Discussion: View Thread

On 8 Oct 97 at 12:20, Michael Weisman wrote:

> Robert,
>
> Thank you for the wonderful statement. I am currently finishing my Masters
> in MIS and have been studying management theory for a couple of years. As
> I am also in a leadership and team building course, am amazed at how so
> many potential managers are incapable of seeing how they operate. The goal
> is to find the best fit between organizational need and personal traits and
> behaviors (motivation, ability/aptitude, etc). What happens, all to often,
> is the ad hoc filling of positions based on one person's perception of
> need, rather than an organizational communication (or dialog) process, to
> understand the true needs of the "team"

Michael, I have to comment here on this thread. First, I agree that a
good amount of training DOES fail, but not for the reasons that Mr.
Gately points out. Mr. Gately has suggested in various places that
training and education MUST fail (for reasons related to selection).
Unfortunately, Mr. Gately makes his living from selling selection
instruments--his comments would be no more valuable then if I as a
trainer tried to make an argument that selection fails but training
is the universal answer. (and there are indeed ways of arguing that
position.

Motivation aside...if we subscribe to Gately's speculations, why
indeed do we have a management education list? Perhaps we should make
all education and training related lists into selections lists.

The clear reality, and one that Gately doesn't seem inclined to
accept is that proper selection is important, as is continuing
development and support (training, etc). One major reason is that
workplaces change significantly even in five year chunks so that it
is not uncommon for the necessary characteristics of managers to
change--invalidating many selection processes.

Major companies recognize this. The skills needed by a turnaround CEO
are different than those needed for a growth CEO, etc.

In addition, there are some profound difficulties with the job fit
concept, in terms of measurement. While it is possible to select (and
measure, albeit shakily) applicant characteristics, there is still NO
WAY to determine the characteristics required for each job in each
organization in a valid, scientific and scientific way.

I would caution people to look with great scepticism at the
contentions of franchised vendors of selection packages making great
claims. The vendors for the particular instruments in question are
often professionals: engineers, lawyers, etc who have set up shop
selling products. While they may be professionals, they do not have
(as far as I can see) the psychological, measurement, research, etc
experience to criticially assess the limitations of what they are
selling. And, selling is what they are doing.

When someone comes out and says something like training doesn't work,
but MY product works, we should all have alarm bells going off. When
someone claims that almost all organizational woes can be solved by a
single thing, put the running shoes on and go in t'other direction.
Why? Because we know that organizations and people are far more
complex--the problems are not amenable to ONE approach, ever)

Training often fails..not for the reasons Gately suggests, but
because of many others having to do with the lack of a systems
approach to training and learning. Training is often just done wrong.
When you do it right, put the supports in place, etc, it succeeds.

It cannot do everything, even when it succeeds. It cannot make a
psychotic manager into a good one.

On both sides (selection & training), watch the hype folks. Both
industries have charlatans and people with no ethics who are quite
prepared, through ignorance or intent, to deceive and make claims
that are groundless.

We need to educate consumers on these issues, so that we stop wasting
both selection and training dollars.


Robert Bacal, Inst.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 (204) 888-9290
*Site Last Updated On Sept.11, 1997*

Re: Why Training Fails

Warren Bobrow <ContextWB@AOL.COM> wrote:

>>... Most training in the real world...just doesn't work...<<

Is that true? And if it is true, why?

Let's say we are going to start and staff a team. We place a help wanted ad
looking for strong team players with excellent physical skills, and we
offer great pay, excellent benefits, outdoor work, 6 months off per year,
etc. Applicants start applying. We are pleased, we are inundated with
great-looking resumes.

How much time do we spend reviewing the resumes? 28 seconds per resume. How
do we select which applicants to interview? We look at their resumes again:
does the applicant have adequate education; does the applicant have
experience working on a team, any team. We then call in the finalists.

The interviews are great. The interviewer tells the applicants all about
the team. The applicants are all excited about the possibility of being a
member of the team. Everyone wants a job. What do we do? We use our ever
trusty "gut feel" to make the final decision on who gets to play on our
team. Oh, I almost forgot, during the interview we also noted who were the
biggest applicants and we made job offers to the biggest applicants, since
we are staffing a football team and everyone knows "bigger is better".
Phew, we are finally finished staffing our team.

Now we must assign our players to team roles. How do we do this? The old
fashioned way--we assign them according to our needs at the moment. The
offensive coordinator is screaming to get the offensive players selected
first so he can get them trained as soon as possible and the offensive
coordinator is not to be trifled with so we send him the 20 biggest
players. We then assign the next 20 biggest players to the defense and the
remaining go to the special teams. Finally, we are done, almost.

