August 2006 Vol 3; No.7

The Helm Report:  Tools, Tips, & Techniques for avoiding hiring mistakes and developing people.

Published on the second Thursday of each month

Barbara Otto, Editor (mail to mailto:botto@helmtest.com

Visit us online at http://www.helmtest.com/

Word count for this issue – 2,864

Approximate time to read =   12 minutes  

Dear Friend,

Greetings from the beginning of the end of the long, hot summer.  I hope it has cooled down some where you are.  County fairs and the State Fair are just around the corner in the midwest; it's one of my favorite times for sampling food I would otherwise avoid.  Have fun!

We all know what “good judgment” is, right?  The Random House College Dictionary defines it as “the ability to make a decision, or form an opinion objectively, authoritatively, and wisely, especially in matters affecting action; good sense; discretion.”  Let’s take that as a starting point for this discussion about how to spot the propensity for poor judgment in applicants; if we can spot it, we can prevent it.

Poor judgment creates problems big and small.  The operative word here is “creates.”  Poor judgment often creates new, unnecessary problems – problems that weren’t there before but now require time and resources to handle. 

Sometimes poor judgment creates minor problems that are relatively easy to correct.  For example, an intern who worked with me some years ago was a bright, but inexperienced, young man.  One day, during the lunch hour, he answered the phone and the president of my largest client company asked to speak to me.  Without hesitation, my earnest intern asked, in a no-nonsense tone, “Who wants to know?”  (I hope he meant that in the sense of “who may I tell him called,” but that is decidedly not the way my client heard it.)  I had some serious oil to spread on troubled waters with that client when I returned from lunch.  He wasn’t used to being insulted in response to a simple question.

At the other end of the poor judgment spectrum are the true horror stories, the ones that cause the loss of major clients, big contracts, and key employees.  Each of us has experienced or observed this kind of event.  Now, let’s remind ourselves at the outset of this discussion that everyone makes mistakes; as my wise grandmother told me when I started my very first job:  “Work hard and do your best.  Don’t worry about making a mistake; if you don’t make mistakes, you aren’t working!”  But there are some people who are likely to make more than their share of mistakes and errors because of poor decision-making or a propensity to make avoidable mistakes.

The good news is that there are five red flags that can alert you to the possibility that the applicant you are considering may be prone to poor judgment.  Four of these red flags are sent waving from the Performance Profile Report, so let’s start with them.

Five Red Flags

RED FLAG #1  A Low Rating On “Objectivity”

A low rating (“3” or lower) on the characteristic of  “Objectivity” on the Performance Profile suggests that this person allows his feelings or emotions to influence his decisions. You recall from the dictionary definition above that good judgment includes “…the ability to make a decision, or form an opinion objectively….”  Allowing one’s feelings or emotions to strongly influence one’s decisions often can lead to poor judgment in situations that call for objectivity and detachment.  What can you do to help someone make more objective decisions?  Coach him on the need to identify, and then remove, personal feelings and emotions from his or her decisions.  (Being aware of one’s feelings is the strongest first step to being able to manage their impact on decisions.)

RED FLAG #2  A Low Rating On “Intelligence”

A low rating (“3” or lower) on the characteristic of “Intelligence” on the Performance Profile often implies that the person in question has difficulty taking a number of different factors into consideration at the same time.  The ability to make sound decisions, however, often requires that we take account of many factors or implications of the decisions that we make; the more complex the decision, the more mental flexibility and dexterity are required.  The rule of thumb is that the smarter a person is, the better they can do that.  An important exception to this rule is the impact of extensive experience that is relevant to the decision at hand; some people who may not have a particularly high “Intelligence” rating have nevertheless had such extensive experience in a specific area that they have, in effect, “seen it all” and can make “smart” decisions.

RED FLAG #3 A Low Rating On “Impulse Control”

A low rating (“3” or lower) on the characteristic of “Impulse Control” suggests a person who tends to act impulsively.  This person tends to be action-oriented, preferring to “just do it,” even when the effects of the decision to be made are extensive enough that, “Just think things through before doing anything” would be a better motto.  This person may have an average or high average “Intelligence” rating, but he or she simply does not give himself enough time to use all those mental abilities to think through the consequences of the decision or course of action.  What can you do to help this person?  Help him see how taking the time to think through the possible consequences of a course of action could have avoided the negative downside that resulted.  Have those awkward follow-up conversations in which you help this person discover and acknowledge the points at which he or she could have taken more time to consider alternative decisions.

RED FLAG #4 A Low Rating On “Decision-Making Strategy”

A low rating on the characteristic of “Decision-Making Strategy” is one that is “3” or lower. This one is a little tricky because the “Decision-Making Strategy” scale is actually one that points to the relative strengths of two rather different kinds of decision-making styles, rather than measuring more or less of one style.  Low ratings on this characteristic suggest a person whose preference is to use intuition to make decisions.  This preference for intuitive decision-making can be really useful when making decisions involving people where often there are few “facts” and lots of apparently contradictory sides to the issue.

