Discussion: View Thread

I keep hearing a lot about hiring for attitude first, skills second. And in my
gut, it sounds like the right thing to do. But I need more than that to go
on.

I'm wondering if anyone has seen conclusive studies that show the benefits of
hiring for attitude. And where can I get them?

Also, has anyone seen a good resource on how to hire for attitude?

Has anyone done it successfully? How did you do it? How did you know it
worked?

Thanks (again) for your help


Tom Gorman
T_Gorman@pbp.com

Actually, the question should be when is it more effective to hire for
attitude, or forskill. If I need a job done that requires a high degree
of specialized skill (Brain Surgery) the heck with attitude. If I need
someone who possess character traits that will likely lead to sucess,
but I am willing to train, then skill becomes secondary (Sales).

>----------
>From: Thomas_Gorman@pbp.com[SMTP:Thomas_Gorman@pbp.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 1997 10:20 AM
>To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>Subject: Hiring for attitude
>
>I keep hearing a lot about hiring for attitude first, skills second. And in
>my
>gut, it sounds like the right thing to do. But I need more than that to go
>on.
>
>I'm wondering if anyone has seen conclusive studies that show the benefits of
>hiring for attitude. And where can I get them?
>
>Also, has anyone seen a good resource on how to hire for attitude?
>
>Has anyone done it successfully? How did you do it? How did you know it
>worked?
>
>Thanks (again) for your help
>
>
>Tom Gorman
>T_Gorman@pbp.com
>

Tom Gorman asked about "Hiring for Attitude".

Perhaps an academic's answer, possibly a little off-target, will be of some
help. First, though, just what do you mean by "attitude"? If we translate
that to "motivation to learn" it may be easier to deal with.

The idea you present seems to suggest hiring people with the willingness or
motivation (and, presumably, the aptitudes) to be trained for the target
job. That, as you will appreciate, is exactly what organizations such as
the military forces have been doing for many years. Basic I/O psychology
follows from there and you have many good texts available (e.g., I have
used the widely-accepted text: Paul Muchinsky (1993). Psychology applied
to work. Brooks/Cole).

Beyond this, you may want to consult the stream of research by Raymond Noe
and his associates. See, to begin:

Noe, R. A. (1986). Trainees' attributes and attitudes: Neglected
influences on training effectiveness. Academy of Management Review,
11 (4), 736-749.
Noe, R. A. & Schmitt, N. (1986). The influence of trainee attitudes on
training effectiveness: Test of a model. Personnel Psychology, 39,
497-523.
Ford, J. K. & Noe, R. A. (1987). Self-assessed training needs: The
effects of attitudes toward training, managerial level, and function.
Personnel Psychology, 40, 39-53.


Dr John Etheredge,
Associate Professor, Department of Management,
Hong Kong Baptist University
Fax: (852) 2339-7569
E-mail: ethbus@hkbu.edu.hk

Miles Davis <miles.davis@EXSE01.EDS.COM> wrote:

>>... If I need a job done that requires
a high degree of specialized skill
(Brain Surgery) the heck with attitude...<<

And how did the surgeon get to be so skilled? Wasn't it her attitude
that carried her through all those years of training?

Bob

I think you're stretching here. I could be a cold selfish SOB, that
just wants to make a ton of money. I don't have to have compassion,
empathy, or a cordial manner. The attainment of skill has no
established corrallary with any particular attitude. As a matter of
fact talent (or lack of) can often overide a particular attitudinal
position

Now, if you think "attitude" refers to a specific thing that I am not
aware of, please fill me in.

>----------
>From: Bob Gately[SMTP:gately@COMPUSERVE.COM]
>Sent: Thursday, April 24, 1997 3:06 PM
>To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>Subject: Re: Hiring for attitude
>
>Miles Davis <miles.davis@EXSE01.EDS.COM> wrote:
>
>>>... If I need a job done that requires
>a high degree of specialized skill
>(Brain Surgery) the heck with attitude...<<
>
>And how did the surgeon get to be so skilled? Wasn't it her attitude
>that carried her through all those years of training?
>
>Bob
>

Miles Davis <miles.davis@EXSE01.EDS.COM> wrote:

>>... I could be a cold selfish SOB, that
just wants to make a ton of money. I don't
have to have compassion, empathy, or a
cordial manner. The attainment of skill
has no established corrallary with any
particular attitude. As a matter of
fact talent (or lack of) can often
overide a particular attitudinal position...<<

Then why do employers spend so much time and effort screening their
applicants if all that is really important is the applicants past
experience and skills? The answer is simple--knowledge and skills
are necessary, but not sufficient and it is a minimum level of
knowledge, not a maximum level that needs to be the
selection criteria.

Bob

+----------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA |
+----------------------------+-----------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

Re attitude and hiring a like the quote I saw the other day which I will
paraphrase:

"Everyone has brains ... what else you got?" my answer, attitude maybe.

Glenn


W. Glenn Rowe
Faculty of Business Administration
Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. John's, NF, Canada, A1B 3X5
709 737 4363
709 737 7999 (Fax)

ASAC 97 is being held in St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada from May 31 to
June 3, 1997. St. John's is the oldest city in North America and is only 8
miles west of Cape Spear, the most easterly point of North America. Come
join us at ASAC 97 and help us celebrate the 500th anniversary of the
arrival of John Cabot to Newfoundland in 1497.

Glenn Rowe <growe@MORGAN.UCS.MUN.CA> wrote:

>>... "Everyone has brains ... what else you got?"
my answer, attitude maybe...<<

All too often managers rely solely on things
that they can see or feel like:
- School Transcripts
- Background Checks
- Interviews
- Resumes
- the gut

Attitude can be measured quite effectively, but first managers
need to know that their "gut feelings" are often no more than
gas pains. Managers must then admit that they are not the world's
best judge of character or attitude and then they need to open
their minds and look for ways to do what it is that needs to be
done--how to determine applicants' job suitability beyond the
superficial requirements of skills and knowledge.

Bob

+----------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA |
+----------------------------+-----------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

I am not excluding the need for different attitudinal variables in
different work systems. For example, I work in an environment that
requires extreme coordination of efforts; if a person just wanted to
work by themself regardless of their individual skill they would not be
acceptable for me as an employee.

On the other hand I have seen situations where the need for interaction
was not as high and a person who wanted to pretty much function on his
own with minimal contact did just find.

What I am objecting to again is the generalization that it is either
attitude or skill. A case can be made for either depending on the work
requirements and situation at hand. Ideally, I want someone who is
competent and has what I would call a great attitude. Which, BTW, I
have not seen defined as to exactly what that means. I have seen a lot
of talk about what is assumed to be secondary behavior, but none about
attitude. And since I suspect that there will be even less consensus on
what a "good attitude" is than what are necessary "skills" for
employment, I wonder how you are going to defend the inevitable law suit
from a "qualified" employee who says that he was denied a job because of
his "attitude."

>----------
>From: Bob Gately[SMTP:gately@COMPUSERVE.COM]
>Sent: Friday, April 25, 1997 8:31 PM
>To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>Subject: Re: Hiring for attitude
>
>Miles Davis <miles.davis@EXSE01.EDS.COM> wrote:
>
>>>... I could be a cold selfish SOB, that
>just wants to make a ton of money. I don't
>have to have compassion, empathy, or a
>cordial manner. The attainment of skill
>has no established corrallary with any
>particular attitude. As a matter of
>fact talent (or lack of) can often
>overide a particular attitudinal position...<<
>
>Then why do employers spend so much time and effort screening their
>applicants if all that is really important is the applicants past
>experience and skills? The answer is simple--knowledge and skills
>are necessary, but not sufficient and it is a minimum level of
>knowledge, not a maximum level that needs to be the
>selection criteria.
>
>Bob
>
>+----------------------------+
>| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA |
>+----------------------------+-----------------------+
>| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
>| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
>| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
>| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
>+----------------------------------------------------+
>

Bob Gately wrote
<<
Then why do employers spend so much time and effort screening their
applicants if all that is really important is the applicants past
experience and skills? The answer is simple--knowledge and skills
are necessary, but not sufficient and it is a minimum level of
knowledge, not a maximum level that needs to be the
selection criteria.
>>

"Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."
For inability to access other qualities, attitude evaluation is always
an excellent substitute.
Could it be that attitude changes with the environment? Can attitude be
"learned" as well as skills can be learned?
My experience in "real life" environments has taught me to put up with
attitude shortcomings, if the skills were at a high level. To be more
precise, I am focusing at the attitude towards behavior and personal
relations with other people. It may be poor, but get results that may
still be superb and ethically ok.

A great displayed attitude and an abusive "don't care" behavior towards
environment and people are mixed messages - to say it softly.
+++
Elsewhere Bob wrote:
<<Attitude can be measured quite effectively, but first managers
need to know that their "gut feelings" are often no more than
gas pains. >>
Humour is always welcome.

Emil Zahner
Innovation Coach
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/canmor/index19.htm
Emil Zahner

W. Glenn Rowe
Faculty of Business Administration
Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. John's, NF, Canada, A1B 3X5
wrote
<<Re attitude and hiring a like the quote I saw the other day which I will
paraphrase:

"Everyone has brains ... what else you got?" my answer, attitude maybe.
>>

If this would work, the big errors in thinking would all be a result of
attitute: Examples: Assuan dam, other World Bank projects, shrimp farms
in Bangladesh, etc.
Yes, everyone has a brain, but (quote Hermann Holliger): it has been given
without a warranty certificate.