We then assign the biggest offensive players to the offensive line. Same on
defense and special teams. We then assign the remainder of the players to
the various other positions based on size--our primary selection criteria
since everyone knows that "bigger the better". Are we done yet? No, we
still need to train each player for their position.

Now training begins. The offensive linemen are taught their positions, and
they practice and practice and practice until they are the best lineman
they can be. Classroom work and practice have been fantastic. Each player
has learned his position in the classroom and each has made great
individual progress on the practice field. The same applies to the
defensive and special teams. We are ready to play. Bring on the Denver
Broncos!

A. Will each player attain his maximum potential at his position?

More than likely. We should be very pleased with our trainers.

B. Will we have hired the best players available?

Very unlikely since our primary selection criteria
was size; not speed, not ability, not motivation,
not desire, not work ethic, not interest and not
suitability for the position they are playing.

C. Will we have assigned each player to the role that
he is best suited to perform?

Most unlikely since we did not evaluate their fitness
for their position before we assigned them to their position.

D. Will our team be successful?

Only if we play against teams that also select their players
the same way--not the Denver Broncos for sure--so we ought to
limit our games to the minor leagues and bemoan that our
players are unable to achieve success in the big leagues.

Should we blame the trainers for our team's lack of success?

E. Will our players be motivated?

For a while, but not for long, since constant failure is not
well-suited to maintaining employee motivation, but we can
always play in the minor leagues and be the best we can be.


In the real world of professional football the hiring managers get to see
their job applicants in their respective positions on game film after game
film. They have scouting reports on the top prospects. They have a camp in
the Spring before the football draft to measure players height, weight,
speed, physical condition, flexibility, and yes even mental ability. They
even have training camp and pre-season games to evaluate how each player
performs in his position.

In the real world of employee selection we all too often use "bigger is
better" as our primary selection criteria and just like in our football
analogy "bigger" is not always "better", just "bigger".

When reading the above football story substitute "college grades" for
"bigger is better" or "Alma Mater" for "bigger is better" or "education"
for "bigger is better" or "past experience" for "bigger is better." Many
of the selection criteria we so often use to make our final hiring
selections are often irrelevant to success on the job.

We need to screen in applicants who have at least minimal competence and a
maximum fit for the job. In our football example above we need to know
which of the positions each player is best suited to perform and we need to
know this before they are hired, not after. Too many employers use the
"bigger is better" screening method when, in fact, they ought to use less
costly and more reliable screening methods.

Bob

+---------------------------+------------------------+
| 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/ |
| KNOWledge is POWER, self-KNOWledge is emPOWERing |
+----------------------------------------------------+

Bob,

<< >>... Most training in the real world...just doesn't work...<<

>> Is that true? And if it is true, why?>>

Hey Bob, we are on the same side when it comes to selection (that's what I do
for a living). As a friend of mine says, "You can train a turkey to climb a
tree, but it's cheaper just to hire a squirrel." This includes hiring people
with the right skills for the right job (what most would refer to as fit).

Underlying my point, and I think we are in agreement on this, is that
training often fails because people don't have the basic tools for a job, and
in some cases aren't interested in having them. This ties in with the idea
that training is not linked to an overall HR strategy that includes proper
selection and performance management.

Warren Bobrow, Ph.D.
The Context Group
www.contextgroup.com

P.S. I wouldn't use the Broncos as a football analogy until they win a Super
Bowl;-)

Robert,

Thank you for the wonderful statement. I am currently finishing my Masters
in MIS and have been studying management theory for a couple of years. As
I am also in a leadership and team building course, am amazed at how so
many potential managers are incapable of seeing how they operate. The goal
is to find the best fit between organizational need and personal traits and
behaviors (motivation, ability/aptitude, etc). What happens, all to often,
is the ad hoc filling of positions based on one person's perception of
need, rather than an organizational communication (or dialog) process, to
understand the true needs of the "team"

I am going to share this, in it's entirety, with due credit, in my class.
The point should hit home, quite well.

Michael.


