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

Restaurant Executive Speaks

By Lewis Hollweg

“Yeah, yeah, yeah. I have heard all of this before, Lewis. Of course, I believe that great service can be a competitive edge, especially these days but I am not sure you fully understand our current environment. Our managers are dealing with cost controls, new value priced menus, plus a number of other critical issues. I am concerned that one more initiative will bury them. Besides, our service for the most part is okay and we believe that value and cost are the main driving forces in today’s choice of restaurant…and unless you are giving your hourly selection systems away these days, there is the extra cost and we are watching every penny. Since employee selection is only part of the solution, I am not sure of the ROI. In my opinion, there have been a lot of extravagant claims by the selection vendors that have not been realized.”

The statements above are a paraphrase of a conversation I had with a senior leader in one of our long-term clients. The net net is a yes-but set of statements that moves great service down in importance.

So, let’s break out the comments and look at each one and the implications.

Executive: “Yeah, yeah, yeah, I have heard it all before.”

My Interpretation: This is the start of the rationalization of mediocre service.

Executive: “You don’t fully understand.”

My Interpretation: “Lewis, you lack the knowledge that we have so your view is discounted.”

Executive: “Our managers are dealing with cost controls, new value priced menus, plus a number of other critical issues. I am concerned that one more initiative will bury them.“

My Interpretation: “If they were not so busy with really important things, we could have better service.”

Executive: “Value and cost are the main driving forces in choice of restaurant.”

My Interpretation: Since it’s all about cost, service will not drive sales.

Executive: “There is the extra cost and we are watching every penny.

My Interpretation: “No way we are spending a significant amount of money on this lower priority.” (No price had been discussed)

Executive: “…not sure of the ROI.”

My Interpretation: “Since it is hard to calculate, I am going with my gut feel.”

Executive: “Extravagant claims by selection vendors that have not been realized.”

My Interpretation: A distrust generalization that supports his position. Unsure and unwilling to learn how to separate the good selection systems from the bad.

Conclusions:
Yes, the consumer environment has changed dramatically in the last 9-12 months. Price has become a bigger issue for many customers in the recession. However, if we take a longer view, it is likely that the “new reality” is another cycle that will change over time much like the “new economy” in the 90’s that melted down in 1999. Trends come and go.

One fundamental differentiator that has been consistent over many, many years and is well-documented is that excellent service has a known ROI for most restaurant and service based businesses. Restaurants, hotels, and retail companies have proven a direct relationship between customer satisfaction and sales per customer, sales per square foot of space, and increases in repeat business. What will be the value proposition of your company when everyone has cut prices to the lowest level?

The service-profit chain is alive and well even in the “new reality” of the consumer, although it may be temporarily discounted by the dramatic downturn in the economy. Fortunately or unfortunately, building a great service organization takes discipline, focus, and effort. Those who are successful at it will reap the rewards.

My recommendations are:
1) Make sure you are balancing the emphasis on price/value approach with service that is better than your competitors.
2) If your managers are too busy to hire the best service candidates and train them effectively, then you probably have selected and promoted the wrong people.
3) Great selection is not expensive. BHI is offering a “stimulus package” in its selection systems. Contact JMcFarland@batrushollweg.com before making a decision.
4) Let us show you how to understand the real ROI in selecting excellent service oriented team members. We offer a free tracking of improvement results with our selection services.

Validation

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”


- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

By Julie Geurin

In our conversations with clients, competitors, and vendor partners, we hear the term validation often. Unfortunately, what we don’t always hear is the term validation used correctly, even by other testing firms or individuals with backgrounds in assessments.

Validation is not a quick process. In order to effectively validate any assessment, it is critical that proper methodologies and guidelines are followed, and this is a process that requires significant commitment from the participating companies, not just the assessment provider. You can’t validate an assessment by having individuals currently in the role complete the assessment, then determining if you agree with the results. Assessments have to be evaluated in a way that accounts for all of the other factors that impact performance, as well as ensuring that what you are measuring is what the assessment is designed to predict.

Validity is not a number. And assessments are not foolproof. Beware of any firm that tells you they can come in and accurately predict 95% of your candidates’ future job performance or retention, or one that offers you an assessment with a .9 validity coefficient. No assessment can predict everything; for example, an assessment which predicts someone’s communication style will not necessarily predict overall performance (let alone tenure). Only when all the other factors have been considered and accounted for can you determine if the assessment is contributing to an increase in performance or tenure in your organization.

Bottom line. Not all assessments are great. But an established, well respected assessment company (not an IT company who throws in assessments for free), should have solid documentation which will put you at ease. And assessments always work best as part of a competency based, structured selection system.

Results-Oriented Leader or a Bully?

By Kevin Impelman

In a recent article in SHRM's HR Magazine, Tough Boss or Workplace Bully?, they cite several studies that place the prevalence of workplace bullying anywhere between 37-57% in the American workforce. Some research actually reports higher figures, but there are pretty good odds that you have worked for a "bully", know of a "bully", or you are one. Considering the ubiquity of workplace bullies, the author of this article sought to understand what separates a "bully" from just a "tough" boss.

She found that what distinguishes the two are that tough bosses are described as being performance focused, treating others fairly, and are oriented to the organization. Bullies, however, actively misuse their power and authority, promote their own self-interest over the organization, and are unfair or inconsistent in their treatment of others. The author concludes that what really separates bullying from just being tough on others is intent or malice. If a manager is intentionally provoking someone to cause distress then it would be considered "bullying". Tough bosses may be abrasive at times, but it is spread fairly across all employees and the intent is to drive organizational results.

I think the research to distinguish "bullies" from "tough" bosses is important and commendable. However, I find that individuals float between the two depending on the circumstance (e.g., under stress, a "tough" boss may be more abrasive than usual). I also believe that everyone has a different interpretation and threshold of what is "abusive". In order to prevent a difficult relationship from developing, leaders need to have good insight and a pulse on their team to ensure their behaviors are not interpreted to be overbearing or harsh.

I am frankly concerned that in the current economy where people are trying to do "more with less" and creating results is paramount, managers will be rewarded to achieve short term results regardless of how they get it. This mindset and practice will get the "tough" bosses AND "bullies" promoted (unless you follow the recommendations below). The highly skilled manipulators will continue to rise to the top, where their insidious behavior will become more public and even more dangerous to the company.

So what are you supposed to do about it?? Before hiring or promoting someone - do your due diligence. When evaluating potential to the next level, instead of just reviewing one's financial results, you may want to ask someone about how they got results. Consult their peers and subordinates to get a holistic view of the person instead of just consulting the balance sheet. Yes, people are subjective, and yes the balance sheet is factual, but leaders manage people - not numbers. People do the work, people engage others, people create long term results. People also experience stress, lose energy, slow productivity, and eventually leave a company - no wait, they leave their Boss. And when talent leaves your company - it does show up on the balance sheet.

If you're interested in this topic, I would encourage you to read more about recent studies on"Toxic Leadership" on SIOP's website. Feel free to comment on your own experiences with bullies.