Emil Zahner
Innovation Coach
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/canmor/index19.htm

-=> On 04/25/97 20:31, Bob Gately wrote Frank Bell <=-

BG> Then why do employers spend so much time and effort screening their
BG> applicants if all that is really important is the applicants past
BG> experience and skills? The answer is simple--knowledge and skills
BG> are necessary, but not sufficient and it is a minimum level of
BG> knowledge, not a maximum level that needs to be the
BG> selection criteria.


I suspect it's actually more basic: most screening techniques are
unreliable, because they are an attempt to foretell the future. With
all the screening in the world, the final choice comes down to the
interview, which almost everyone (except the fanatically deluded)
will concede is a poor predictor).

Personally, I have little faith in attempts to screen for attitude,
because attitude has no objective existence (and I don't want to get
into epistomology here, so let's stay out of Plato's cave . . . .).
Your "attitude" is actually my judgement based on your behavior. You
can skillfully manipulate your behavior, and therefore convince me
that your attitude is whatever you want to (though a charade,
admittedly, becomes difficult to maintain over time).

When I get on the train, I don't care whether the conductors like me
or like their job. All I care about is that they act as if they do for
the 8-10 hours they are in contact with the public. Furthermore, I
don't have the right or the resources to require them to like their
jobs or the public, only to require that they act as if they do.

Hoping this stirs the pot . . . .


Frank Bell Internet:
Project Leader frank.bell@nonamebbs.com
Amtrak frank.bell@royal.com
National Training and
Conference Center FidoNet:
110 S. French St.--Ste 200 Frank Bell@1:150/160
Wilmington, Del. 19801



___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

Emil Zahner <75114.11@COMPUSERVE.COM> wrote:

>>... For inability to access other qualities,
attitude evaluation is always an excellent substitute...<<

I agree, hiring managers spend a lot of time talking to applicants
trying to uncover the other qualities.

>>... Could it be that attitude
changes with the environment?...<<

I suppose. If we treat excellent employees poorly we should expect
our excellent employees to react accordingly. If we do treat our
employees poorly we ought to hire people who are more or less
immune to our poor behavior.

>>... Can attitude be "learned" as
well as skills can be learned?...<<

I prefer to use behavior since we can see behavior but not attitude.

New behaviors can be learned, but only if WE want to learn. Too many
managers make the mistake of believing that training changes behavior.

>>... My experience in "real life"
environments has taught me to put
up with attitude shortcomings, if
the skills were at a high level...<<

Yes, but we should know before we make the job offer what the
shortcoming are.

>>... To be more precise, I am focusing
at the attitude towards behavior and
personal relations with other people...<<<

Yes, and I suggest it is all behavior since we cannot get into
other peoples minds to know what their attitudes are.

>>... A great displayed attitude and
an abusive "don't care" behavior towards
environment and people are mixed messages
- to say it softly...<<

That is why asking applicants "what would you do" and "what have
you done" questions are more a test of the applicants knowledge
than an applicants behavior.

Bob

+----------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA |
+----------------------------+-----------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

Miles Davis <miles.davis@EXSE01.EDS.COM> wrote:

>>... I work in an environment that
requires extreme coordination of efforts;
if a person just wanted to work by themself
regardless of their individual skill they
would not be acceptable for me as an employee...<<

That is understandable and the behavioral traits measurable.

>>... On the other hand I have seen
situations where the need for interaction
was not as high and a person who wanted to
pretty much function on his own with minimal
contact did just find...<<

Yes, it all depends on the demands of the job. Too many times
we tend to think of traits or behaviors as positive or negative
when, in fact, it all depends on the demands of the job.

>>... What I am objecting to again is
the generalization that it is either
attitude or skill...<<

If an applicant's skills meet or exceed the minimum acceptable
standards then the next screening criteria should be attitude.

>>... A case can be made for either
depending on the work requirements
and situation at hand...<<

First, screen for skills. Second, screen for attitude.

>>... Ideally, I want someone who is
competent and has what I would call
a great attitude...<<

That is our goal.

>>... Which, BTW, I have not seen defined
as to exactly what that means...<<

It all depends on the demands of the job and its location, manager, etc.

>>... I have seen a lot of talk about
what is assumed to be secondary behavior,
but none about attitude...<<

Attitude is expressed through behavior and since behavior is what we
can see and respond to, behavior is the key.

>>... And since I suspect that there
will be even less consensus on what
a "good attitude" is than what are
necessary "skills" for employment...<<

An attitude may fit one job very well and not fit another job at all.
There is not one attitude that fits all jobs well. In fact, even
within an organization there is not one attitude that fits all jobs.

>>... I wonder how you are going to defend
the inevitable law suit from a
"qualified" employee who says
that he was denied a job
because of his "attitude."...<<

If the behavior is job related there is little legal concern.
We are more likely lose a lawsuit if we do not use objective,
job related hiring criteria.

Bob

+----------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA |
+----------------------------+-----------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

Bob,
I've have to say that if all (or most) of the managers in our
companies are as incompetent, misguided and self-serving as you portray
them, it has to make me wonder how we came to be the economic superpower
that we, as a country, are today. I don't see the Japanese investing in
their stock market, despite all the accolades of the superiority of
"Japanese management" techinques over the past ten years. If all the
managers in this country are so lousy, where are the good ones?
Regards,
Dave


On Sat, 26 Apr
1997, Bob Gately wrote:

> Glenn Rowe <growe@MORGAN.UCS.MUN.CA> wrote:
>
> >>... "Everyone has brains ... what else you got?"
> my answer, attitude maybe...<<
>
> All too often managers rely solely on things
> that they can see or feel like:
> - School Transcripts
> - Background Checks
> - Interviews
> - Resumes
> - the gut
>
> Attitude can be measured quite effectively, but first managers
> need to know that their "gut feelings" are often no more than
> gas pains.

There's an old saying that if you have spent years developing your
instincts, why not trust them?

> Managers must then admit that they are not the world's
> best judge of character or attitude

So, who or what is? Consultants, maybe?

and then they need to open
> their minds and look for ways to do what it is that needs to be
> done

'Ways to do what needs to be done' - that pretty all-inclusive.
And what might that be? I can't imagine what it is that needs to be done
that doesn't somehow rely on one's
skills or knowledge.

--how to determine applicants' job suitability beyond the
> superficial requirements of skills and knowledge.

Superficial?? You're joking, right?

From: IN%"Richaurd.Camp@emich.edu" 28-APR-1997 10:09:54.87
To: IN%"MGT_ETTINGTO@ONLINE.EMICH.EDU"
CC:
Subj: RE: Any words of advice?

Return-path: <Richaurd.Camp@emich.edu>
Received: from UHS.adminsrv.emich.edu by ONLINE.EMICH.EDU (PMDF V5.0-6 #16909)
id <01II8H6CDN4290MTCV@ONLINE.EMICH.EDU> for MGT_ETTINGTO@ONLINE.EMICH.EDU;
Mon, 28 Apr 1997 10:09:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: by UHS.adminsrv.emich.edu; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 10:11:15 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 09:36:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Richaurd.Camp@emich.edu (Professor)
Subject: re: Any words of advice?
To: MGT_ETTINGTO@ONLINE.EMICH.EDU
Message-id: <vines.snH8+1+9NnA@UHS.adminsrv.emich.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)


The first problem with hiring for attitude is that it may have a different
meaning to different individuals (i.e., what I think is a good attitude, you
may think is a lousy one). The way to deal with these differences is to
translate the definition of "attitude" into behaviors. Why do we hire
someone? I think the answer is because we are making a prediction that the
candidate will behave in a particular (acceptable) manner in certain
situations. When someone behaves the way we want, we say we have been
successful in hiring. What I'm saying is how can we predict success (which is
what selection is suppose to do) unless we know what success is? Thus, we
need to make sure we know what are the situations where one might demonstrate
a good "attitude" and what behaviors we think demonstrate a good or a bad
attitude. This is defining "success" (i.e., what we are trying to predict).
This is done though a critical incident job analysis technique with the
person(s) who will be judging what it means to have a good "attitude".
Assuming they all agree, now we know what success is and we have to assess
whether a candidate is likely to behave the way we want. This requires
behavioral based questions where we ask how the candidate has behaved in the
situations which we believe demonstrate a good or bad attitude. If the
candidate has not been in this situation, we ask if he/she has been in
similar situations. If the answer is no, we ask "how would you behave" in
this situation. Example-we determine that having a good attitude means when
faced with a very heavy workload the person goes to extra-ordinary efforts to
achieve the goal. Why not simply ask that of a candidate-Give me an example
of where you went to extra-ordinary efforts to achieve a company goal. Tell
me what you did, why you did it, and how the company benefitted from your
efforts.

Ok, that was the long version. Here is the short one. Attitudes get displayed
on the job in the skillful handling of situations. Thus, when we say
"attitude" we really mean skill. Example-a good "attitude" with customers
might be defined as the skill of recognizing the customers problems and
proposing solutions that meet the his/her needs.