>
>Is that true? And if it is true, why?
>
>Let's say we are going to start and staff a team. We place a help wanted ad
>looking for strong team players with excellent physical skills, and we
>offer great pay, excellent benefits, outdoor work, 6 months off per year,
>etc. Applicants start applying. We are pleased, we are inundated with
>great-looking resumes.
>
>How much time do we spend reviewing the resumes? 28 seconds per resume. How
>do we select which applicants to interview? We look at their resumes again:
>does the applicant have adequate education; does the applicant have
>experience working on a team, any team. We then call in the finalists.
>
>The interviews are great. The interviewer tells the applicants all about
>the team. The applicants are all excited about the possibility of being a
>member of the team. Everyone wants a job. What do we do? We use our ever
>trusty "gut feel" to make the final decision on who gets to play on our
>team. Oh, I almost forgot, during the interview we also noted who were the
>biggest applicants and we made job offers to the biggest applicants, since
>we are staffing a football team and everyone knows "bigger is better".
>Phew, we are finally finished staffing our team.
>
>Now we must assign our players to team roles. How do we do this? The old
>fashioned way--we assign them according to our needs at the moment. The
>offensive coordinator is screaming to get the offensive players selected
>first so he can get them trained as soon as possible and the offensive
>coordinator is not to be trifled with so we send him the 20 biggest
>players. We then assign the next 20 biggest players to the defense and the
>remaining go to the special teams. Finally, we are done, almost.
>
>We then assign the biggest offensive players to the offensive line. Same on
>defense and special teams. We then assign the remainder of the players to
>the various other positions based on size--our primary selection criteria
>since everyone knows that "bigger the better". Are we done yet? No, we
>still need to train each player for their position.
>
>Now training begins. The offensive linemen are taught their positions, and
>they practice and practice and practice until they are the best lineman
>they can be. Classroom work and practice have been fantastic. Each player
>has learned his position in the classroom and each has made great
>individual progress on the practice field. The same applies to the
>defensive and special teams. We are ready to play. Bring on the Denver
>Broncos!
>
>A. Will each player attain his maximum potential at his position?
>
> More than likely. We should be very pleased with our trainers.
>
>B. Will we have hired the best players available?
>
> Very unlikely since our primary selection criteria
> was size; not speed, not ability, not motivation,
> not desire, not work ethic, not interest and not
> suitability for the position they are playing.
>
>C. Will we have assigned each player to the role that
> he is best suited to perform?
>
> Most unlikely since we did not evaluate their fitness
> for their position before we assigned them to their position.
>
>D. Will our team be successful?
>
> Only if we play against teams that also select their players
> the same way--not the Denver Broncos for sure--so we ought to
> limit our games to the minor leagues and bemoan that our
> players are unable to achieve success in the big leagues.
>
> Should we blame the trainers for our team's lack of success?
>
>E. Will our players be motivated?
>
> For a while, but not for long, since constant failure is not
> well-suited to maintaining employee motivation, but we can
> always play in the minor leagues and be the best we can be.
>
>
>In the real world of professional football the hiring managers get to see
>their job applicants in their respective positions on game film after game
>film. They have scouting reports on the top prospects. They have a camp in
>the Spring before the football draft to measure players height, weight,
>speed, physical condition, flexibility, and yes even mental ability. They
>even have training camp and pre-season games to evaluate how each player
>performs in his position.
>
>In the real world of employee selection we all too often use "bigger is
>better" as our primary selection criteria and just like in our football
>analogy "bigger" is not always "better", just "bigger".
>
>When reading the above football story substitute "college grades" for
>"bigger is better" or "Alma Mater" for "bigger is better" or "education"
>for "bigger is better" or "past experience" for "bigger is better." Many
>of the selection criteria we so often use to make our final hiring
>selections are often irrelevant to success on the job.
>
>We need to screen in applicants who have at least minimal competence and a
>maximum fit for the job. In our football example above we need to know
>which of the positions each player is best suited to perform and we need to
>know this before they are hired, not after. Too many employers use the
>"bigger is better" screening method when, in fact, they ought to use less
>costly and more reliable screening methods.
>
>Bob
>
>+---------------------------+------------------------+
>| 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/ |
>| KNOWledge is POWER, self-KNOWledge is emPOWERing |
>+----------------------------------------------------+
>
>
+================================+
| Michael Weisman |
| Graduate Student |
| University of South Florida |
| mweisman@packet.net |
+================================+
CHAOS IS MERELY A FUNCTION OF
THE GRANULARITY OF THE SAMPLE

Warren Bobrow <ContextWB@AOL.COM> wrote:

(Hello Warren)

>>... Hey Bob, we are on the same side when it comes to selection

Yes, I know. I used your comment to force myself to finally write my
thoughts down regarding why training fails. Thanks for the push!

>>... that's what I do for a living ...<<

Me too.

>>... As a friend of mine says, "You can train a turkey to climb a
tree, but it's cheaper just to hire a squirrel."...<<

It seems to me that it is just common sense but I guess common sense ain't
all that common perhaps.

>>... This includes hiring people with the right skills for the right job
(what most would refer to as fit)...<<

Yes, I agree, most people do use that definition of fit, however, we have
taken it a lot further. In "RIGHT PERSON-RIGHT JOB; GUESS OR KNOW, The
Breakthrough Technologies of Performance Information" Chuck Russell defines
job fit as "the degree to which the candidate’s cognitive abilities,
interests, and personality dynamics fit those required by the position."