The judgment problem arises if a preference for this decision-making strategy is so strong that the person tries to use it to make decisions where there are facts and figures to guide the decision.  Ignoring relevant facts and figures to just “go with your gut” can lead to poor decisions.  What can you do to help this person? Coach him or her on developing the ability to differentiate between those decisions that call for careful, logical thinking from decisions that require the use of intuition.  Use real-world examples (preferably his or her own decisions) to make your point.

RED FLAG #5 Immaturity

The fifth “red flag” is one that you can’t find on the Performance Profile Report.  Again, let’s go to the dictionary to make sure we are talking about the same thing when we use the word “mature.”  Random House says that maturity is the state of being “complete in natural growth or development.”

Maturity develops with age and experience.  Recent research has confirmed what most people, particularly those with “grown” children, have already observed:  maturity begins to kick in somewhere in the early twenties and is finally complete somewhere in the early to mid thirties, depending on the person.  (You and I, of course, were totally and completely mature much, much earlier than that!  OK,  you were, but I was still pretty much a dork until I was well into my thirties.)

What this means is that if you hire a younger person, for example under the age of 25, don’t assume that they have the same standards and good judgment that you do.  Remember my earnest intern!  If you had told me that I needed to tell him not to be rude to people on the phone, and what rudeness sounded like, I would have thought you were being overly cautious.  “Everyone knows that,” I would have argued.  And events proved me wrong.  Caveat hire-emptor (translation of my Latin: “Let the hirer beware!”)

Here’s The Bottom Line….

Good judgment turns out to be the union of a number of factors, including experience, age, intelligence, the ability to consider all relevant facts, and the self-control to take the time to do so.  When you are considering an applicant for a job, you can get a pretty good idea about some of these factors from the Performance Profile, and the even better news is that you can also help employees develop better judgment by understanding how they approach decisions and then coaching them on ways to improve their performance.

A new client emailed me: 

“We just got a Performance Profile Report back for Joe Jones (not his real name) and he was “Moderate Risk” for “Theft” on the Work Attitude Questionnaire. When we looked at the accompanying Work Attitude Questionnaire Report, we saw that Joe’s only questionable admission was to question 17, and his answer apparently resulted in the “Moderate Risk” rating.  Joe has been in the workforce for fifteen years.  Couldn’t $26-$50 be accounted for in note pads and ballpoint pens over that fifteen year period?  This doesn’t seem like a serious enough issue to rate him “Moderate Risk” for “Theft.”  Am I wrong or just missing something here?”

And The Answer Is…Not So Simple!

This question really raises two issues, and we need to take a careful look at both of them.  First, what really is stealing and  why would anyone admit to it at all?  Second, what does it really mean when someone does admit to something on question 17?  Let’s start by looking at the whole question:

Now, let’s take a look at both issues, starting with the first one:  what is stealing and why would anyone admit anything to question 17?

What Is Stealing And How Many People Admit To It?

Since I already have the dictionary out, let’s see what it has to say about stealing.  Random House says stealing is “to take (property of another or others) without permission or right….”  If Mr. Jones takes one cheap ballpoint pen (current replacement value about 95¢), is that stealing?  What if the replacement value is $3.00?  $10.00?  $15.00?  Where is the dividing line between what is stealing and what isn’t?

One argument goes that most people sometimes  unintentionally walk off with company pens, note pads, and other small items.  They just put the pen in their pocket and forget about it so that when they get home, there it is.  If it gets taken back to the office, fine; if not, it is considered to be of such small value that returning it or not is inconsequential.  Since there are likely very few of us who can account for the origin of every paper clip and pencil in our possession, doesn’t this mean that we all steal?  Why don’t more people admit to stealing, if all of the above are true?  The answer to this question is that there appears to be a social consensus that very small, unintentional appropriation of inconsequential items (such as paper clips, pencils, etc.) is not stealing unless it is systematic, intentional, and somehow profits the individual who does it.

OK, so we have established that there is a line somewhere between what is not stealing (regardless of the strictest possible application of the dictionary definition) and what is stealing.  It turns out, however, that the line itself is rather fluid, and varies widely from one organization to another, and from one individual to another.  When we ask question 17 of a person who does not know where an organization’s lines are, therefore, we want to get an idea of what internal standard he or she brings to the question.  That means, for example, that we don’t particularly want to hear, “Whatever I can get away with.”