I hope this helps. There is a ton of research on critical incidents and
behavioral interviewing. To my knowledge, there is no good research on hiring
for "attitude".

FRANK BELL <frank.bell@nonamebbs.com> wrote:

>>... most screening techniques are
unreliable, because they are an
attempt to foretell the future...<<

Most screening techniques are unreliable not because they try and
foretell the future--hard but not impossible--but because they
evaluate the wrong selection criteria. If past behavior is the
best predictor of future behavior, we need to evaluate past
behaviors and I don't mean just asking questions about an
applicant's past job behavior, which is way to subjective.

>>... the final choice comes
down to the interview...<<

Not necessarily. Our clients go one step further after they conduct
the interviews and have ranked the job finalists from #1 on down.
Hardly ever is the #1 ranked finalist the best choice which is a
real eye opening for our clients to say the least.

>>... Personally, I have little faith
in attempts to screen for attitude...<<

I agree, our clients screen for behaviors, mental abilities and
interests which answers three big questions:
1 - Does the applicant's behavior match the demands of the job?
2 - Can the applicant learn the job?
3 - Is the applicant interested in doing the job?

>>... You can skillfully manipulate
your behavior, and therefore convince me
that your attitude is whatever you want to
(though a charade, admittedly, becomes
difficult to maintain over time)...<<

Our clients don't have this problem.

>>... All I care about is that they
act as if they do for the 8-10 hours
they are in contact with the public...<<

Isn't it better to hire people who are predisposed to act
they way you want them to act?

>>... Furthermore, I don't have the right
or the resources to require them to like
their jobs or the public, only to require
that they act as if they do...<<

I agree, that is why our clients are so successful in hiring--
they identify job applicants who are predisposed to act the
way they need them to act.

Bob

+----------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA |
+----------------------------+-----------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

Richaurd.Camp@emich.edu wrote:

>>... The first problem with hiring for
attitude is that it may have a different
meaning to different individuals...<<

That is why behavior is a more important that attitude when hiring.

>>... The way to deal with these
differences is to translate the
definition of "attitude"
into behaviors...<<

Exactly, it is the only way to do it.

>>... Why do we hire someone?...<<

We need a job done and we hope the person we hire will
be successful.

>>... What I'm saying is how can we predict
success (which is what selection is suppose
to do) unless we know what success is? ...<<

That is why we evaluate successful employees first to see
what it is we want.

>>... This requires behavioral based questions...<<

The trouble with questions is that the answers tend to be more
an indicator of knowledge than behavior. How many poor managers
actually tell an interviewer that they behave poorly? Or tell
the interviewer the tone of voice used in a past incident or
the their facial expressions? We all have a tendency to put
our best foot forward in an interview.

>>... Attitudes get displayed on the job
in the skillful handling of situations...<<

Yes, it really is behavior that we want to hire, not attitude.

Bob

+----------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA |
+----------------------------+-----------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

David J. Lemak <dlemak@beta.tricity.wsu.edu> wrote:

>>... I've have to say that if all (or most)
of the managers in our companies are as incompetent,
misguided and self-serving as you portray them, it
has to make me wonder how we came to be the economic
superpower that we, as a country, are today...<<

Why do you presume that other countries are not saddled with
incompetent management? Ask the employees, I am sure they can
point out the incompetent managers.

Where do most doctors learn about medicine?

Answer: Medical school

Where do most engineers learn about engineering?

Answer: Engineering school.

Where do most lawyers study the law?

Answer: Law school.

Where do most teachers learn about teaching?

Answer: Teachers college.

Where do most managers learn about management?

Answer: On the job if at all.

Do you see a pattern? To be a manager requires no special
knowledge, ability or aptitude although it should. When
companies select people for management based on their
ability and desire to manage the workplace will be
more productive.

>>... If all the managers in this country
are so lousy, where are the good ones?...<<

Most are mismanaged by the lousy ones.

Bob

+----------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA |
+----------------------------+-----------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

David J. Lemak <dlemak@beta.tricity.wsu.edu> wrote:

>>... unless our managers are less
competent than foreign managers...<<

I doubt that they are less competent as a group, but that does
not make most of them competent.

>>... And teaching hospitals ...<<

But first undergraduate school, then medical school, then a
teaching hospital.

>>... Not much about cost effectiveness,
but certainly the technical aspects....<<

I do think engineers, I was any ways, are taught about
cost-effectiveness since that is how many decisions are made.

>>... Hmmmm...do we want to get back
to the ethics/integrity question?...<<

Do they not teach ethics? Maybe not.

>>... Which is why 40% of our
3rd graders can't read?...<<

That is problem associated with using the wrong teaching method
adopted by well-meaning but ill-advised educators. Incompetence
is not limited to managers.

>>... So schools of business impart no
useful knowledge to managers in undergraduate,
graduate or executive programs?...<<

That is not what I meant at all.

What percent of many managers have undergraduate degrees
or graduate degrees in management?

What percent of managers study human behavior?

What percent of managers are managers because it pays well?

What percent of managers are managers because they were
excellent technical specialists?

>>... So, where do consultants
learn about consulting? ...<<

Same place as managers--usually on the job.

>>... And what special knowledge, ability
and aptitude does it require?...<<

Not much since many consultants are just employees working
for many employers.

>>... Certainly not a business degree if it
has no usefulness, as you imply above...<<

To the contrary. I suggest that anyone in management or business
would be well-served to earn an advanced degree in business/management
but that degree does not a good manager make. Appropriate behavior is
what determines a good manager not knowledge.

Management is about people, degrees are about knowledge and when
we confuse the two we make a huge mistake.

>>... Then they can't be all that smart ...<<

I wish top management were smart enough to identify future effective
managers and leaders and then fast track them. Some companies do, but
not nearly enough.

Bob

+----------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA |
+----------------------------+-----------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Bob Gately wrote:

> David J. Lemak <dlemak@beta.tricity.wsu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> What percent of many managers have undergraduate degrees
> or graduate degrees in management?
>
> What percent of managers study human behavior?
>
> What percent of managers are managers because it pays well?
>
> What percent of managers are managers because they were
> excellent technical specialists?

These are empirical questions, not causes for speculation. Assuming that
"most" or "all" managers fall into any of those categories is not a
legtimate foudation for making prescriptions. In fact, it can be downright
dangerous.


> >>... So, where do consultants
> learn about consulting? ...<<
>
> Same place as managers--usually on the job.
>
> >>... And what special knowledge, ability
> and aptitude does it require?...<<
>
> Not much since many consultants are just employees working
> for many employers.

Therefore, by your own contention and logic, most consultants, like most
managers are incompetent.

>
> I wish top management were smart enough to identify future effective
> managers and leaders and then fast track them. Some companies do, but
> not nearly enough.

Another empirical question, not a statement of fact.

I wrote:

"What percent of managers
... study human behavior?
... are managers because it pays well?
... have undergraduate degrees or graduate degrees in management?
... are managers because they were excellent technical specialists?"

then David J. Lemak <dlemak@beta.tricity.wsu.edu> wrote:

>>... Assuming that "most" or "all"
managers fall into any of those
categories is not a legitimate
foundation for making prescriptions...<<

Are you recommending that managers need not study management
theory and practice or understand human behavior or that
technical excellence is more important than behavior or
that a higher income is a worthy reason to become a manager?

I am making the observation that a majority of managers are
unprepared technically--in management theory and practice--and
or ill-suited temperamentally to be managers. The prescription
is to require managers to be as well-prepared technically as other
professionals, i.e, required managers to study management
theory and practice and to select people for management who are
well-suited for management based on their behaviors not on
their need to be on control of others or to make a higher income.

Which of my recommendations do not endorse?

>>... In fact, it can be downright dangerous...<<

Please explain.

>>... Therefore, by your own contention
and logic, most consultants, like most
managers are incompetent...<<

Yes, and your point is what?

>>... Another empirical question,
not a statement of fact...<<

Gee, and I thought I was expressing a wish and an opinion. Are opinions and
wishes not permitted?

My opinion is that skills and knowledge are not enough to ensure that a new
hire will be a future top performer. If you want to argue that a college
degree ensures success on the job, be my guest, but too many employers know
that that is not the case. There is more to on-the-job success than how
many A's we rack up on our college transcripts,
yes, even from the best schools.


Bob

+----------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA |
+----------------------------+-----------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, Bob Gately wrote:

> I wrote:
>
> "What percent of managers
> ... study human behavior?
> ... are managers because it pays well?
> ... have undergraduate degrees or graduate degrees in management?
> ... are managers because they were excellent technical specialists?"
>
> then David J. Lemak <dlemak@beta.tricity.wsu.edu> wrote:
>
> >>... Assuming that "most" or "all"
> managers fall into any of those
> categories is not a legitimate
> foundation for making prescriptions...<<
>
> Are you recommending that managers need not study management
> theory and practice or understand human behavior or that
> technical excellence is more important than behavior or
> that a higher income is a worthy reason to become a manager?

Not at all. I am saying that you are making an assumption that may or may
not be true. What percentage of managers fall into each of those
categories is something that can be determined empricially, and not
something to simply speculate about.