Our approach is used after applicants have been deemed qualified to be
hired and the only question remains is which qualified applicant will make
the best employee in the job. Managers seldom if ever can identify which
applicant best matches their own selection criteria.

>>... Underlying my point, and I think we are in agreement on this...<<

We do, at least. :-)

>>... is that training often fails because people don't have the basic
tools for a job, and in some cases aren't interested in having them...<<

Yes, we find that interest is very important if we want to hire long term
successful employees.

>>... This ties in with the idea that training is not linked to an overall
HR strategy that includes proper selection and performance management...<<

Yes, I have heard many managers say something like "We hire and fire until
we find a good one" or " Its a numbers game, we have to hire a hundred to
find one good one."

>>... I wouldn't use the Broncos as a football analogy until they win a
Super Bowl;-)...<<

I'm a Patriots fan--grew up right behind the stadium parking lot--so I
consider the Broncos very successful even though they have won as many
Super Bowls as the Patriots.

Bob

+---------------------------+------------------------+
| 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/ |
| KNOWledge is POWER, self-KNOWledge is emPOWERing |
+----------------------------------------------------+

Michael Weisman <mweisman@PACKET.NET> wrote:

(Hello Michael)

>>... Thank you for the wonderful statement ...<<

Thank you for sharing that, I really appreciate it.

>>... I am currently finishing my Masters in MIS and have been studying
management theory for a couple of years...<<

Great, it will serve you well.

>>... I...am amazed at how so many potential managers are incapable of
seeing how they operate...<<

The problem is that they are behaving naturally, i.e., as they have always
behaved, and they have been rewarded for their behavior so why would they
even question it.

(A personal note: My former boss, a company director and VP, used to tell
me I was too aggressive and that I intimidate other board members. Not
until I learned that I am more assertive than 92.5% of the general working
population did I begin to understand what he was saying. I know use that
self-knowledge to decide whether or not a situation requires that I assert
myself. Life is easier when we understand ourselves.)

>>... The goal is to find the best fit between organizational need and
personal traits and behaviors (motivation, ability/aptitude, etc.)...<<

Since I provide software to employers to do exactly that, I have a hard
time disagreeing with such insight. :-)

>>... I am going to share this, in it's entirety, with due credit, in my
class. The point should hit home, quite well...<<

Thank you, I am pleased.

You might want to visit the Managers Book Shelf at my web site and print
out some of my other memos and articles. My "Job Fit Memo" is usually well
received along with "Why Motivation is Free" not to mention "Selecting
Managers: How to Avoid the Peter Principle" and "Power in the Workplace."

Managers Book Shelf:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/bklist.htm

Bob

+---------------------------+------------------------+
| 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/ |
| KNOWledge is POWER, self-KNOWledge is emPOWERing |
+----------------------------------------------------+

On 8 Oct 97 at 20:25, Ron Morgan wrote:

> Bob Gately wrote:
> >
> > I guess you did not read my message too clearly. Our clients tell us they
> > no longer hire employees who do not work out. In fact, when a new employee
> > doesn't work out it is because someone ignored the test results.
> >
>
> This statement seems to suggest that the selection process results in
> perfect predictions (e.g. all those who are selected by the method will
> succeed and all those who are rejected would have failed). This is a
> ludicrous statement. Every selection process has error, and the
> predictions (e.g. selection decisons) they yield are far from imperfect.

Bob's claim, and your very sensible and accurate response supports
the position that we must be very careful in evaluating the claims of
vendors of anything in management, be it training, or selection or
consulting. I consider people who make such claims as
dishonest, or ignorant, and at best, unethical.

I did some investigating of the material (Prevue et al0 that is used
in this selection procedure...and unfortunately, came up with no
third party independent research on the subject. I did, however come
across a number of web sites advertising these services at very very
high fees.

what I would like to see is third party research on validity,
reliability, and most importantly, return on investment for these
selection procedures. If anyone has anything of this nature regarding
these instruments, please drop a line on the list.

Robert Bacal, Inst.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 (204) 888-9290
*Site Last Updated On Sept.11, 1997*

On 8 Oct 97 at 17:28, Bob Gately wrote:

> Someone, who will go unnamed, made his usual personal attack but did manage
> to make an insightful comment.

Bob, with all due respect, the personal attack you allude to is a set
of factual statements. You are not a psychologist, a psychometrist, a
researcher, a trained HR professional. You are a vendor/engineer who
has a vested interest in selling product. You are not trained to
evaluate psychometrically. Your colleagues in the business are also
NOT trained in the field, they are lawyers, etc doing what is simply
a sales job.

