Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  Why are some workers better than others?

    Posted 10-09-1998 18:36
    Some workers out-perform their colleagues by a ratio of 10:1. Robert Kelley
    calls them "star" workers, and has spent a lifetime trying to unlock their
    secrets. His book, "How to Be a Star at Work," reveals that -- after years
    of intensive productivity research at Bell Labs and 3M -- he and his team
    could find *no common traits* among star workers. They aren't smarter; they
    don't work longer or harder; they have no special social skills or drive.

    So begins the excerpt from "How to Be a Star at Work" that Times Books has
    given me permission to distribute online. The excerpt is called "Stars are
    Made, Not Born," and it explains how the author and a team of researchers
    worked for years searching for common characteristics of highly productive
    people, only to come up empty handed.

    You can imagine the frustration of personnel managers who had hoped to
    zero-in on certain traits when hiring people. The good news in Kelley's
    findings is that *anyone* has the ability to achieve super-productivity,
    and he has identified nine common strategies used by star workers to
    circumvent barriers that stop most employees.

    To get the excerpt from "How to Be a Star at Work," send
    mailto:jhart@tenagra.com with the subject line "Send Stars" and I will
    reply with a text file.


    Thanks,

    Jeremy Hart
    jhart@tenagra.com


  • 2.  Why are some workers better than others?

    Posted 10-09-1998 23:34
    Jeremy L. Hart <jhart@TENAGRA.COM> wrote:

    >Some workers out-perform their colleagues
    by a ratio of 10:1. Robert Kelley calls
    them "star" workers, and has spent a lifetime
    trying to unlock their secrets. His book,
    "How to Be a Star at Work," reveals that --
    after years of intensive productivity research
    at Bell Labs and 3M -- he and his team could find
    *no common traits* among star workers. They aren't
    smarter; they don't work longer or harder; they have
    no special social skills or drive.<

    It comes as no surprise to myself and I am sure to our 20,000 clients.

    Each star performer has job fit for their particular job. Take them out
    of their job and stick them somewhere else and they are less likely to
    be star performers. It is also related to who they work for as well.

    >The excerpt is called "Stars are Made, Not Born,"
    and it explains how the author and a team of
    researchers worked for years searching for
    common characteristics of highly productive
    people, only to come up empty handed.<

    We call the concept job fit and we find that productive people in
    different jobs have different success traits so we are not surprised
    by their results.

    >You can imagine the frustration of personnel
    managers who had hoped to zero-in on certain
    traits when hiring people. <

    Actually, the job fit concept does exactly that--zero-in on certain
    traits when hiring people.

    Job success requires not only the appropriate education and relevant
    work experience but also the necessary mental abilities, interests
    and on-the-job behaviors--we call it job fit, see below.

    According to our 20,000 clients across the country the job fit concept
    is what brings them the most success in the selection/job assignment
    process.

    Few people are familiar with the definition of job fit that we rely upon:

    "Job fit is the degree to which the
    candidates cognitive abilities,
    interests, and personality dynamics
    fit those required by the position."

    The following email I sent to Hal Lancaster, The Wall Street
    Journal columnist, speaks to the issue of how the job fit
    concept helps employers select the right people to hire.
    The results from a recent job fit pilot study are included
    in the email. Ask to see message 2 of 2 for an explanation
    of the job fit concept.

    Did your see my quote in Hal Lancaster's column in the July 14
    Wall Street Journal? Hal was intrigued by how my nephew Paul used
    the job fit concept to know that he would be successful on the job
    if he accepted the job. He accepted the job and has been successful
    in the job for 3+ years. Fortune magazine interviewed me recently for
    an upcoming article about corporate culture--can applicants know
    if they are well-suited for the culture.

    Once an applicant pool is reduced to those qualified to be
    hired, a job fit/job match assessment is used to see which
    of the qualified applicants are most likely to become
    successful employees. Using the concept of job fit when
    hiring/promoting/selecting/training helps to ensure that
    employees will be successful.


    Sincerely,


    Bob

    ------------------------------------------------------------

    3-3-98

    Re: Column--Making a Good Hire Takes a Little
    Instinct And a Lot of Research
    ---------------------------------

    Hello Hal:

    Its been awhile since I last emailed you about one of your columns.
    I think it was about career guidance--the Career Mapper.

    Today's column was very good--as usual--and I thought I would send
    you the results of a recent job fit pilot study, see below. I hope
    I didn't already sent it to you. Our clients rely on the concept of
    job fit to learn about job applicants' core behaviors and whether
    or not those core behaviors meet the demands of the job. What is
    important to our clients is not the job applicant's interview
    behavior but rather their on-the-job-behaviors.

    I agree with your experts that past behavior is the best predictor
    of future behavior, but I disagree that managers can learn what
    they need to know by verbally asking questions. This approach gives
    an unfair advantage to the assertive, outgoing, extroverted,
    verbally proficient, high mental ability job applicants whether
    or not the job demands these traits. A huge eye opener for our clients.