> I am making the observation that a majority of managers are
> unprepared technically--in management theory and practice--and
> or ill-suited temperamentally to be managers.

That's my point. You are making these sweeping generalizations based on a
sample size of one - your experience. While that may be a valid basis upon
which to make decisions in your business life, it most certainly is not
an empirical fact.

The prescription
> is to require managers to be as well-prepared technically as other
> professionals, i.e, required managers to study management
> theory and practice and to select people for management who are
> well-suited for management based on their behaviors not on
> their need to be on control of others or to make a higher income.

I couldn't agree more, but your personal observations are not sufficient
to say this, in fact, is not the case for most managers.

> Which of my recommendations do not endorse?
>
> >>... In fact, it can be downright dangerous...<<
>
> Please explain.

"Common sense" management prescriptions (and paperback books) of the genre
I term McManagement come and go. Companies spend all kinds of money on
training and development that result in little or no improvement in
organizational effectiveness. Everying from "Japanese management"
techiniques to quality circles before that to Peters and Waterman (most of
which they have now recanted) after that come and go. The basis upon which
most of this stuff is written is NOT empirical evidence, but rather gross
generalizations. Relying on that kind of information for world class
business decisions can have disasterous results. I shudder whenever I see
another "management made easy" book top the NY Times best seller list.

Now, I am not criticizing what you do in any way. Near as I can tell, the
emphasis on behaviors which you promote is on solid empirical ground going
all the way back to Skinner, Watson and others.


> >>... Therefore, by your own contention
> and logic, most consultants, like most
> managers are incompetent...<<
>
> Yes, and your point is what?

Just pulling your chain. If consultants come from the same backgrounds,
experiences and education as managers, why should the former listen to the
latter, and what makes them the 'experts'? And how does one tell the
charlatans from the true believers?

> >>... Another empirical question, not a statement of fact...<<
>
> Gee, and I thought I was expressing a wish and an opinion. Are opinions and
> wishes not permitted?
>
> My opinion is that skills and knowledge are not enough to ensure that a new
> hire will be a future top performer. If you want to argue that a college
> degree ensures success on the job, be my guest, but too many employers know
> that that is not the case. There is more to on-the-job success than how
> many A's we rack up on our college transcripts,
> yes, even from the best schools.

Agreed, all I'm asking is that we keep opinion and fact seperate, and
value each of them appropirately.

Enjoyed it as always,
Dave

David J. Lemak <dlemak@BETA.TRICITY.WSU.EDU> wrote:

>>... I am saying that you are making
an assumption that may or may not be true...<<

Of course, and I am waiting for evidence that shows me that
I am wrong. I will change my opinion as soon as I see it.

>>... You are making these sweeping
generalizations based on a sample
size of one - your experience. While
that may be a valid basis upon which
to make decisions in your business life,
it most certainly is not an empirical fact...<<

So tell me the facts that disagree with my opinion and the source.

>>... I couldn't agree more, but your
personal observations are not sufficient
to say this, in fact, is not the case for
most managers...<<

And where is your evidence that it does not apply to most managers?

>>... Companies spend all kinds of money on
training and development that result in little
or no improvement in organizational effectiveness...<<

And you would call these managements competent?

>>... I shudder whenever I see another
"management made easy" book top the NY
Times best seller list...<<

Me too, because management is never easy and it is much harder
and more demanding than portrayed by many experts on and off campus.

>>... Just pulling your chain...<<

I thought so, I could here the water swirling. :-)

>>... If consultants come from the same
backgrounds, experiences and education
as managers, why should the former
listen to the latter...<<<

Its beyond me.

Over 70% of the reengineering efforts of the early 1990's failed to
deliver as promised and the author of "Reengineering the Corporation"
had to write the follow up book "Reengineering Management" because as
he said they forgot the people in the middle. As I wrote elsewhere
management is about people, degrees are about knowledge and when
consultants don't talk about your people, ask them to leave,
nicely of course.

>>... and what makes them the
'experts'? And how does one tell the
charlatans from the true believers?...<<

A recent column in the Wall Street Journal summed it up quite well:

the consultant tells his client's management team that they have
all the answers they need in their staff, but since management
is incapable of extracting that information they need the consultant
to do the extraction. That is why consultants are needed--managers
cannot do what it is they are paid to do. Come to think of it,
doesn't that come close to incompetence?

Also, a well known management consultant estimates that only 2.5%
of the corporate managers he works with have the leadership ability
to implement the changes that are recognized and agreed to as needed.
You see, everywhere I look I see evidence that management is less than
well-prepared for the task of managing, just ask the employees.

When a company suffers with high turnover does management ask
"what are we doing wrong" or do they take comfort with the
knowledge that they are at or near the industry average?

>>... Agreed, all I'm asking is that we
keep opinion and fact separate, and
value each of them appropriately...<<

Okidoki

Fun as always

Bob

I was interested in the by-play regarding managers viz consultants and in
particular as it relates to qualifications. I have been both manager and
consultant and in both cases I had a base degree and many years of
experience in the field. It is only as you gain further experience and
research that you find that in reality, you do not know what you do not
know. It is my belief that the technical knowledge is needed in both cases
as well as the people skills. These skills do not need to come from
tertitary education but do need to come from some form of formal training. -
Reg Bond

Reg certainly has a point that the people skills need to be trained or
educated in. Here in Lithuania the problem is that a lot of old
paradigm managers who were successful in the Soviet era are being given
up as hopeless now. They certainly don't have people skills but are
called "stones" and considered unchangeable. Maybe educating people
that "stones" can be changed--with the right techniques--might be a
first step in the transition to a situation in which people skills are
widely held.
Charlie Wankel
Fulbright Scholar, Kaunas University of Technology

Charlie Wankel <cx@kaunas.omnitel.net> wrote:

>>... Maybe educating people that
"stones" can be changed--with the
right techniques--might be a first
step in the transition to a situation
in which people skills are widely held...<<

I hope so, but if you ask US executives and managers the odds
are that you will get the right answer about the importance of
people skills and how employees ought to be treated with respect.
Then ask their staff if they walk their talk especially when under
stress. We seldom see ourselves as others do whne we are stressed.

Bob

+----------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA |
+----------------------------+-----------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

Reg Bond <bondr@PO.USQ.EDU.AU> wrote:

>>... technical knowledge is needed in both
cases as well as the people skills. These
skills do not need to come from tertitary
education but do need to come from some
form of formal training...<<

Skills are necessary and learnable, but people skills are most valuable
when used ALL of the time, not just when we want something done. Some
managers treat their employees with respect, i.e., use their people
skills, most of the time, however, employees need to be treated with
respect all of the time, not just when the manager is unstressed
or unrushed. The way a person behaves under stress is what determines
a person's suitability for management, all other things being equal.


Bob

+----------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA |
+----------------------------+-----------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

Just for the record, to expand on David's comments, having attended a
school is no assurance of knowledge or application. The lack of
attending a school does not presume incompetence.

Actually, there is emperical data that confirms most managers of
successful companies do not have advanced degrees and some dropped out
of college (e.g., Bill Gates). Also, there was a recent study done that
details who becomes a millioniare in the U.S. A surprise to me is that
it was not mostly white collar workers. Two thirds were blue collar
people who owned there own businesses and THEY DID NOT GO TO SCHOOL TO
LEARN THEIR TRADE.

So can we please stop rarifing education. It has its place, but it is
not the only path to success and learning. BTW, do you believe that
this is coming from a Ph.D. candidate.

>----------
>From: David J. Lemak[SMTP:dlemak@BETA.TRICITY.WSU.EDU]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 1997 12:27 PM
>To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>Subject: Re: Hiring for attitude
>
>On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Bob Gately wrote:
>
>> David J. Lemak <dlemak@beta.tricity.wsu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> What percent of many managers have undergraduate degrees
>> or graduate degrees in management?
>>
>> What percent of managers study human behavior?
>>
>> What percent of managers are managers because it pays well?
>>
>> What percent of managers are managers because they were
>> excellent technical specialists?
>
>These are empirical questions, not causes for speculation. Assuming that
>"most" or "all" managers fall into any of those categories is not a
>legtimate foudation for making prescriptions. In fact, it can be downright
>dangerous.
>
>
>> >>... So, where do consultants
>> learn about consulting? ...<<
>>
>> Same place as managers--usually on the job.
>>
>> >>... And what special knowledge, ability
>> and aptitude does it require?...<<
>>
>> Not much since many consultants are just employees working
>> for many employers.
>
>Therefore, by your own contention and logic, most consultants, like most
>managers are incompetent.
>
>>
>> I wish top management were smart enough to identify future effective
>> managers and leaders and then fast track them. Some companies do, but
>> not nearly enough.
>
>Another empirical question, not a statement of fact.
>

Bob,
I said those were empirical questions - I never said I had the answers!
Your point below is well taken. We are coming to covergence much too
quickly!
Regards,
Dave

On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, Bob Gately wrote:

>
> A recent column in the Wall Street Journal summed it up quite well:
>
> the consultant tells his client's management team that they have
> all the answers they need in their staff, but since management
> is incapable of extracting that information they need the consultant
> to do the extraction. That is why consultants are needed--managers
> cannot do what it is they are paid to do. Come to think of it,
> doesn't that come close to incompetence?
>
> Also, a well known management consultant estimates that only 2.5%
> of the corporate managers he works with have the leadership ability
> to implement the changes that are recognized and agreed to as needed.
> You see, everywhere I look I see evidence that management is less than
> well-prepared for the task of managing, just ask the employees.
>
> When a company suffers with high turnover does management ask
> "what are we doing wrong" or do they take comfort with the
> knowledge that they are at or near the industry average?
>

Miles Davis <miles.davis@EXSE01.EDS.COM> wrote:

>>... having attended a school is no
assurance of knowledge or application...<<

True, but the piece of paper must mean something.