You also continue to provide vague promises talking about "your
clients".
>
> Since our selection method costs less than 4 cents per hour per employee,
> it is a very cost-effective solution to many of the problems facing
> employers.

I note the clear avoidance of absolute numbers. Readers should also
note the absolute meaninglessness of the 4 cents per hour figure. Is
it over a week, a month, a year, a millenium? These are exactly the
kinds of things that lead me to question whether this is just
obfuscational marketing. Why not simply put it on the table, Bob. How
much does it cost per each position selected?

In absolute terms, it isn't "cheap". Put it on the table, bob.



Come to think of it, it is a lot less expensive than training an
> employee who either quits--hated the job-- or was fired--couldn't do the
> job. Our clients...

Again, "our clients". Why should I or anyone else believe these
claims? I don't think you are lying on this...I don't know whether
your own PERSONAL clients consist of a paper route kid or a thousand
international corporations.


tell us, notwithstanding uninformed comments to the
> contrary, that by hiring applicants with acceptable job fit they reduce
> turnover, lower hiring expense, decrease training time and expense while
> increasing productivity, raising profits and boosting morale.

Bob, given that you can measure applicants, how do you determine the
requirements or size of the hole in which the applicant is to be
placed? IE, the position. In an objective manner. Bob, you can't.
Each job, each work climate is different (bet you agree on this). We
have no way of identifying that hole's characteristics objectively
and reliabily..we can only guess...and without that your whole system
is questionable.



But what do I
> know, I'm only a provider.

We agree. You are ONLY a provider and one whose job is to sell a
product, not necessarily expertise. There is nothing wrong with that
in the least. What is WRONG is that you don't understand the claims
you are making...how could you, anymore than I can understand how to
build a bridge or a roadway. As I said to you sometime before, I
might hire you to handle my sewage problem since your specialty is
waste water, but please...there may be some differences between the
handling of sewage and the handling of people.


> Employers who use the method avoid hiring problem employees and other
> non-performers which saves management time and eliminates a large
> percentage of their hiring and training expense.

Bob, let's assume you have a great product. I can'f find any evidence
of that but there is nothing on the other side either. Consider that
a more balanced knowledge based set of claims might get you a lot
farther. It would certainly ensure you won't hear from me again.

If you continue to provide vague claims, I will continue to call you
on it. It's a professional obligation. Thankfully there are others
around who will also do so.


Robert Bacal, Inst.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 (204) 888-9290
*Site Last Updated On Sept.11, 1997*

Someone, who will go unnamed, made his usual personal attack but did manage
to make an insightful comment.

>>... We need to educate consumers on these issues, so that we stop wasting
both selection and training dollars...<<

Since our selection method costs less than 4 cents per hour per employee,
it is a very cost-effective solution to many of the problems facing
employers. Come to think of it, it is a lot less expensive than training an
employee who either quits--hated the job-- or was fired--couldn't do the
job. Our clients tell us, notwithstanding uninformed comments to the
contrary, that by hiring applicants with acceptable job fit they reduce
turnover, lower hiring expense, decrease training time and expense while
increasing productivity, raising profits and boosting morale. But what do I
know, I'm only a provider. Good thing hospitals listen to MRI providers
otherwise we would be ill-served by ignorant and uninformed hospitals.

Employers who use the method avoid hiring problem employees and other
non-performers which saves management time and eliminates a large
percentage of their hiring and training expense.

Bob

+---------------------------+------------------------+
| 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/ |
| KNOWledge is POWER, self-KNOWledge is emPOWERing |
+----------------------------------------------------+

Comment on Bob Gately's "Why training fails"
(Wed, 8 Oct. 97 10:33:10 -0400)


Reading Mr. Gately's comments on "Why training fails" one could get the
impression that Human Resource Managers are a bunch on incompetent fools
- at least the HRMs who seem to be Mr. Gately's clients.

In my 8 years as a management consultant in Germany I have rarely come
across such incompetence. But I do have come across HR-consultants who
tried to sell their services to HRMs with very much the same simplified
scenario Mr. Gately presented. Some consultants were successful for some
time - until firms found out that "selection instruments" only served
one purpose: having somebody to blame when a selectee did not perform.

I am glad to say that the trend of "out-sourcing" the selection of
employees has reversed. Firms found out that results are much better
when future colleagues (even where higher/highest positions are
concerned) are involved in the selection process. They can test the
required skills and knowledge better that any consultant with a
schematic "instrument" ever can. Plus: They can develop a "feeling"
towards the potential candidate. Thus firms often do not hire the
employee with the - theoretically - best qualification but the employee
who best fits into the group s/he is about to join. And since the
candidate was selected by the team, it is observed that the effort to
integrate him/her is much higher than when the new employe was simply
assigned to a team.

