Larry Gard, Ph.D. Consulting Psychologist

Last Minute Rejection

2011-10-17T11:06:00.000-05:00

The other day I was having breakfast with a friend of mine who is the head of HR for a global firm headquartered in Chicago. He commented that to his surprise and consternation, a number of highly qualified job candidates had changed their minds after accepting an offer from his firm.

This seems puzzling given today’s job market and the fact that in any economy and by any measure, this prestigious company would be an employer of choice. Two possible explanations come to mind:

1. Those candidates who are employed elsewhere might be concerned that if they leave their current employer and the new job doesn’t work out, they’ll find themselves unemployed in the midst of the worst economic downturn they’ve ever seen. Even if they’re dissatisfied with their current job they may opt to stick with the familiar rather than risk the unknown. If so, employers might want to ask themselves “how can we minimize the unknowns for the candidate?” At some point during the interview process, consider asking candidates the following questions:

“How can we help you get a clearer sense of what it will be like working here/being on this team/reporting to this person?”

“We want you to feel confident that you’ll thrive here. Is there anything about this opportunity that has you concerned?"

2. Some candidates advance through the interview process with a singular focus on getting the job without paying close enough attention to whether it’s the right job for them. Once the offer is in hand they’re forced to quickly assess whether or not it is truly what they want. Employers might want to ask themselves “how can we help candidates be honest with themselves – as early as possible in the process – about whether or not this is a good fit?" At some point during the interview process, consider asking candidates one or both of these questions:

“We want you to be sure that this position would be a good fit for you. How can we help you assess that?"

“Is there anything we can do (or any information we can provide) to help you make sure that this opportunity is right for you?”

Fear of the unknown, and failing to be honest with oneself – two all-too-human foibles that prevent candidates from making a good decision and sticking with it. Thoughtful questioning during the interview process can help mitigate the impact of these two factors and lessen the likelihood that a candidate will back out at the last minute.

County Executive As Change Agent

2011-09-21T08:29:00.001-05:00

I had the pleasure of attending a breakfast event where the keynote speaker was Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle. She has done a remarkable job in her first nine months in office, balancing a budget that was over $300 million in the red and pushing an intransigent County bureaucracy toward greater efficiency and effectiveness. I asked her “as a leader, what was your strategy for dealing with people who were resistant to change?” She replied that in a few select cases she had to let individuals go, but in most instances she was able to convince people that her proposed changes were in their best interest. She got them to recognize that if they delivered better services to their constituents, their own political stock would rise. Clearly Ms. Preckwinkle understands a basic principle of leadership that my colleague Dr. Mark Brenner often espouses: you can’t push a rope. Trying to impose change on a workforce simply by declaration or command is unlikely to produce good results. The best way to motivate people is to demonstrate, clearly and consistently, what’s in it for them. She has coupled this approach with a performance management system designed to hold people accountable. Ms. Preckwinkle impressed me as an incredibly thoughtful, talented executive. I wish her and her team continued success.

Employee Training? It's Not Always The Solution

2011-06-15T14:52:00.001-05:00

I'm frequently asked by companies to provide training on management and leadership topics; just as frequently I politely decline. Typically the request takes the form “can you do a presentation for our managers about conflict management/anger management/performance management", etc. The request is usually accompanied by a complaint about one or two managers who have been ineffective or behaving badly. So the knee-jerk response is to throw training dollars at the situation. Sorry, but you simply can’t rely on a workshop to train someone to be a better manager or leader. Training, particularly using a workshop format, is generally of little value when it comes to improving non-technical performance or bringing about complex behavior change. Adults learn differently than children do. No matter how much time and money is spent training people, we know that the best results are achieved when the participant is actively engaged at both the intellectual level and the emotional level. Hands-on, experiential based learning is typically much more effective than lectures, reading material, or videos. That’s why executive coaching is a more suitable option for dealing with poor management. The process requires face-to-face challenging discussions and real-time exercises – activities that are beyond the scope of a training workshop.

360-Degree Surveys: When Feedback Backfires

2011-05-15T15:39:00.000-05:00

360° surveys are widely used in business to provide candid feedback to key employees. They can be a powerful developmental tool, but to maximize their utility you need to use a well-crafted survey instrument. To avoid doing more harm than good, you should have a solid feedback process . . .

No psychological test can think for itself; the results have to be interpreted and the feedback has to be provided in a thoughtful, meaningful way that the individual can make use of. The same thing goes for 360's. The 360 might get a person's attention, but it's the feedback that helps move a person from point A to point B.

Most people readily accept feedback that's consistent with who they believe themselves to be. The challenge is to help them appreciate feedback that differs from how they see themselves. In situations like this, people don't always react very well, and in some cases they manifest significant psychological distress.