What does it mean?

>>... The lack of attending a school
does not presume incompetence...<<

Incompetence knows no educational level.

>>... Actually, there is emperical
data that confirms most managers of
successful companies do not have
advanced degrees and some dropped out
of college (e.g., Bill Gates)...<<

Growing companies need the right people more than advanced degrees?

>>... Two thirds were blue collar people
who owned there own businesses and THEY
DID NOT GO TO SCHOOL TO LEARN THEIR TRADE...<<

And do you think their lack of knowledge about management and
business is a help or a hindrance? How many businesses are
started and how many fail?

>>... So can we please stop rarifing education...<<

Education is valuable because it is the quickest way to acquire
knowledge from more knowledgeable people.

>>... It has its place, but it is
not the only path to success and
learning. BTW, do you believe that
this is coming from a Ph.D. candidate...<<

Yes, but what do I know.

Bob

Miles,
True enough, and you can add Ross Perot to the list of gazzillionaires
without formal business training. One thing that I have discovered about
successful entreprenuers is that they seem to fall into two categories.
One group is the visionaries, charismatic, dare I say 'transformational'
leaders, who dream great dreams, attract great people, do great things
until the enterprise grows to a size where it needs technical experts and
professional administrators to run the business. At that point, the very
traits that made the founder a success now get in the way of efficient
operations. Folks in this group: Jobs and Wozniak at Apple, Beauvais at
America West, Burr at People's Express, even Ben and Jerry's and Starbucks
seem to be running into this phenomenon. In the second category are the
founders with that same traits as above, but those who are also wise
enough to know what they don't know, and thus surround themselves with the
best money can buy in the way of technical expertise and administration.
Here is where I put Gates and Perot. If you've ever heard Gates speak or
read his book, one cannot but help be struck but by how "ungenious-like"
(we academics love to make up words) he is.

On the personal experience side, I used three entreprenuers in the
Colorado Springs area to speak to my policy and strategy class - one who
owned a pizza franchise, one who went into the full service restraunt
business after selling off a successful Wendy's franchise and a retail
furniture operation. None of them had formal business training and all of
them were very "people-oriented, empowerment, etc." kind of managers and
all very successful. Three years later, after returning to the Academy
from PhD school, I wanted to use them again, only to find out that all
three had gone bankrupt.

The point is (again from a sample size of one) that there is some
combination of formal education and experience that seems to lead to
success over the LONG term. I don't know what that is, but one thing I
have enjoyed from this list (apart from trying to be contentious when
things get boring) is the input from so many people with such varied
backgrounds as to what the items in that magic recipe might be.
Regards,
Dave

On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Davis, Miles wrote:

> Just for the record, to expand on David's comments, having attended a
> school is no assurance of knowledge or application. The lack of
> attending a school does not presume incompetence.
>
> Actually, there is emperical data that confirms most managers of
> successful companies do not have advanced degrees and some dropped out
> of college (e.g., Bill Gates). Also, there was a recent study done that
> details who becomes a millioniare in the U.S. A surprise to me is that
> it was not mostly white collar workers. Two thirds were blue collar
> people who owned there own businesses and THEY DID NOT GO TO SCHOOL TO
> LEARN THEIR TRADE.
>
> So can we please stop rarifing education. It has its place, but it is
> not the only path to success and learning. BTW, do you believe that
> this is coming from a Ph.D. candidate.
>
>

David J. Lemak <dlemak@BETA.TRICITY.WSU.EDU> wrote:

>>... I never said I had the answers! ...<<

Me neither, but I do enjoy the exchange anyway.

>>... Your point below is well taken...<<

Thanks.

>>... We are coming to convergence much too quickly!...<<

Arrrrg, I will have to be more obstreperous.

Bob

In a message dated 97-04-30 19:18:22 EDT, you write:

>MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>
>

Interesting thread but one company has certainly demonstrated that hiring for
attitude is certainly one the THE MOST important components of an effective
customer service strategy - Southwest Airlines. I had the pleasure of
traveling round trip this week and was fascinated with the bright, eager,
genuinely pleasant folks that man every aspect of that airline. They've
certainly demonstrated that hiring for attitude does work. Many of us are
dealing with years and years of our company's bad hiring decisions and we're
trying to help many people change who just don't have it in them. Much
easier to start with the right people to begin with. There must be a lot of
them out there as SW has 26,000 employees!!!

NProbst261@AOL.COM wrote:

>>... They've certainly demonstrated
that hiring for attitude does work...<<

For many jobs the employer can provide sufficient training so
that attitude becomes an even more critical component of on
the job success.

>>... Many of us are dealing with years and
years of our company's bad hiring decisions
and we're trying to help many people change
who just don't have it in them...<<

Before people change they may need to see themselves from the outside.
My former boss used to tell me I was too assertive and that I intimidated
the members of the board--I wasn't on the board--and I never knew what he
meant until I learned that my natural behavior is more assertive than 92.5%
of the working population. Now when I assert myself it is usually
after I have decided it is the right thing to do. We must know ourselves
before we can improve ourselves. Self-knowledge is the first step.

>>... Much easier to start with
the right people to begin with...<<

Yes, we recommend hiring people who are predisposed to behave properly.

>>... There must be a lot of them out
there as SW has 26,000 employees!!!...<<

My estimate is that about 1/3 of the applicants have what we call
job fit and the secret is to know which 1/3, which is my job.

Bob

+----------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA |
+----------------------------+-----------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

In the post-communist nations, a lot of firms focused on hiring only
people who had never worked before to avoid the problem of have to
"unlearn" the bad work attitudes of the former epoch. In the
"socialist" era it was popular to say "If you're not stealing from the
company, you're are stealing from your family!" Bullying customers,
ignoring them, making fun and insulting them, acting nasty, and so on
were normal perks of a job that people felt entitled to do. So, some
Western companies like McDonald's hired people in these nations on the
basis of how friendly they seemed, how much they smiled, their
attitudes. Training them in restaurant tasks was the easy part they
thought.
If you teach entrepreneurship you can get a free copy of a case I
have on this from Irwin (Chicago, Bogota, Buenos Aires, Caracas, London,
Madrid, Mexico City, Sydney, Toronto). The case is called Tasky Hucek
and is set in the Czech Republic. You have to request the book which
is:
Robert D. Hisrich, Patricia P. McDougall, and Benjamin M. Oviatt,
Cases in International Entrepreneurship. Irwin: 1997. ISBN:
0-256-19183-2.
Regards, Charlie Wankel
Fulbright Scholar
Kaunas University of Technology
Lithuania

-=> On 04/28/97 17:05, Bob Gately wrote Frank Bell <=-

BG> evaluate the wrong selection criteria. If past behavior is the
BG> best predictor of future behavior, we need to evaluate past

Agreed. IMO, one of the reasons we here so much about attitude is
that many folks haven't been able to make the difficult jump from
"your attitude" to identifying the behaviors that lead them to label
your attitude as one thing or another.

BG> down to the interview...<<
BG> Not necessarily. Our clients go one step further after they conduct
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
True, but commonly ;)

BG> Isn't it better to hire people who are predisposed to act
BG> they way you want them to act?

Certainly. My point is that we aren't going to get there by talking
about attitude, only by focusing on behaviors. In actuality, I am
nowhere near so cynical as my initial post may have made me appear;
however, I do think we have to remember that we can never actually
know what someone else's attitude is. We have only our supposition.
We can, however, know someone's behavior.

And most folks do not dissemble consistently, or, for that matter,
very skillfully (though the new Psych. Today reports that most people
do *lie* much more frequently than expected--two to three times a
day, but that's not the same as living a lie throughout the day).


Frank Bell Internet:
Project Leader frank.bell@nonamebbs.com
Amtrak frank.bell@royal.com
National Training and
Conference Center FidoNet:
110 S. French St.--Ste 200 Frank Bell@1:150/160
Wilmington, Del. 19801



___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

Good reply. Boy this discussion is educational.