Which brings me to my next point: The team in Mr. Gately's picture will
not be only a minor league team because of a poorly executed selection
process, but because what he described has nothing to do with a "team".
I only get the picture of a bunch of individuals/primadonnas. And why an
instrumentalized selection process should change that is beyond me. On
the contrary: Exactly that is the only "achievement" of an
instrumentalized selection process.

Firms get the employees their involvement in the selection process
deserves.

Instrumentally or personally selected - new employees do not enter a
forever fixed structure. An ever changing environment forces firms to
adjust to external influences (e.g. market changes). Since one can not
exchange personnell at will (you might be allowed to legally - but you
have to retain the knowlegde) the real focus of personnell management
has to be on "educating" and "developing". And by that I mean skills,
knowledge and - social competence. In short: team competence. And to
achieve that I can only see internal and external trainings.

This has to be managed by an "employee development" department (as it is
called in Germany), since it will not do simply to offer "open" training
opportunities and leave it to the employees where they take part (or
whether they take part at all). The latter is - to my mind - the main
crux with trainings - and a reason for the frustration that many have
when evaluating the effectiveness of trainings.

Helping such departments with the design of a well-suited education and
development program is a consulting product that would really be needed.


Jochen Althoff

-------------- What you may want to know about myself: --------------

I am German, 38 years of age and live in the university town of
G�ttingen - since 1990 almost in the middle of Germany. Until recently I
used to be a project manager with one of Germany's leading management
consulting firms.

Finding that the almost sole emphasis on costs and optimization of
process in many of our projects neglects very much the - at least in my
eyes - most important factor, the people working in the organization, I
am now taking a 2 year break and going back to university studying for
my Ph.D. (focussing on that). I will also focus on the consequences of a
general attitude I have often come across and which is best described by
the by two technical terms that are often used: "Investment" (referring
to machines, buildings etc.) on the one side and personnell "costs" on
the other.

I am a also member of the section 'Group Dynamics' of the German
Organization DAGG (which translates into 'German Association for
Group-Psychotherapy and Group-Dynamics') and participate in a program to
become a facilitator for group dynamics.

Jochen Althoff <Jochen.Althoff@T-ONLINE.DE> wrote:

>>... one could get the impression that Human Resource Managers are a bunch
on incompetent fools-at least the HRMs who seem to be Mr. Gately's
clients...<<

Interesting comment, however, incompetent managers do not use our method
since it makes it harder for them to use irrelevant selection criteria and
to make self-serving decisions.

>>... In my 8 years as a management consultant in Germany I have rarely
come across such incompetence...<<

That's wonderful. You are fortunate that all your clients are so effective
at identifying the best people to hire. I will admit, however, that my
clients do not have that luxury for whatever the reasons, but they do
rapidly and inexpensively improve their hiring successes. Maybe their lack
of success is why they are my clients?

>>... But I do have come across HR-consultants who tried to sell their
services to HRMs...<<

I provide a low cost software product that 20,000 plus corporate users find
exceedingly easy to use and that is extremely effective. Our clients say it
is hard to argue with their success, but be my guest.

>>... with very much the same simplified scenario Mr. Gately presented...<<

Does that bother you? Yes, it is rather simple and does not need expensive
consultants to eat up the HR department's budget. A manufacturing client in
Ohio told me our method not only reduced her testing budget by 80% but the
reports she received contained better and more useful information than she
had been receiving from her local consultant. In fact, we have never met,
only talked over the telephone. You see, our system cost so little to use
that there is not enough margin in the price to support expensive trips to
our clients unless they just want to meet me.

>>... Some consultants were successful for some time - until firms found
out that "selection instruments" only served one purpose: having somebody
to blame when a selectee did not perform...<<

I guess you did not read my message too clearly. Our clients tell us they
no longer hire employees who do not work out. In fact, when a new employee
doesn't work out it is because someone ignored the test results.

>>... I am glad to say that the trend of "out-sourcing" the selection of
employees has reversed...<<

Where did that come from and what does that have to do with my message? My
clients have never out-sourced their employee selection process to me--I
wouldn't take it even if they offered.

>>... Firms found out that results are much better when future colleagues
(even where higher/highest positions are concerned) are involved in the
selection process...<<

Well, the 20,000+ corporate users say their selection successes increase
after they began using the software. Are you suggesting that the 20,000+
employers are too stupid to know if their turnover rate declined? Or that
their productivity increased? Or that employee morale improved?