Kenneth Nowack is the author of an interesting article that appeared in the December 2009 edition of the Consulting Psychology Journal. He discussed research that reveals the possible risks and dangers of multi-rater feedback:

Some studies show that individuals can experience strong discouragement and frustration when multi-rater feedback is not as positive as they expected. In one study, managers who received a large number of negative comments reacted with a significant decline in their performance. In another study, managers who rated themselves higher than others had more negative reactions to the feedback process, had lower motivation to improve, and were significantly less likely to show improvement when they were reassessed.

Ratings between different rater groups aren't always consistent; direct reports, peers, and supervisors tend to have differing perspectives. These differences can be confusing to recipients. Without guidance, they may be unable to make sense of the discrepant results and they may be unsure how and where to focus their behavior change efforts.

Individuals with low self esteem (e.g. those who are depressed) tend to dwell on negative 360 ratings. By focusing so much on their perceived shortcomings, it makes it harder for them to make constructive use of positive elements in the 360° feedback. Conversely, those who think too highly of themselves don't always benefit from 360° feedback either.

Clearly, 360° feedback should be provided by a trained professional who is aware of these potential pitfalls. You can't just hand people their results, because the feedback can be interpreted in so many ways that aren't helpful. If improved performance is the goal, research shows that follow-up coaching sessions should also be provided to help individuals get the most out of the 360° experience.

As a psychologist, I'm used to helping people take a more brutally honest, genuine look at themselves. Call me at (312) 787-9620 if you'd like more information about getting the most from the 360° survey process.

If Human Nature Doesn't Change, Why Not Focus On What We Already Know?

2011-01-27T11:53:00.001-06:00

In 2011 I’d like to propose that we resist the temptation to chase the latest, greatest employee development and management trends. My friends, human nature has not changed in quite some time and yet so many of us are hypnotically drawn to whatever new workplace notion is touted at conferences and workshops. No matter if it’s untested, unproven, or even just repackaged jargon, if it’s hyped enough it becomes state-of-the-art or a best practice. Sadly we seem to be ignoring decades of behavioral science research about what makes people tick, in favor of slickly packaged presentations and webinars promising improved workplace performance.

In 2011, let’s leave alignment to our auto mechanic and engagement to couples in love. Instead let’s revisit established psychological concepts like motivation, reinforcement, and yes, even self-esteem. Let’s stop spinning our wheels, chasing our tails, and in many cases wasting time and money. We simply don’t need new concepts every year to describe or enhance human behavior in the workplace. Let’s take advantage of existing wisdom, of what is already known about human behavior.

Does Your Company Culture Promote the Wrong Kind of Confidence?

2010-11-08T13:17:00.000-06:00

Companies these days are pushing to make sure that their employees are engaged, enthused, and committed. It's a reasonable goal, but I'm seeing an unintended consequence of this drive to promote engagement. Corporate pride among employees is fine, but not when it leads to (or is accompanied by) individual arrogance. There seems to be an increase in self-important behavior on the part of too many individuals I've encountered lately. It's as if because they're proud to work for a well-regarded firm, they feel entitled to be haughty and disrespectful. Companies should take a moment to make sure that their employee engagement initiatives are not inadvertently sabotaging customer and vendor relationships.

The Kids Are Alright, Indeed!

2010-09-07T15:11:00.002-05:00

Last month I was at a gathering of human resource professionals where the conversation turned to workplace differences between 25, 35, and 45-year-olds. People in the crowd noted recent studies showing differences in the character of Millennial workers vs. those of Generation X and Y. One voice of dissent exclaimed, “I don’t like being labeled as a Millennial.” At last, some critical thinking has emerged!

For the past several years I’ve doubted consultants who have proclaimed that there are profound and important differences among the generations in the workplace. They cite survey research revealing generational differences in attitudes toward work, what motivates people, and so forth. I’ll acknowledge that there may be some differences among the generations, but I’m suspect of the research. Most of it is cross-sectional – a technique that simply compares different groups at a snapshot in time. It reminds me of some of the studies done on aging fifty years ago.

In the 1960’s as our older adult population began to expand, researchers on aging tried to identify the average, expectable changes that occur as people get older. Much of the existing research was cross-sectional; that is, different age groups were compared to one another at a point in time. In a typical study, thirty year olds, fifty year olds, and seventy year olds might be compared to each other on various measures (e.g. memory, reaction time, verbal fluency), and the differences among the groups were thought to reflect fairly universal age-related changes (“age-effects”). Thoughtful researchers recognized that these changes might not be quite so universal. They suspected that future groups of 70-year-olds might not experience the exact same changes. They believed that a different research methodology was needed, one that recognized that with each decade or so, there was a new “cohort” of 70-year-olds who had lived through different experiences than the 70-year-olds who came before them. They developed a far more sophisticated long-term research methodology (called "cross-sequential") that allowed them to tease out which changes were truly age-related and which were more likely due to cohort effects.