>----------
>From: David J. Lemak[SMTP:dlemak@BETA.TRICITY.WSU.EDU]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 1997 4:53 PM
>To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>Subject: Re: Hiring for attitude
>
>Miles,
>True enough, and you can add Ross Perot to the list of gazzillionaires
>without formal business training. One thing that I have discovered about
>successful entreprenuers is that they seem to fall into two categories.
>One group is the visionaries, charismatic, dare I say 'transformational'
>leaders, who dream great dreams, attract great people, do great things
>until the enterprise grows to a size where it needs technical experts and
>professional administrators to run the business. At that point, the very
>traits that made the founder a success now get in the way of efficient
>operations. Folks in this group: Jobs and Wozniak at Apple, Beauvais at
>America West, Burr at People's Express, even Ben and Jerry's and Starbucks
>seem to be running into this phenomenon. In the second category are the
>founders with that same traits as above, but those who are also wise
>enough to know what they don't know, and thus surround themselves with the
>best money can buy in the way of technical expertise and administration.
>Here is where I put Gates and Perot. If you've ever heard Gates speak or
>read his book, one cannot but help be struck but by how "ungenious-like"
>(we academics love to make up words) he is.
>
>On the personal experience side, I used three entreprenuers in the
>Colorado Springs area to speak to my policy and strategy class - one who
>owned a pizza franchise, one who went into the full service restraunt
>business after selling off a successful Wendy's franchise and a retail
>furniture operation. None of them had formal business training and all of
>them were very "people-oriented, empowerment, etc." kind of managers and
>all very successful. Three years later, after returning to the Academy
>from PhD school, I wanted to use them again, only to find out that all
>three had gone bankrupt.
>
>The point is (again from a sample size of one) that there is some
>combination of formal education and experience that seems to lead to
>success over the LONG term. I don't know what that is, but one thing I
>have enjoyed from this list (apart from trying to be contentious when
>things get boring) is the input from so many people with such varied
>backgrounds as to what the items in that magic recipe might be.
>Regards,
>Dave
>
>On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Davis, Miles wrote:
>
>> Just for the record, to expand on David's comments, having attended a
>> school is no assurance of knowledge or application. The lack of
>> attending a school does not presume incompetence.
>>
>> Actually, there is emperical data that confirms most managers of
>> successful companies do not have advanced degrees and some dropped out
>> of college (e.g., Bill Gates). Also, there was a recent study done that
>> details who becomes a millioniare in the U.S. A surprise to me is that
>> it was not mostly white collar workers. Two thirds were blue collar
>> people who owned there own businesses and THEY DID NOT GO TO SCHOOL TO
>> LEARN THEIR TRADE.
>>
>> So can we please stop rarifing education. It has its place, but it is
>> not the only path to success and learning. BTW, do you believe that
>> this is coming from a Ph.D. candidate.
>>
>>
>

At great risk, I ponder this...
Who's attitude is being hired? Is the " Winner of the Best Attitude Award
of 1997" the candidate who, exhibiting the most look-alike behaviors and
mimics the employer? Is she the one who wins the second interview? Is the
interviewee being screened for non-threatening behavior, so that the
employer will not have to deal with change? Is the Right Attitude one that
is just like the interviewer's? Is the person employable because they are
already able to speak the jobplace jargon? Is it attitude... because they
know what the employer is trying to get them to understand or because the
interviewer thinks the prospect has the attitude to get along with her...
or is it that they have the schooling... or is it that wore the Right
Clothes to the interview? Is the interviewee who shares opinions from the
heart, that remains true to self the one who is chosen to win the award of
being employed?
Is the Right Attitude simply ability to adjust to the cultural norms of
that particular workplace (ie they won't fight having to wear a suit
everyday, yet not be able to write it off as a uniform which would be tax
deductible??)

As readers and participants in the dialogues on this email list, as
Management and Business Educators, as non-academic Managers, as students
and as developers of next generation corporate and entrepreneurial leaders
are these questions to be addressed, even temperedly?

I bring these thoughts up as a white-guy who would fall easily into the
jobplace trap of only hiring other white-guys... you know, exact duplicates
of ME... EXCEPT that I am now sensitized to the issues of diversity and the
painful but promising enhancement to the bottom line that hiring people of
cultural and ethnic and "attitudinal" differences bring to the work place.
Continuous Improvement comes with willingness to accept change.

Right now, I am super sensitive to the "gangsta" way that teens of all
colors in the US use for expressing themselves with "hand-speak". Let's
call "hand-speak" "it" as it represents any of dozens of visual and
cultural expressions of personality and cultural raising, as well as
schooling or religion.
Suppose I don't relate to "it". "It " irritates me to watch, and wasn't
part of my formative years.
I feel that I must get over my irritation. I have other options, only one
of which is to vigilantly screen applicants for "it" if I feel strongly
that "it" is a negative influence on my organization.
Which I strongly advocate (here) as expression of a cultural decision.
"Hand-speak" is part of today's society, and if and when those "kids become
potential employees they will get jobs at MY workplace.

I am the one who will have to adjust: to maintain my employability, to
maintain my attitude.

Attitude. How do you measure it? Who's got it? Who ain't?
Looks like cultural winnowing for fit to culture-in-dominance to me.

Any takers for a non-racist discussion of how Cultural Acceptance is
different from Right Attitude??

Corey

from May 1.
> Also, a well known management consultant estimates that only 2.5%
> of the corporate managers he works with have the leadership ability
> to implement the changes that are recognized and agreed to as needed.
> You see, everywhere I look I see evidence that management is less than
> well-prepared for the task of managing, just ask the employees.
>


What about the competence of those who are selecting and hiring these
managers? The manager may well know s/he is really unsuitable, but is
going to be extremely well paid for "accepting the wrong job", So he is
"getting results+ by harvesting right there.

Dysfunctional Assessment Ability is like propane in its natural state: It
hardly smells, but creeps in everywhere below the level of sight.

The fact that a manager gets knowingly into a situation which overtaxes
him (without admitting and getting assistance) may be one of the reasons
managers tend to avoid a situation where employees could learn how to
assess / analyse with more power. She is learning on the job (absolutely
positive), possibly with an unnecessary amount of wrong decisions paid for
by employees, customers. - Any takers?

Emil Zahner
Innovation Coach
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/canmor/index19.htm

Emil asked:
What about the competence of those who are selecting and
hiring these managers?

Certainly training interviewers throughly about job requirements is very
important to get better interviewing results (as Langdale & Weitz and
others have shown). A related problem is delegated a lot of the hiring
process to outside agencies that might not be adequately trained in the
job and other requirements. Looking at the results of an organization's
hiring decisions, tracing problems back to the hiring process, and
attempting to improve the process for the next go round is simple TQM.
More and more firms are applying TQM to administrative support functions
like HRM and are trying to "do it right the first time."
Charlie Wankel, Fulbrighter
Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania

>----------
>
>Attitude. How do you measure it? Who's got it? Who ain't?
>Looks like cultural winnowing for fit to culture-in-dominance to me.
>
>Any takers for a non-racist discussion of how Cultural Acceptance is
>different from Right Attitude??
>
Corey, great reply. And I will accept the challenge to explore cultural
acceptance vs. right attitude. I too have a problem with "right
attitude," but only in the broad context. For example, if I am hiring
for sales, I want an "energetic, relationship oriented, relatively
assertive" attitude. This a narrow context and appropriate for most
sales positions. Also, culturally, if your culture does not support
those attitudes I would not be inclined to hire you for sales. But that
assesment is made only after talking to you, not based on a cultural
>stereotype.

Dear 'net nanny,

Sorry to post to the whole list (begin whine) but Windows 95 ate my AOL files
where the file describing how to unsubscribe to the list was stored (end
whine). Could you please unsubscribe me. Just got too much going on to keep
up.

Thanks.

Duane

Duane C. Tway, Ph.D., "The Trust Doctor"
Consultants for Organization Response and Effectiveness (C.O.R.E.)
7022 E. Hacienda Reposo
Tucson, AZ 85715-4919
Ph 520 721-6642
Fx 520 721-1398
DuaneTway@aol.com

Faculty Advisor, Walden University
dtway@waldenu.edu

CORE: Practicing Fighter Pilot OD -- Achieving high-flying, winning
solutions.

"Oh, I have slipped the surley bonds of earth,
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings..."

John Gillespie Magee, Jr.

> For example, if I am hiring
>for sales, I want an "energetic, relationship oriented, relatively
>assertive" attitude. This a narrow context and appropriate for most
>sales positions. Also, culturally, if your culture does not support
>those attitudes I would not be inclined to hire you for sales. But that
>assesment is made only after talking to you, not based on a cultural
>>stereotype.

Since attitude is inherently unknowable, and merely inferred, I think
what you really want is energetic, relationship oriented, relatively
assertive BEHAVIOR.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Bill Snavely
Miami University Department of Management
Richard T. Farmer School of Business
E-MAIL: snavelwb@muohio.edu
WEB: "http://www.muohio.edu/~snavelwb/"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The OBTC Ring connects Management Professors'
Home Pages: http://www.muohio.edu/~snavelwb/obtc.html

Great query regarding attitude versus valuing cultural diversity. I'm sure
I'll ruffle more than a few feathers but here goes.... I believe it is up to
each company to clearly define the type of employee they are seeking. This
definition must be based on competencies rather than physical
characteristics. For example, in my company we are trying to focus our
hiring practices on looking for applicants with the right interpersonal and
team skills. We have further defined what those competencies would look like
and have designed carefully constructed behavioral interview questions to
avoid individuals who just know how to interview well or put forth a good
impression. I do believe that if someone comes in with a "gangsta"
presentation, they will clearly not fit the profile of the type of employee
we need to deliver the level of customer service we are trying to create.
Sorry...

