Here is the scenario:  you have interviewed several candidates for an important position.  The best applicant (we’ll call him Fred) interviewed well, had good references, and the Performance Profile Report looked good.  In particular, the “Intelligence” rating was a nice strong “7.”  The position you were trying to fill required someone who could exercise good judgment and make good decisions, so that “7” looked like a good match.

The job requires “good smarts,” and the Performance Profile says Fred has them.  You hired Fred with every expectation that you had found someone who was, indeed, bright enough to make good decisions and exercise the kind of sound judgment required by the job.  However, after the formal training and the following “get familiar with how we do things here” periods were over, you noticed a disturbing trend.  

If Fred is so smart, why does he make stupid mistakes?  Fred seemed to have a pattern of making mistakes -- not just the kind of errors you would expect of someone learning a new position, but the kind of errors that qualify as “stupid mistakes.”  That is, he made mistakes of the kind that you expect during the training period, when everything is new and unknown, but not the kind that you expect to see from someone who has worked in the position for some time.

Emotional fogging can kick intelligence in the you-know-where!  It turns out, after you do some discreet probing with Fred, that the explanation has to do with some fairly new personal problems that have just cropped up:  Fred is going  through a divorce and his teen-aged kids are getting into serious trouble with drugs.  The amount of energy required to deal with these emotionally devastating problems, while also trying to seem calm and in control at work, have drained Fred to such an extent that he just doesn’t have reserves of emotional energy left.  His emotions create a “fog” that makes it difficult for him to “see” and use his intelligence.

What are the options?  Fred has the combination of assets, experience, knowledge and skills that you wanted for this position, and that hasn’t changed.  The question is how to help Fred so that he can manage the effect of his temporary personal problems.  It is best to take a sympathetic but direct approach:

            · explain exactly what the mistakes are that are causing problems;

            · help Fred find a mentor in the company who can provide supportive feedback or reminders when he needs help getting back in focus;

            · if your company has an Employee Assistance Program that provides this service, make sure Fred gets some outside sources of help with his specific personal problems, such as referrals to counseling;

            · work with Fred to come up with a plan and timetable for improvement, and spell out in writing what improvements you both agree on;

            · review the plan together as frequently as necessary;

            · be sure that the plan you both agree on includes consideration of alternatives such as change of duties, temporary leave of absence, or other more permanent remedies, and that Fred understands when these alternatives might become necessary.

If an applicant’s theft rating is “Low Risk,” does that guarantee that he will never steal from the company?  The answer is no, a “Low Risk” rating reflects only the fact that the person’s responses to questions on the Work Attitude Questionnaire indicated that he felt that there were no circumstances that justified taking company property or money without permission.  Sometimes these answers simply mean that the applicant understood what the preferred answer (and behavior on the job) should be.  All things considered, after all, it is better if an applicant understands what appropriate behavior ought to be, but actual behavior is also influenced by specific situations.

A person who steals makes a conscious decision to do so.  This decision will be influenced by the person’s internal standards, and by outside influences.  There are three main categories of outside influences that affect the decision a person makes about stealing:

1. the degree of temptation – that is, how much the person stands to gain;
2. the possibility of getting caught;
3. the severity of the consequences if he is caught.

Research on integrity indicates that if the potential gain is great enough, and the possibility of getting caught and/or the severity of the consequences are low enough, then many people will give in to temptation.   Hence the justification for the old saying, “Locks on cash boxes are there, and regular inventories are done, in order to keep honest people honest.”

It is a good idea to keep temptation as low as possible, to make the probability of getting caught, and the consequences of getting caught high for all employees, even for people with a “Low Risk” rating for theft.

For a more detailed explanation of the Risk Ratings see the Quick Reference Guide for the Work Attitude Questionnaire.  If you can’t find your copy, click here or call (800) 886-4356 and we will send you a FREE copy.

Mind Over Matter

Your mind has a marvelous ability to take in and organize a large amount of information about an applicant, both objective, concrete information like that on resumes, reference checks, and Performance Profile information, and the kind of information that comes to you through more subtle, often unconscious channels.  Your mind pulls it all together, fits it into a meaningful whole and presents you with a “feel” for the candidate.  This summary “feel” about an applicant, although often difficult to quantify or explain, is a valid impression of the applicant. 

An Example:  “Looks good, smells bad”

You have just interviewed the top candidate for an important management position.  In spite of his smooth interview performance, glowing references and impressive resume, something doesn’t “smell right.”  The frustrating part is that there is nothing concrete you can see to explain your feeling.  It is tempting to overrule your “gut feeling” and make a decision based only on the objective indicators, the flawless performance in the interview, great references and resume, etc.  They look good; it is only your guts that are saying, “Yeah, but something smells bad here.”  So you hire him and sure enough, a few months later, he is inexplicably rude to your most important client, or he does something else that is so far outside the bounds of good taste, good sense, or good business practice that it boggles belief.  Your guts were right.

Do your “guts” ever lie?  Of course they do.  Memory is tricky; we tend to remember when our guts were right on target and to conveniently forget when they were out in the weeds.  Nonetheless, as the old saying goes, “Where there is smoke, there is probably fire,” even if it is out of sight.

What should you do?   

            · Try to pinpoint as precisely as you can just what it is that makes you “feel funny” about this candidate.  For example, does it “raise your hackles” whenever you talk with her about a specific subject?  Or is it the way he looks away and blinks a lot whenever you ask about specific experiences?  Once you have a better idea of why, you can design some open-ended questions to ask that will help you gather more information;

            · If there’s time, arrange to have some less structured time with the candidate.  You might offer to drive him or her to the airport after a pre-hire interview, or go to lunch at a casual restaurant, where you can talk with one another is a more relaxed setting;

            · How important to this candidate’s performance are your gut feelings?  Will you work directly with the person?  If not, how does the person/people with whom he will work most closely feel?  What are their “gut feelings” telling them?