Unfortunately most of what has been said about Boomers vs. Generation X vs. Millennial’s in the workplace is based on simplistic cross-sectional research. Those who promote this pseudoscience have focused on “cohort effects” while ignoring age-effects and the impact of the labor market. I predict that within a few years we’ll see that much of what has been hyped as true, enduring, and meaningful differences between the generations of workers – will be found to be nothing of the sort.

What You See isn't Who You Hire

2010-07-03T14:45:00.004-05:00

Companies sometimes ask me to provide executive coaching to high-level individuals who don’t seem to be performing up to their potential. On more than one occasion the person’s supervisor has said “we were so impressed with this candidate during the interview process, but he/she has been a real disappointment.”

Candidates naturally try to sell themselves and this can indeed influence an interviewer’s perception and it can profoundly affect hiring decisions. A 2009 meta-analysis of studies conducted between 1929 and 2008 found that self-presentation tactics have a significant impact on interviewers’ ratings of candidates. Appearance (e.g. physical attractiveness, professional attire) had the strongest influence on hiring decisions, followed by impression management (e.g. self-promotion, ingratiation), and verbal/non verbal behavior (e.g. fluent speech, smiling). The analysis also showed that the less structured the interview, the stronger the impact made by self-presentation tactics.

When your business is hiring for key positions, it’s critical to make sure that what you see is what you ultimately get. Here are some things to consider:

Subconscious processes have been shown to have a significant impact on decision-maker evaluations. For example, social psychology experiments demonstrate that people use facial appearance as a basis for interpersonal judgments after as little as 100 microseconds of exposure. When interviewing someone, keep in mind that the applicant can trigger your pre-existing internal beliefs and attitudes about the “right type” of candidate. If this happens, you’re liable to overlook important flaws.

Be alert for instances in which the applicant shifts the focus from themselves onto you. Note whether these are appropriate or whether they reflect attempts to divert the discussion away from matters they’d prefer not to elaborate upon.

Use a structured interview conducted by telephone as an initial first step. Ask job-related behavioral questions, ask them in the same order with all candidates, and use a standardized scoring procedure.

Commitment to Sunk Costs - A Real Waste!

2010-03-21T15:26:00.004-05:00

For most business owners the current economic situation involves an extraordinary amount of uncertainty. Few of us want to rock the boat when the water is rough to begin with. Under the circumstances, we may prefer the devil we know to the one we don't. Humans typically prefer stability, even when change can be key to success. There are many reasons why leaders and managers cling to the status quo. A common reason involves an all-too-human insistence on seeing a strategy through to the end. When determining whether or not to change course (even when faced with disappointing results), people tend to place undue emphasis on prior costs. The greater the prior cost has been, the more likely it is that people will "stay the course." Consider this study by Arkes and Blumer (1985). Subjects were told the following:

"As the president of a company you have invested $10 million dollars of the company's money into a research project [a plane that cannot be detected by radar]. When the project is 90% completed, another firm begins marketing a competing plane that cannot be detected by radar. Also, it's apparent that their plane is much faster and far more economical than the plane your company is building. The question is: should you invest the last 10% of the research funds to finish your radar-blind plane?"

The authors found that 85% of the subjects in the study recommended finishing the airplane. However, another group, who was not told about the prior investment, overwhelmingly decided not to invest the money. For most people, making a prior investment (even though it was a mistake) becomes a justification for sticking to their guns. As Leahy (2001) succinctly put it, individuals often attempt to redeem themselves from sunk-costs by trying to make the unworkable finally work.

If you're finding it difficult to let go of a long-held yet disappointing strategy, consider bringing others (who aren't as committed to defending a lost cause) into your decision-making process.

Complainers, whiners, and other assorted entitled folks

2009-10-08T11:44:00.002-05:00

They lurk in every business large and small. They're never satisfied and quite often they can't even take "yes" for an answer. A growing trend these days is to attribute it to their generation. Pricey consultants exclaim that "the Millennials require A, B, and C in order to feel motivated" whereas "Gen-X'ers need Y and Z." Maybe the specific rewards that younger workers seek are indeed different, but human nature and the principles of reinforcement haven't changed. My grandfather ran a successful business not because he understood the needs of his younger workforce, but because he understood people. He knew how to listen when people complained, and he knew how to treat people fairly and consistently. He knew when employees were being unrealistic and he wasn't afraid to tell them. He also understood the significance and meaning of complaints. For example if the magnitude of the complaint was out-of-proportion to the offense, he recognized that there might be a deeper issue that was bothering the employee. Rather than getting sidetracked by an employee's dissatisfaction, he focused on restoring genuine mutual respect. That strategy will work with every generation.