Nancy

On 3 May 97 at 14:56, Bob Gately wrote:


> Emil Zahner <75114.11@COMPUSERVE.COM> wrote:
>
> >>... What about the competence of those
> who are selecting and hiring these managers?...<<
>
> Yes, it is the hiring manager who is at fault when a poor performer
> is hired.

I've been following this discussion for a bit, and the part that
perplexes me is the extent to which there is an issue of assigning
fault, which hardly seems to be a means of improving hiring.

Perhaps I am being a bit too "semantic" here; I have no problem with
the notion that it is the hiring manager's responsibility to hire the
most appropriate people, but we also need to understand, before we go
round blaming anyone, that the hiring process is a probabilistic
one...that is AT BEST we are trying to increase the probability of a
successful hire. And, that, it will remain a probabilistic issue
until such point that we can determine with 100% sureness that any
given hire will succeed. (if that will ever be possible to say).

> As far as I know, applicants do not dictate to the employer who
> gets hired. It is only the employer who is in the position to know
> who will make the best hire therefore, if a new hire is not successful it
> is the employer's fault.

I do not believe that the employer can, WITH certainty, know who will
make the best hire...only a fuzzy probabilistic conclusion is
possible.

I find it questionable that anyone in the selection business would
write "as if" we can provide certainty. At best we can only increase
the probability of success; and that would be the proper way of
assessing any selection process or instrument. What degree above
(chance or current procedures) are achieved?

To find fault when "unsuccessful hires" occur is like complaining
about the weather predictors when they are wrong, since weather
predicting is also a probabilistic process.

So why the emphasis on managers and their "fault" in the matter?


Robert Bacal, Institute For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca
Visit our Resource Centre for articles on mgmt.,training,communication, and defusing hostility
at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal *Now CHAT online with other visitors and discuss communication
and defusing hostility techniques on our bulletin board!
Phone: (204) 888-9290

Emil Zahner <75114.11@COMPUSERVE.COM> wrote:

>>... What about the competence of those
who are selecting and hiring these managers?...<<

Yes, it is the hiring manager who is at fault when a poor performer
is hired.

>>... The manager may well know s/he is
really unsuitable, but is going to be extremely
well paid for "accepting the wrong job"...<<

As far as I know, applicants do not dictate to the employer who
gets hired. It is only the employer who is in the position to know
who will make the best hire therefore, if a new hire is not successful it
is the employer's fault.

>>... So he is "getting results+
by harvesting right there...<<

An applicant CANNOT know if s/he is best candidate for the position
therefore the rely almost exclusively on the [people who can
know--the employer and the employer's representatives.

>>... Dysfunctional Assessment Ability is
like propane in its natural state: It
hardly smells, but creeps in everywhere
below the level of sight...<<

Yes, and when employers suffer with turnover that is not the result
of corporate decisions that turnover is a direct result of hiring the
wrong people. Also, if new hires are let go because "they are not
successful" then a hiring mistake was made as well.

>>>.. The fact that a manager gets
knowingly into a situation which
overtaxes him (without admitting and
getting assistance) may be one of
the reasons managers tend to avoid
a situation where employees could
learn how to assess / analyse with
more power...<<

Incompetent managers are often threatened by competent employees.

>>... She is learning on the job
(absolutely positive), possibly with
an unnecessary amount of wrong
decisions paid for by employees,
customers...<<

Why do we hold learning by doing in such high regard since it is
more cost-effective to learn from other peoples mistakes? That is
one reason books are written so we do not have to make the same
mistakes everyone else has made.

Bob

+----------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA |
+----------------------------+-----------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

Corey Cate <e144888@POPCORN.LLNL.GOV> wrote:

>>... At great risk, I ponder this...<<

Nothing like a risk taker!

>>... Who's attitude is being hired? ...<<

Employers try to infer future behaviors based on the articulation of
purported attitudes of applicants.

>>... Is the "Winner of the Best Attitude Award of 1997"

Quite often hiring decisions are based on the results of the interview,
which in affect is hiring the best speaker which may be good if hiring
professional interviewees is the goal. However, I doubt if many
hiring managers want to select professional interviewees.

>>... the candidate who, exhibiting
the most look-alike behaviors and
mimics the employer? ...<<

What do you mean by employer? The Chairman of the Board? The CEO?
The President? The Executive VP? The Department Manager?

The right people to hire are those that look like current employees
who are top performers in the same job at the same location.

>>... Is she the one who
wins the second interview? ...<<

The winner of the interview phase is often not the best person to
hire, but since few managers know this they over rely on the
results of the interview.

>>... Is the interviewee being screened
for non-threatening behavior, so that the
employer will not have to deal with change? ...<<

If the employer wants to hire change agents they should do that, but
if the employer wants to hire people who will perform their jobs
in the manner that the employer deems necessary they should do that
as well. There should not be a one-size fits all approach to selection.

>>... Is the Right Attitude one that
is just like the interviewer's? ...<<

No, and it wouldn't surprise me that most applicants who are well-liked
by the interviewer get selected before the applicants who are not
well-liked by the interviewer.

If the current interviewer is hiring a new interviewer and the current
interviewer is excellent and a top performer then yes, the applicant
who looks like the interviewer ought to be selected, but for all other
positions the answer is probably not.

>>... Is the person employable because they
are already able to speak the jobplace jargon?...<<

That is only one criteria.

>>... Is it attitude... because they
know what the employer is trying to
get them to understand or because the
interviewer thinks the prospect has
the attitude to get along with her...<<

That could be the case with a subjective selection process.

>>... or is it that they have the schooling...<<

That should be only one factor.

>>... or is it that wore the
Right Clothes to the interview?...<<

Some interviewers may subconsciously make the hiring decision based
on attire. The average interviewer makes up their mind within about
4 minutes--which means dress is a big factor when it should be a
minor factor if a factor at all.

>>... Is the interviewee who shares
opinions from the heart, that remains
true to self the one who is chosen to
win the award of being employed?...<<

With subjective selection processes honesty is not often rewarded.

>>... Is the Right Attitude simply ability
to adjust to the cultural norms of that
particular work place (i.e., they won't fight
having to wear a suit everyday, yet not
be able to write it off as a uniform
which would be tax deductible??)...<<

No, the right attitude is never simply any particular thing.

>>... I bring these thoughts up as a
white-guy who would fall easily into the
jobplace trap of only hiring other white-
guys... you know, exact duplicates of ME...<<

That is quite often the result when hiring managers make subjective
selection judgements.

An effective selection process does not duplicate the interviewer,
but it does duplicate the top performers in each job classification.

>>... EXCEPT that I am now sensitized to
the issues of diversity and the painful
but promising enhancement to the bottom
line that hiring people of cultural and
ethnic and "attitudinal" differences bring
to the work place. Continuous Improvement
comes with willingness to accept change...<<

Hiring people with the right attitude--we actually use behaviors--
screens people in or out based on the their behaviors.

>>... Attitude. How do you measure it?
Who's got it? Who ain't? Looks like
cultural winnowing for fit to
culture-in-dominance to me...<<

If you change the approach from evaluating attitude, which is way
too subjective, to evaluating behavior the problems are minimized
all around.

Bob

+----------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA |
+----------------------------+-----------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

On 4 May 97 at 11:36, Bob Gately wrote:
> >>... So why the emphasis on managers
> and their "fault" in the matter? ...<<
>
> The better question is: What is so bothersome about the
> word "blame" or the concept of "assigning responsibility?

Simply put, blame is the process of identifying who WAS at fault for
something in the past...something unchangable. Blame and fault are
concepts used to assign punishment, and both connotate surpulus
meaning. Responsibility is a different thing, because it enables us
to focus on improvement.

It matters not a whit who was at fault, who WAS responsible, or who
WAS to blame...what matters is how to improve the situation, and
blaming any class of people is, IMHO, a waste of time

I'm sorry you don't see the distinction between the following two
sentences:

The manager was to blame for the unsuccessful hire.

It is the manager's responsibility to make the best hire choice
possible.

For others out there, do they mean the same? Which is the better
approach if we want to help managers improve?


Robert Bacal, Institute For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca
Visit our Resource Centre for articles on mgmt.,training,communication, and defusing hostility
at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal *Now CHAT online with other visitors and discuss communication
and defusing hostility techniques on our bulletin board!
Phone: (204) 888-9290

Robert Bacal <rbacal@escape.ca> wrote:

>>... the part that perplexes me is the
extent to which there is an issue of
assigning fault, which hardly seems to
be a means of improving hiring...<<

"Blame" means "to assign responsibility". When discussing problems
we need to know what the cause of the problems are and "to assign
responsibility", i.e., blame. Since we are not using names it
is faster and easier to type "blame" than to type
"assign responsibility."

I agree that when we are talking with an individual we ought not
to use the word "blame" since it may dredge up childhood feelings.
However, when we are discussing problems in general it helps to use
words that are precise and "blame" is one of those words.

>>... before we go round blaming anyone....<<

I wasn't aware that we blamed anyone.

Did anyone use a person's name?

Do not confuse blame, i.e., to assign responsibility, with pointing
an angry finger in an accusatory manner.