>>... They can test the required skills and knowledge better that any
consultant with a schematic "instrument" ever can...<<

I agree. If you had read my message you would know that our instrument does
not "test the required skills and knowledge" at all.

>>... Plus: They can develop a "feeling" towards the potential
candidate...<<

Why do you presume that our clients do not also "develop a "feeling towards
the potential candidate?" They do, however our assessment helps them learn
whether or not their "feeling" is just stomach gas.

>>... Thus firms often do not hire the employee with the - theoretically -
best qualification but the employee who best fits into the group s/he is
about to join...<<

I sense that you have not read my message correctly. I did not say that our
clients hire applicants with the best qualifications, but I did say our
method supplies the employer with more information so that they know which
of the "qualified applicants" is best suited to join the group, the office
or the team.

>>... And since the candidate was selected by the team...<<

Yes, and management can then blame the team when a new hire doesn't
succeed.

>>... why an instrumentalized selection process should change that is
beyond me...<<

That is why you are not an expert on our system.

>>... Firms get the employees their involvement in the selection process
deserves...<<

Our clients agree, that is why they use our instrument--it helps take the
guesswork out of the selection process.

>>... new employees do not enter a forever fixed structure...<<

Yes, our clients know that.

>>... An ever changing environment forces firms to adjust to external
influences (e.g. market changes)...<<

Yes, our clients know that and they tell us our method helps them identify
which applicants are most likely to easily adapt to change.

>>... Since one can not exchange personnell at will...the real focus of
personnell management has to be on "educating" and "developing"...<<

I agree, but our clients tell us that our method helps them identify which
applicants are most likely to develop.

>>... And by that I mean skills, knowledge and - social competence...<<

I said above that our method does not measure skills and knowledge but it
will tell you how people are likely to behave in a social setting.

>>... In short: team competence. And to achieve that I can only see
internal and external trainings...<<

Well, our clients know better than to hire self-sufficient people and then
stick them on teams where they do not want to be and where they are
unlikely to be successful. Knowledge is power and knowledge about
applicants is a huge advantage in selection process. I am always amused
that some people make the case that less knowledge is better. Our clients
know that the more knowledge they have about their applicants the better
their hiring decisions will be.

>>... This has to be managed by an "employee development" department...<<

I am all for training, but our clients know even before the job offer is
made which applicants are likely to be successful after training.

>>... Helping such departments with the design of a well-suited education
and development program is a consulting product that would really be
needed...<<

I agree, but employers still have to make their hiring decisions and our
clients find our method greatly improves their selection process since it
provides insight into applicants behaviors.


Bob

+---------------------------+------------------------+
| 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/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

Bob Gately wrote:
>
> I guess you did not read my message too clearly. Our clients tell us they
> no longer hire employees who do not work out. In fact, when a new employee
> doesn't work out it is because someone ignored the test results.
>

This statement seems to suggest that the selection process results in
perfect predictions (e.g. all those who are selected by the method will
succeed and all those who are rejected would have failed). This is a
ludicrous statement. Every selection process has error, and the
predictions (e.g. selection decisons) they yield are far from imperfect.

Your statement suggests that there is a perfect (e.g. 1.00) correlation
between your selection process and the criteria you identify, and that
you can identify a cut-off score that hires all of the "true positives"
and regects all of the true negatives. Doesn't happen, and no
validation of your product will produce such results!

I say this as a proponent of systematic selection processes. I wish
that they were so effective!

Ronald B. Morgan, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
George Washington University

-- [ From: Lynda Rogerson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] --

TOUCHDOWN!!!!

Great response Mr. Gately!! Excellent analogy! And if you don't mind,
I will borrow it for my courses on recruitment and selection!!

I think you have made some excellent points that all of us who are in
the hiring, development and training business should be aware of. In my
consulting practice, I am continually reminding managers to describe
their 'business strategy and objectives" when they begin requesting
training, interventions, or even pose questions about the competencies
of their staff.

Your point about looking for something other than the "biggest" ,
reminds us that "the status of schools" the "flair of big name
corporations" and "glossy resumes" don't foretell the whole picture of
skills and mettle of an individual.

Selection is a three part process: 1) the assessment of your need as a
manager based on your business objectives and the requirements of the
job to be done; 2) a structured and analytical process for collecting
and for examining information sent in by applicants; and 3) a carefully
designed interview process conducted by representatitves of all the
people with whom the new hire would be working (Digital did this very
well). Too many people focus only on step 2!!

And you are so correct....if you hire an inbound sales person (order
taker) and then try to train that person to be an outbound sales person
(direct sales) you will have a disaster. (Watched that happen at a
major publishing company!!)

So thank you for the excellent story ...it makes a wonderful point!!
Have a great day.

