Peer Ratings Negatively Impact Performance Evaluations? Part 2 of 2

By Chloe Lemelle

As previously stated in Part 1, raters can bias their ratings by allowing personal feelings to interfere with the facts, thus making their ratings about a person less objective. It was also stated in Part 1 that peers succumb to these rating biases more often than managers. Why is this the case? Why are peers more susceptible to rating errors than managers?

One reason peers can easily fall prey to these rating errors is because they do not have as much experience as other rating sources, who often evaluate performance as part of their job duties. Managers or supervisors often go through training on how to best evaluate performance (or they should) and get plenty of experience rating performance, depending on the amount of people they manage. Peers, on the other hand, may not go through as much, if any, training before being asked to rate someone’s performance, which can lead them to make faulty judgments about performance or let outside factors influence their ratings.

While it seems like the purpose of this blog is to discredit peer ratings and discourage their use; that is not my intention. Previous research on the topic has shown that peer ratings are fairly reliable, valid, and favorably viewed when properly used[1]. My hope is to educate others on the possible pitfalls of using peer ratings and to provide some best practices around peer evaluations.

First of all, I think that peer ratings should be used predominantly for developmental purposes. When used for administrative purposes (i.e., promotions, raises, etc.), there is far more potential for leniency or severity biases, because a peer’s responses are so closely tied to a person’s livelihood. In essence, the peer knows that they have the power to make or break someone.

Secondly, in my opinion, performance evaluation forms should be based on measurable, objective standards of performance that are linked to competencies and based on job analysis data. It is important that when peers are rating performance, they are actually looking at specific, tangible behaviors, so that the potential for bias is lessened. For example, a behavior that states “makes good decisions” would fail the test of being specific and measurable. A better behavior could be “utilizes resources and multiple perspectives when making decisions.”

A third best practice when using peer ratings in a performance evaluation is to train peers before asking them to rate performance. Training should expose peers to possible biases and have them perform practice evaluations to gain experience.

[1] Cascio, W.F. & Aguinis, H. (2005). Applied Psychology in Human Resource Management. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Do More With Less – The Upside for Employees

By Heather Gipson

Wherever you work, you’ve surely heard rumblings or outward edicts about how your company is having to find ways to do more with less due to financial pressures. In fact, BHI continues to provide our clients with thought leadership and new innovations intended to help solve critical HR challenges and save money for our clients. With innovation comes progress in most cases, but it also means change.

As Pritchett and Pound put it in The Employee Handbook for Organizational Change, “The winds of change keep blowing harder. Hitting more people. Reshaping all kinds of organizations and altering how they operate.” Employees are faced with two choices…hunker down and wait for the storm to blow over (not going to happen), or reposition themselves so that the wind is at their backs sweeping them forward.

So what’s the upside for employees of organizations that are attempting to do more with less? What’s in it for you? Below are your top 5 opportunities:

1. Volunteer for special projects that are outside your normal job scope. You can broaden your exposure to other parts of the business and may find your own special niche.


2. Demonstrate flexible potential and get on-board with change. Prove your commitment to progress by re-tooling your skills, educating yourself further and opting up for new assignments.


3. Get out there and shine. If your company has recently done layoffs, then remember that fewer people means more spotlight action for you.


4. Play a key role and position yourself for the rebound. Lower operating costs and overhead may eventually translate into more earning potential when your company gets its groove back. So engage yourself in the work and help make the change a success.


5. Establish yourself as a change agent. You are in a position to influence others around you, so be bold. You might surprise yourself as to how effective you can be in supporting the organization’s progress.

No one ever said change is fun, but it certainly can be rewarding and it helps when the mission is clear. So this is your mission, should you choose to accept it. This message will self-destruct in five seconds.

Can Peer Ratings Negatively Impact Performance Evaluations? - Part 1 of 2

By Chloe Lemelle

When rating someone’s work performance, peers are often used to gather additional information outside of the supervisory rating. Multisource evaluations or 360 degree feedback systems usually incorporate peer ratings as one of their rating sources. Unfortunately, human tendencies to get along and get ahead can impair the objectivity of these raters. Competition, friendships, jealously, sympathy, envy, disdain, and attraction (just to name a few) may influence these ratings, thus creating biases and jeopardizing accuracy. Think about your peer group at your organization for a moment. Is there anyone who bothers you so much that you would love to sock it to them with a bad performance rating? Or, conversely, is there someone that you have a good relationship with and, therefore, you could not see yourself giving them an unsatisfactory rating? You can probably think of someone who falls into either of those categories, but chances are, you would swear that you would not let that affect your rating ability. However, interpersonal affect can significantly impact your judgment on a performance evaluation whether you know it or not.

Interpersonal affect, which describes your feelings toward a person (positive, negative, or neutral), can cause a person to either increase or decrease their ratings in comparison to their actual feelings. They may inflate their ratings if they have a favorable relationship with the ratee (which is known as the leniency bias), or they may give harsher ratings if they have a rocky relationship with the ratee (which is known as the severity bias). In a study conducted in 2001, researchers found that peers were actually more likely to commit these rating errors than supervisors. This is not to say that supervisors do not fall prey to these biases as well; it just states that peers commit rating errors at a higher degree than supervisors[1].

Please stay tuned for part two of this blog.



[1] Antonioni, D. & Park, H. (2001). The relationship between rater affect and three sources of 360-degree feedback ratings. Journal of Management, 27, 479-495