    Our clients start by assessing their best employees in each job
    and using their assessment scores to develop a success hiring
    pattern. Our clients are amazed that:

    1 - without the assessment they hardly ever know which
    job finalist best matches the success hiring pattern, and

    2 - the best interviewee is not always the best match for the job.

    Jim Massa is on the right track, but with his approach he will
    generally offer the job to the most articulate applicant who
    gives the best answers whether or not that applicant has the
    best job fit.

    Few managers can determine Job Fit so what they evaluate is
    the applicants interviewing skills, qualifications, education,
    etc., but not Job Fit. On page 25 of "RIGHT PERSON-RIGHT JOB;
    GUESS OR KNOW, The Breakthrough Technologies of Performance
    Information" Chuck Russell writes:

    "Job Fit is the degree to which the candidates
    cognitive abilities, interests, and personality
    dynamics fit those required by the position."

    Managers often confuse verbally ability with job fit.

    I agree with Mr. Shamis that "there's no correlation between
    handling pressure in an interview and on the job." Even ill-
    tempered job applicants can fake it for an hour or two and
    even for a day. Hiring employees is not the same as hiring
    actors for a play.

    You are correct that for most employers "Intuition plays a
    role in hiring decisions, primarily in the nebulous realm of
    cultural fit" but for users of the job fit concept, cultural
    fit is not nebulous at all--you can see it.

    Here are the highlights of recent job fit study done by a client.

    The Company:
    ===========

    - National and international offices
    - Insurance and financial services
    - 15,000+ employees worldwide
    - 8 Divisions in the US

    Before the Job Fit Method:
    =========================

    - Company-wide turnover was 34% the preceding year
    - Company-wide sales averaged 101% of sales quota


    After the Job Fit Method:
    ========================

    - The job fit method was piloted in 1 of the 8 US Divisions.
    - Division turnover reduced to 19% after 6 months of using the method.
    - New salespeople who scored 85% or higher averaged 916% of sales quota.
    - New salespeople who scored 84% or lower averaged 187% of sales quota.
    - The job fit method is being implemented in the other 7 divisions.


    If you'd like, I'll send you information about the job fit method.


    Sincerely,

    Bob
    +--------------------------------------------------------------+
    | KNOWledge is POWER, self-KNOWledge is emPOWERing |
    +-------------------------------------=------------------------+
    | Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA gately@compuserve.com |
    +--------------------------------------------------------------+
    | 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/welcome.htm |
    +--------------------------------------------------------------+
    | To visit our private on-line pricing pages go to: |
    | http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/pricesxx.htm |
    +--------------------------------------------------------------+


  • 3.  Why are some workers better than others?

    Posted 10-15-1998 19:18
    Unless I am missing something, the two data sources are dissimilar. The
    Psych Bull article deals with selection criteria, whereas the article
    quoted in an earlier note focuses on already-hired employees divided
    into two groups ("stars" and "average"). Both sets of results may well
    be correct and not at all contradictory as some postings have shouted.

    There are several considerations behind my statement.

    The selection article draws from a wide sampling of people looking for
    jobs. Among them are an equally wide range of talents, skills,
    abilities, etc. Selection tests may well do a good job of
    differentiating "good" candidates from this mass.

    The other article (on existing employees) deals with a sampling that has
    passed the earlier test of "hire/not hire". They are more equal in
    terms of intelligence, abilties, etc., i.e., all the "stuff" tests are
    designed to reveal. Consequently, this "stuff" is not discriminatory
    enough to distinguish the "stars" from the "average" (since they are all
    from the same organizationally-approved and pre-selected gene pool, more
    or less), and other criteria have to be assigned this task. And, that's
    what the article on "How to Be a Star at Work" found.

    In addition, there was no mention of the culture and structure of the
    firm (at least, not in the brief article posted on this listserv). In
    my experience as a consultant, this factor contributes "significant"
    (paranthesized since it has not and possibly cannot be calculated)
    amount of variance to what makes a "star". I have seen "average
    workers" in one work environment blossom when relocated to another. I
    wouldn't doubt, then, that the ability to:
    * Plug into the "guru" network:
    * Take the initiative and " come up with new, often bold,
    value-adding ideas"
    * Be organizationally savvy:
    either can either flare or smoke out as a function of culture and
    organizational structure.

    The question I would ask is whether there is a type of personality that
    can weather the variations in culture and organizational structure and
    remain a "star" regardless. The answer would lie in research on "stars"
    and "sluggards" who have worked in different settings.


    Bernard Liebowitz, PhD
    Consultant & Advisor to Businesses
    980 No. Michigan Avenue, Ste. 1400
    Chicago, Il 60611
    tel} 773/334-2003
    fax} 773/334-2004
    email} bernie@liebowitzassoc.com
    web} www.liebowitzassoc.com