Have a problem with one of your key people? Here are four tips:

2009-09-22T10:51:00.002-05:00

Be optimally self-aware of how your leadership style may be affecting the situation. Consider the case of an angry senior associate who felt that his career had stalled. He grew increasingly resentful as time passed and others were promoted ahead of him. The CEO (who never met a conflict he wouldn’t avoid) avoided speaking with him about the issue at every turn, which made matters considerably worse. The CEO didn’t recognize how his conflict-avoidant style was exacerbating the situation.

Think twice about using e-mail to communicate with the person. It’s true that e-mail can be more convenient, but e-mail is black and white whereas human interactions involve all shades of grey. No matter how well you write, it will be prone to misinterpretation particularly if tension already exists between the two of you. Stop and ask yourself honestly, “why am I communicating via e-mail instead of in-person?” If your answer involves your comfort level, chances are that unless and until you address whatever internal reservations you have your communication (whatever form it takes) will be less than helpful.

If the two of you have established a plan to alleviate the problem, be patient. It no doubt took the other person decades to become who they are. Substantive, sustainable behavior change isn’t going to take place in a matter of weeks. To put it into perspective, consider that a typical sales cycle can take 6 months or more. A decision-to-buy is a simple matter compared to changing complex behavior.

Don’t pin your hopes on training. You can train for certain skills, but you can’t train people to change or adopt complex skill sets like leadership. Corporate America spends billions a year on training. Unadorned, it’s nothing more than pouring very good information into the trainee’s head. Poured information doesn’t amount to much. There has to be a fairly powerful self-propelled component, an intrinsic sense of motivation. That’s where executive coaching can play a role.

Employee Surveillance vs. Effective Management

2009-06-24T16:53:00.002-05:00

I recently heard about a new policy at a corporation here in Chicago. Without discussing the matter with their employees they began fitting their service trucks with GPS devices to track their whereabouts, along with cameras and microphones in the truck cab to monitor activities and conversations. This isn’t the first company to install such devices, and I can appreciate that in some situations they offer an extra measure of security – for example, among a fleet of armored vehicles or trucks carrying valuable goods subject to theft or hijacking. However the trucks in question don’t fall into that category and it sure sounds like the corporation has decided to rely on advanced technological devices to hold their drivers accountable.

There’s no disputing that simpler devices have been used for years, starting more than a century ago with the night watchman’s watchclock and the employee punch-clock. Yet this strikes me as extreme surveillance - instead of effective management. Rather than imposing such an intrusive system, how about hiring and developing skilled managers who know how to bring out the best from their drivers? Now that this corporation has spent a small fortune on gadgetry, what are their managers doing? Will more companies turn to automation because they don’t have a clue about how to lead or manage people?

Who makes this stuff up?

2009-06-20T15:01:00.005-05:00

Yesterday my phone rang and the caller ID showed the name of a highly regarded survey organization. I answered and agreed to participate in a survey about my experience with my bank. No doubt many of you have had a similar experience. What startled me was how inane the survey questions were. Among the standouts (followed by my reaction):

"Agree or Disagree: It was easy to find the person you needed to deal with"
Sorry, but Forrest Gump could have found the teller blindfolded.

"Agree or Disagree: The teller made me feel special"
Thankfully I have enough going on in my life that I don't need to interact with a teller in order to feel special.

"Agree or Disagree: Bank such-and-such is a name I can trust"
Frankly, I tend to trust people rather than names.

"Agree or Disagree: I can't imagine a world without Bank such-and-such"
You've got to be kidding! Who makes this stuff up?

I could not believe that the survey organization constructed these questions. In fact the interviewer on the other end of the line chuckled when I suggested that these questions sounded like the product of the bank's marketing department rather than the survey firm. My question is, who at the bank crafted this nonsense and what did they expect to do with the data?

If the bank's executives want people to trust the firm, they need to select and promote people who conduct themselves in a trustworthy fashion. They don't need to waste time determining whether their tellers make people feel special, but they should select tellers who have an innate capacity to graciously and politely engage customers. Thoughtful hiring and promotion decisions are not that difficult if you have expert systems in place, and the results will be far more beneficial than what the bank will derive from its survey.

Thankfully, my most recent transaction at the bank had occurred the day before - I was there to close out my account.