Lynda Rogerson, Ed.D. hxbg65a@prodigy.com www.lynco.com

For crying out loud....if you have an axe to grind with this guy ring
him up and tell him so. Stop wasting my disk space and time with your
griping about whether or not he has had point oh one percentage
improvement in his one and only client's operations. You are confusing
the rest of us with some who could care less.




Robert Bacal wrote:
>
> On 8 Oct 97 at 17:28, Bob Gately wrote:
>
> > Someone, who will go unnamed, made his usual personal attack but did manage
> > to make an insightful comment.
>
> Bob, with all due respect, the personal attack you allude to is a set
> of factual statements. You are not a psychologist, a psychometrist, a
> researcher, a trained HR professional. You are a vendor/engineer who
> has a vested interest in selling product. You are not trained to
> evaluate psychometrically. Your colleagues in the business are also
> NOT trained in the field, they are lawyers, etc doing what is simply
> a sales job.
>
> You also continue to provide vague promises talking about "your
> clients".
> >
> > Since our selection method costs less than 4 cents per hour per employee,
> > it is a very cost-effective solution to many of the problems facing
> > employers.
>
> I note the clear avoidance of absolute numbers. Readers should also
> note the absolute meaninglessness of the 4 cents per hour figure. Is
> it over a week, a month, a year, a millenium? These are exactly the
> kinds of things that lead me to question whether this is just
> obfuscational marketing. Why not simply put it on the table, Bob. How
> much does it cost per each position selected?
>
> In absolute terms, it isn't "cheap". Put it on the table, bob.
>
> Come to think of it, it is a lot less expensive than training an
> > employee who either quits--hated the job-- or was fired--couldn't do the
> > job. Our clients...
>
> Again, "our clients". Why should I or anyone else believe these
> claims? I don't think you are lying on this...I don't know whether
> your own PERSONAL clients consist of a paper route kid or a thousand
> international corporations.
>
> tell us, notwithstanding uninformed comments to the
> > contrary, that by hiring applicants with acceptable job fit they reduce
> > turnover, lower hiring expense, decrease training time and expense while
> > increasing productivity, raising profits and boosting morale.
>
> Bob, given that you can measure applicants, how do you determine the
> requirements or size of the hole in which the applicant is to be
> placed? IE, the position. In an objective manner. Bob, you can't.
> Each job, each work climate is different (bet you agree on this). We
> have no way of identifying that hole's characteristics objectively
> and reliabily..we can only guess...and without that your whole system
> is questionable.
>
> But what do I
> > know, I'm only a provider.
>
> We agree. You are ONLY a provider and one whose job is to sell a
> product, not necessarily expertise. There is nothing wrong with that
> in the least. What is WRONG is that you don't understand the claims
> you are making...how could you, anymore than I can understand how to
> build a bridge or a roadway. As I said to you sometime before, I
> might hire you to handle my sewage problem since your specialty is
> waste water, but please...there may be some differences between the
> handling of sewage and the handling of people.
>
> > Employers who use the method avoid hiring problem employees and other
> > non-performers which saves management time and eliminates a large
> > percentage of their hiring and training expense.
>
> Bob, let's assume you have a great product. I can'f find any evidence
> of that but there is nothing on the other side either. Consider that
> a more balanced knowledge based set of claims might get you a lot
> farther. It would certainly ensure you won't hear from me again.
>
> If you continue to provide vague claims, I will continue to call you
> on it. It's a professional obligation. Thankfully there are others
> around who will also do so.
>
> Robert Bacal, Inst.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 (204) 888-9290
> *Site Last Updated On Sept.11, 1997*

> For crying out loud....if you have an axe to grind with this guy ring
> him up and tell him so. Stop wasting my disk space and time with your
> griping about whether or not he has had point oh one percentage
> improvement in his one and only client's operations. You are confusing
> the rest of us with some who could care less.

I share the above person's frustration with the below
sample from a sender who obviously thinks it is
his job to irritate the world.

Have run into this same person on many lists.
Acts as an automatic twitch for me to delete anything he sends.

[Del] a terrific key!
Sender: [Person X]
Subject: Axe to grind with world.

> > If you continue to provide vague claims, I will continue to call you
> > on it. It's a professional obligation. Thankfully there are others
> > around who will also do so.

Utch! Lighten up, grow up, get happy. The world doesn't
need your negativity. It is not appreciated. You are
doing your own reputation great harm. Your "messages"
fall on deaf ears.

--

¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸
Pat Gantt

*~Electronic Media Design & Support~*

The University of Tennessee
M.S., Human Resource Development
Persn'l email: pagantt@worldnet.att.net

¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤

*~There is no substitute for individual effort.~*