Knowing how most people answer question 17 in similar circumstances to Mr. Jones’ gives us an idea, therefore, about what to expect.  I have a research database of over 8,000 managers who have answered this question, as well as over 15 years of experience with the Work Attitude Questionnaire, and here’s the breakdown of how those managers answered question 17:

Most people (75%) do not admit to “stealing” from previous employers on question 17; of those who do, most select the response with the lowest value ($1-$10) to indicate those inconsequential, unintentional “appropriations.”   The pattern of responses displayed in this table reinforces our conclusion that most of us agree that taking inconsequential items unintentionally does not constitute “stealing.”  And that begs the question:  what does it mean when a person avoids the most common responses (those that are under $10), and chooses to admit to a larger amount?

What Is Mr. Jones Trying To Tell Us?

What does it mean when someone admits to having taken items of value from a previous employer?  Remember, to get a good handle on the answer to this question, we have to remember that our Mr. Jones has not chosen to say, “Nothing” when 75% of people choose that answer, and he has not chosen the next most likely responses (ranging from $1 - $25.)  He’s kept moving to the right along that response scale, and our problem is to try to figure out why.  There are many possible explanations:

· He might be among the extremely small number of individuals in our midst who obsessively keeps track of minutiae in his life, and he actually adds up the value of small items that he accidentally or intentionally keeps (least likely explanation!)

· He might be a person who knows that he has taken items from previous employers but doesn’t consider it stealing because he felt he “deserved” them for some reason, but he’s aware that his opinion might not be universally accepted.  In this case, he may feel he has to find an amount that he believes you would find acceptable and believable, but that he would not have to itemize or justify.  (He may be “low-balling” his estimate.)

· He might be a person who knows he has stolen from previous employers and justifies it, for example, on the basis that “everyone does it.”  He is aware, however, that a realistic estimate might disqualify him from your consideration, and so he makes a conservative estimate of the value of what he has taken, one that he expects you can accept; remember, he believes that “everyone does it.”

Do Admissions To This Question Mean That He Will Steal From You?

No, they don’t.  My experience and research suggest, however, that admissions other than “nothing” or “less than $10” indicate that this individual may have drawn that boundary line between “stealing” and “not stealing” somewhere other than you draw it!  Is stealing an individual decision or the result of temptation meeting opportunity?  It’s some of both, actually, and Mr. Jones’ response has suggested that his individual decision may be to take advantage of the opportunity if you give it to him.

An Opportunity To Establish Clear  Boundaries

Make sure you have good inventory and control systems, established consequences that are enforced, and that you educate all of your employees (not just Mr. Jones!) about your company’s policies and procedures.  Define what you consider “stealing” and give specific, job-related examples.  What that elevated risk result means, the one my client emailed me about, is that this individual needs to know where your company’s boundaries are, from the very beginning.

I just read a “Hiring Tip” in a publication that I receive and felt compelled to drop everything and write a response.  The Hiring Tip talked about “zeroing in on specific aspects of a candidate’s resume.”  In itself, this is a good idea, but the example used to illustrate this seemed misleading to me.  In the example, the interviewer noticed that the applicant had put on his resume that he had played college basketball.  So the interviewer “zeroed in” by asking about the applicant’s free-throw average.  The applicant said his free-throw average was 95%.  “Aha,” said the interviewer to himself, “I know that the only way to get an average that high is to practice a lot.  Therefore, a 95% free throw average demonstrates (italics mine) that the applicant has a strong work ethic and wants to be the best at whatever he does.”

I think that before I leapt to that conclusion I would first verify that the applicant had gone to the college he claimed and that he had played basketball.  Background investigation firms that routinely verify educational credentials report that education is the resume item most often “enhanced” or exaggerated.  Some of these firms say as many as 60% of the resumes they check have padded education credentials.

Secondly, even if the applicant’s educational credentials check out, isn’t it convenient (for the applicant) that it would be next to impossible to verify his free-throw average?  A better way to “zero in” on the applicant’s work ethic would be to ask questions about his relevant work experience or, if the applicant is fresh out of college, to ask about his extra-curricular activities as an indicator of his work ethic.

Remember, people are your most important asset!

To hire the best, test!

            To reveal management potential, test!

To diagnose problem behavior, test!

Best regards,

Kurt G. Helm, Ph.D.

Phone Toll Free 800-886-4356

Email:   khelm@helmtest.com

Website:    http://www.helmtest.com/

PRIVACY and SPAM POLICY:  We never rent, trade, or sell our email list to anyone for any reason whatsoever.  You'll never get an unsolicited email from a stranger as a result of joining this list.

© 2006, Kurt G. Helm, Ph.D.  All rights reserved.  You are allowed to use material from this newsletter in whole or in part provided that you include attribution in the following form:  “By Kurt G. Helm, Ph.D., of Helm and Associates, Inc.  Please visit our website at http://www.helmtest.com/ for more information about how to avoid hiring mistakes by using pre-employment testing as part of the applicant evaluation procedure.”