Perception is Fundamental

We often talk as though perception - and the possibility that a particular person's perception of reality is somewhat distorted - is some kind of anomaly. All right-thinking people see things as they really are.

The truth is a little different. The clients we do recruitment work for sometimes get a little spooked by the way in which behaviours we have predicted (purely on the basis of that person's answers to the Birkman Questionnaire) turn up in real life even though there was no sign of them at interview*. How did we know?

(At this point, please feel free to imagine Mr Bean saying "mmmmagic!")

Actually, no magic involved. Measure how someone sees their self and how they see and understand the world, and you have a far more accurate guide to how they will behave than anything they could possibly tell you about their own behaviour (even if they are doing their utmost to answer truthfully).

The reason for this is that we each have a pretty much unique combination of perceptions which, far from being anomalous, are the most powerful determinants of our behaviour. Nor are they pathological; actually, the best any of us can ever be is likely to be an expression of our behaviour when everything is lining up for us with our fundamental perceptual biases. If I think the world is a place where people need permission just to get on with the job, then I will shine when that is in place for me. If I believe that people need individual support, then my best is likely to be seen when I know I am getting support as an individual.

So beware of absolutes in the realm of organisational development and performance. There simply isn't one approach to OD or management or performance which fits all. You need to know how your people see the world in order to get the best out of them.

*We have developed an approach where we use the data coming out of the Birkman Questionnaire to develop a tailored set of interview questions (often supplementary questions) which are amazingly powerful in surfacing evidence of these predicted behaviours, positive and otherwise. Some things are better seen at interview than after they join your business...

Evidence is better than Hypothesis

This one is for Benji, who endlessly asks me why I haven't posted since December!

Title is a deliberate wind-up - kind of. Actually there is a serious point, which I will illustrate using the Birkman Method®, the core tool in Elaura's armoury.

People often ask what psychological or even psycho-analytical construct underlies the Birkman. Answer - none. Unlike the plethora of tools which are based around - usually - some form of Jungian analysis, the Birkman is an evidence-based tool. That is to say, Dr Birkman's original research involved asking individuals to describe themselves and others, and then comparing that data with what the people who knew that individual best said about them. Not surprisingly, there was a gap between an individual's self-perception and what those who knew them said; but the gaps themselves had definite structure, which was the first step in developing the Birkman into the powerful tool it is today. This referencing of self-reported information against actual performance has been a feature of all subsequent development of the Birkman as well, and has turned out to have enormous predictive power.

A simple example. There is a Birkman scale called Public Contact. In fact the upper end of the scale is called Public Contact, the lower end Detail. People who come out as strongly oriented towards Public Contact are those who love communicating and interacting with people - including the general public - in ways which mean they have to field questions without notice and think on their feet. Conversely, those who come out strongly orientated towards Detail are those who may still be willing to communicate with the public, but for whom crossing all the "t"s and dotting all the "i"s first is absolutely critical. These are people who are not willing just to wing it.

Bring on two subjects. One is an internationally renowned public speaker; a man who could probably read the Yellow Pages to a crowd and change their lives in the process. The other is part of a senior management team at a local authority, responsible for all their media contact and in particular for selling the authority's story and successes to their constituency.

So what are their Public Contact - Detail scores?

If you answered High Public Contact, Low Detail for either, you have demonstrated exactly why evidence is a better starting point than stereotypical thinking masquerading as hypothesis. In fact, both are Low Public Contact, High Detail. Once you look at the data, it is much easier to arrive at a robust hypothesis. The Media Officer is OF COURSE responsible for thinking through the impact of every minor press release before it goes out; she knows it is no good winning a small cheap victory in one area which then gets the Authority into hot water in another. Likewise, once we know the renowned public speaker has this pattern of scores, we start to notice the way he practices new material and tries it out endlessly on friendly audiences before launching out to the wider public, and how those who travel with him can tell his stories word perfect - BECAUSE HE is WORD PERFECT too. Does he handle questions without notice? Yes - by turning them around into questions for which he is confident of the answers.

It is easy to understand why we would assume that a fluent Public Speaker or an outgoing Media Officer would be someone who was happy to think on their feet; but that isn't hypothesis, it is just a bad guess. Finding out what really makes for specific success is far more interesting - and useful - than just guessing. Or at least, that's my hypothesis...

Christmas in the Sun

No more posts until after New Year - off with the family to my native heath down under. Have a great Christmas...

Spending Pennies to Save Fortunes...

One feature of corporate life which never fails to fascinate - and deeply depress - me is why so many companies would rather accept the very high probability of a huge loss than make a definite decision to spend a small amount to reduce that risk.

Years ago I was involved in looking at the financial data across MNCs of the costs of failed expatriate assignments - in other words, what it cost if you sent executive X and his family to work in another country and it didn't work out. Even 15 years ago, the average cost of such a failure was around US$150k - and the likelihood of such a failure was better than one in two. Simple training for the executive and his family which was shown to reduce the risk of such failure by (from memory) around 85% cost on average around US$1500 - and many MNCs wouldn't spend that money, EVEN when confronted with the data.

Maybe times have changed in cross-cultural training; there is certainly better awareness of the issues now in MNCs (if not in all of their smaller brethren). But before you sit too comfortably, forget the cross-cultural aspect and think about a much simpler scenario: how much are you spending to determine whether new hires are likely to stay with you long enough to become productive?

Why not work out the cost to you, in time and money, of going through a recruitment exercise and then losing or letting go the person in the first six months? Direct costs in such a case are normally held to be 75-100% of annual salary, opportunity costs comprise lost time (normally the time the person was with you plus three months) and what you could have earned through their work if they had been suitable (which is where this gets more situational). As a guideline, a failed recruitment in a fairly junior position earning no more than £12k could be costing you in the region of £25-30k in direct and opportunity costs. The multiple only increases with more senior positions.

Testing for role suitability and cultural fit, anyone?

Not your typical accountant...

Finding the right person for a specific role could be a lot different from finding someone who is typical of those who are most successful in that kind of role.

Que?

You can build a very accurate composite profile of the behavioural traits and operational perspectives common to those who are very successful in a clearly defined role - for example, accountants. The profile is that of "highly successful accountants". You will be able to find job candidates who closely map onto that profile. If your brief is to find the person most likely to succeed as an accountant, then start with the top three matches for your accountant profile.

But...

How often is that the real brief? You are actually looking for someone who will work well within a specific culture or with the members of a specific team; or who will bring some fresh perspectives; or who has potential to grow into a more senior role; or whatever. Just throwing your most typical accountant (or sales manager or consultant or mechanic) into the role may give you a great accountant - who absolutely fails to perform in this specific appointment.

That's why I try to encourage individuals in workshops who have great track record in a particular set of career roles and yet turn out to be absolutely atypical of their peers. The fact that you are atypical for the role means that you most likely bring to each post some atypical strengths for that role - strengths which your organisation couldn't access by appointing just any old accountant / sales manager / consultant / mechanic.

When you identify those atypical strengths and understand how they play in your role, you have probably identified the USPs that mean you are "not just your typical accountant..."