>>... AT BEST we are trying to increase
the probability of a successful hire...<<

That is obvious, since employees do not come with guarantees.

>>... it will remain a probabilistic
issue until such point that we can
determine with 100% sureness that
any given hire will succeed...<<

What is the point? You stated a truism but is it relevant to
the issue of hiring, I think not.

>>... I do not believe that the
employer can, WITH certainty..<<

Death is the only certainty so why even mention it? Employers can't
do anything with certainty of results.

>>... only a fuzzy probabilistic
conclusion is possible...<<

If your standard is "100% certainty", then you are correct,
but as far as I know that standard is not used in business
except maybe in the funeral business.

>>... I find it questionable that anyone
in the selection business would write
"as if" we can provide certainty...<<

I find it interesting that anyone who reads these messages
would conclude that anyone is talking about certainty since
certainty is so obviously an impossibility and, therefore,
needs not be mentioned at all.

>>... At best we can only increase
the probability of success; and that
would be the proper way of assessing
any selection process or instrument...<<

Absolutely.

>>... What degree above (chance or
current procedures) are achieved?...<<

I do believe that that has always been the thrust of these
messages on hiring.

>>... To find fault when "unsuccessful hires"
occur is like complaining about the weather
predictors when they are wrong, since weather
predicting is also a probabilistic process...<<

I wonder if the computer model is ever changed to reflect new
knowledge after an incorrect prediction? Of course, changes are
made as mistakes are made. I hope we all try to learn from our
mistakes and not ignore the cause of our mistakes.

Nothing is perfect and when errors occur it is a managers
responsibility to uncover the reasons for the error and then to take
steps to prevent the errors from reoccurring. If you are saying that
unsuccessful hires are a way of life and cannot be avoided I disagree
with you since many companies do prevent unsuccessful hires. Do not
bother to point out the obvious--that perfection is impossible.

>>... So why the emphasis on managers
and their "fault" in the matter? ...<<

The better question is: What is so bothersome about the
word "blame" or the concept of "assigning responsibility?

Without understanding what when wrong and who was responsible it
makes little sense to try and improve the situation. For instance,
if a hospital has high a patient death rate following surgery it is
critically important to know whether it is a certain doctor or after
surgery nursing care.

Bob

+----------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA |
+----------------------------+-----------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

Bill Snavely <snavelwb@MUOHIO.EDU> wrote:

>>... attitude is inherently
unknowable, and merely inferred,
I think what you really want is
energetic, relationship oriented,
relatively assertive BEHAVIOR...<<

Now we are getting somewhere. If we can move the discussion away
from the unknowable, i.e., attitudes, and into the observable,
i.e., behaviors, we can begin to understand why it is that behavior
is of more value than attitude.

Bob

+----------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA |
+----------------------------+-----------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

On Sat, 3 May 1997 10:50:47, NProbst261@AOL.COM wrote, RE: hiring for attitude
>
--snip -- in my company we are trying to focus our
>hiring practices on looking for applicants with the right interpersonal and
>team skills. We have further defined what those competencies would look like
>and have designed carefully constructed behavioral interview questions to
>avoid individuals -- snip --

How you do it is your business but be aware of your company's unstated
assumptions:
1. Your company know what interpersonal and team skills are needed.
2. Domain skills or basic KSA's are less relevant than team skills.
3. You know what your company will be doing five, ten, fifteen years from now.
4. For each current position, your company has already written down the
answers to the four things that every employee has a right to know:
a. what is my role (purpose, function)?
b. what is expected of me (output, results, outcomes)?
c. how will I be measured and rewarded?
d. who do I go to for help?

If your company can't write these down then who is qualified to decide what
next to hire? Maybe you would be better off with just a few who don't fit
a template born of arrogance.

anyway, good luck. You are obviously trying to do a good job.

"Jack Ring"

Robert Bacal <rbacal@escape.ca> wrote:

>>... blame is the process of
identifying who WAS at fault
for something in the past...
something unchangeable...<<

So we need not identify who did what that led to the Challenger
exploding after liftoff since it is an unchangeable even?

Adherence to a good interpersonal rule of thumb, i.e., don't use the
blame word, is rather a silly rule when trying to identify the cause
of failure in the abstract.

>>... Blame and fault are concepts
used to assign punishment, and both
connotate surpulus meaning...<<

When we are talking in the abstract about problems and their many causes
NO ONE will be offended by use of the word blame since the word does not
apply to any reader unless, of course, the reader sees him or herself in
the description of a poor manager's behavior.

>>... Responsibility is a different thing,
because it enables us to focus on improvement...<

You are knit picking word choice when we ought to be discussing
concepts. If we assign responsibility to an individual after an
event has gone wrong we are blaming that person. It is too bad that a
five letter word can get in the way of an exchange of ideas. If this thread
was about the use of the word "blame" when speaking with
subordinates I would agree, but since that is not the subject of
this thread blame is only a five letter word which means
"to hold responsible" or did the dictionary definition change?


Bob

+----------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA |
+----------------------------+-----------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

In re-reading my response of Sun, 4 May 1997 11:07:06, to the posting of
Sat, 3 May 1997 10:50:47, by NProbst261@AOL.COM wrote, RE: hiring for
attitude
I am aware that I may have seemed to be lecturing rather than dialoging.
It was not intended and my apologies to anyone who felt so.

>How you do it is your business but be aware of your company's unstated
>assumptions:
>1. Your company knows what interpersonal and team skills are needed.
>2. Domain skills or basic KSA's are less relevant than team skills.
>3. You know what your company will be doing five, ten, fifteen years from now.
>4. For each current position, your company has already written down the
>answers to the four things that every employee has a right to know:
>a. what is my role (purpose, function)?
>b. what is expected of me (output, results, outcomes)?
>c. how will I be measured and rewarded?
>d. who do I go to for help?
>
>If your company can't write these down then who is qualified to decide what
>next to hire? Maybe you would be better off with just a few who don't fit
>a template born of arrogance.
>
>anyway, good luck. You are obviously trying to do a good job.


"Jack Ring"

97.5.5 Bob responed to Emil's:
<<
>>... Dysfunctional Assessment Ability is =
like propane in its natural state: It hardly smells, but creeps in everywhere below the level of sight...<<

Yes, and when employers suffer with turnover that is not the result =
of corporate decisions that turnover is a direct result of hiring the
wrong people. Also, if new hires are let go because "they are not =
successful" then a hiring mistake was made as well. =
>>

I would add that there are many cases where the person hiring the wrong
one should get fired, because the "bottle neck" of the place has been
sitting on h- chair too long. The new person might be well suitable to
do a better job than the one who hired, though it was never the hirer's
intention to hire h- successor; and (of course) these abililies were far
from being part of the "needed behavior" specified by the outside
recruiter / assessor. ("By" because he should assess the org's needs).

Wow, the person helping with hiring is by "power" first of all
helping the current manager to get the people who will fit that mgr's
style, which may be quite different from what the organizations needs.
If the wrongly hiring mgr owns he place: End of story.

Emil Zahner
Innovation Coach
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/canmor/index19.htm

<<
I am aware that I may have seemed to be lecturing rather than dialoging.
It was not intended and my apologies to anyone who felt so.>>

What's wrong with sharing know-how in form of a check list?
It's defnitely shorter than a meandering discussion. <g>
Emil Zahner
The guy with the hopeless attitude, the intolerable behavior, and the
powerful and ethical results.
(How's this for a pun?)
On a more serious note:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/canmor/index19.htm

Colleagues,

As regards the "blame" decision, may I suggest the word "acountable"? It
changes the focus to how the situation must be changed, to what
processes require alteration, to what people must do or how they must be
differently. At the same time, it does not let anyone off the hook who
needs to be there. I got this from recent edition of newsletter called,
The Systems Thinker which is published by Pegasus.

Good Luck and if you don't like this then BLAME me.

All the best,

Bob Gately wrote:
>
> Robert Bacal <rbacal@escape.ca> wrote:
>
> >>... blame is the process of
> identifying who WAS at fault
> for something in the past...
> something unchangeable...<<
>
> So we need not identify who did what that led to the Challenger
> exploding after liftoff since it is an unchangeable even?
>
> Adherence to a good interpersonal rule of thumb, i.e., don't use the
> blame word, is rather a silly rule when trying to identify the cause
> of failure in the abstract.
>
> >>... Blame and fault are concepts
> used to assign punishment, and both
> connotate surpulus meaning...<<
>
> When we are talking in the abstract about problems and their many causes
> NO ONE will be offended by use of the word blame since the word does not
> apply to any reader unless, of course, the reader sees him or herself in
> the description of a poor manager's behavior.
>
> >>... Responsibility is a different thing,
> because it enables us to focus on improvement...<
>
> You are knit picking word choice when we ought to be discussing
> concepts. If we assign responsibility to an individual after an
> event has gone wrong we are blaming that person. It is too bad that a
> five letter word can get in the way of an exchange of ideas. If this thread
> was about the use of the word "blame" when speaking with
> subordinates I would agree, but since that is not the subject of
> this thread blame is only a five letter word which means
> "to hold responsible" or did the dictionary definition change?