Building a Better Business Through People~The Human Side of Profitability ~1 of 11 Fundamental Truths

Fundamental Belief #1: Every person deserves to find work that is in fact their strengths at play.

 Every person deserves to do what they excel at naturally. If we all did that, perhaps the diversity of strengths in each of us could develop excellence in our work. This is not a new discovery and many have written about it before. Yet, day in and day out, I fail to observe people readily living their strengths, let alone, leaders that are leading their teams to their strengths. Often, I wonder if people are truly asking themselves, “If I did not have to work but only had to wake up each day and play, what would I do at play?” To be granted the freedom to be free to do exactly this is seen as a dream. Something unattainable, yet I believe it is attainable. With their answer they would find their true calling. Very few in fact do this. From my experience, I see firsthand that the founder of every business I encounter is certainly excelling at what they enjoy and are likely doing so with what comes to them naturally. It would seem obvious that those that come to work for others need only know this truth to be joyful and excellent in their own right. If every employee knew their own drivers, strengths and values were in alignment with the position, the revenue drivers and values of the business would it not be clear they would enjoy the work they perform? I had dinner with a friend recently and she openly declared, “I do not need to like my work, I just need to go!” I completely disagree. I believe that if every leader looked to the workforce with the intent to vet the talent with this form of alignment in mind, the work would in fact be gratifying. The critical factor is to have a relationship to be able to engage the talent in a discussion of authenticity and mutual respect. Personal gratification in work aligned to strengths is not only feel good advice but grounded in behavioral psychology as well as industrial/organizational psychology. It works and translates to the bottom line.

              We have traditionally understood job performance through a two-part model: attitude,

values and motivation aside experience, skills and education. Experts and historical reference tell us that when employers are faced with performance problems; they typically look to the employee. If experience and skills were present, then it used to be viewed that motivation must be the problem. Much has been researched and done with respect to studies in motivation. One of the outcomes has been to use incentives. Employers would aim to motivate employees with incentives or threaten consequences for non-performance. Circumstances vary but predominately, the studies over the years have demonstrated that this approach would fail to motivate. If employees were motivated and performance was not satisfactory, it is common for management to presume the need for training or more experiential learning. Clearly, everyone can find themselves in a learning curve. Sometimes the training works and employers realize the benefits as well as the return on investment. Sometimes the experience on the job is developed and the learning curve ends. Many times however, the curve does not end and the training just does not appear to make a difference.

          When making a hiring decision, would it make sense to start with the CAN DO information. The “CAN DO” is what you cannot change with coaching or training after hiring someone. Once you have confirmed which candidates CAN DO the job, behavioral interviewing can help you make the best selection from the favorable candidates. For years, employers of choice have used tools available on the market to assess talent. May I add, not necessarily the best talent but rather the best talent for their business? With validated and reliability tested tools, an employer can see what could be changed and what would not change with training and coaching. Behavioral Assessments can give employers and their respective candidates the information they need for true talent acquisition and development. Even better, leaders can hire strategically and engineer a team for diversity and strength. The cognitive abilities and personality traits describe what the candidate CAN DO. The most beneficial tools I have used in practice are validated to cognitive ability, normative scores, solid psychometrics, and hard-wired personality traits. Furthermore, they are integrated with critical performance factors and are intended for business use.[1] I have found in working with people throughout my career, many people are not self-aware of their innate strengths or how best to apply them in their work, let alone within the framework of the team they work within. Leaders in business can utilize assessment tools to enhance their recruitment process for improved outcomes. In addition, high performers can be assessed for critical factors in management for educational development and succession. The best of them are well intended not only for the business but for the talent as well. Thus, providing the information to allow a person to appreciate the factors for which they naturally excel.

     This has become something I have incorporated into my own business as it grows. I did not just happen upon it. In fact, I have experienced many tools in my career in human resources but had always thought, “Those are nice but I know how to assess talent, I have reviewed thousands of resumes!” Not necessarily. I too, am guilty of interview bias. I had interviewed and hired a member to my own team shortly after experiencing growth. Thrilled and confident this person would be a great fit I extended the offer prematurely. She had the skills, experience it seemed and she was joyful, extroverted, and approachable. Within a week, it was clear it was not working for her or the team. This was a unique opportunity for me to experience what I first hand witness in serving others in management. Had I used then the tools I recommend now, I would have found she did not have the degree of assertiveness that a consultative role requires. Not every HR role is the same in fact. As my team grows, I have found the benefit of truly practicing what we preach and identifying not what I perceive everyone’s strengths are but what they truly are. The team is affirmed in their strengths and we bring transparency to them so all can appreciate the diversity of strength for the benefit of the team. The tools I speak of are not for the mere purpose of improving communication. Those tools are on the market as well but do less to help an individual past the assessment and on their way to success in work dynamics. As you build your team, as you grow your business, do not just hire for the position but with the team and business in mind as well. By understanding this first, it can be easily communicated and allow you to intentionally create a solid foundation by way of communicating your own innate talents as a leader and seeing that any candidate fits the needs of the team with talents that compliment and add to the te capabilities. In team engineering workshops I have worked with established teams that may appear diverse at first glance but when you review the team behavioral profile, the diversity may exist in areas that lead to contention when working together. Diversity initiatives excel when they are designed to bring people together vs. to highlight differences. It seems simple, and with the right philosophy it is. Why is this fundamental belief # 1? Because it will become advantageous when the skilled workforce is not readily available and your talent pool lacks experience.

Next week, a refresher for you on the Fundamental Belief #2 The Talent Deficit is here and talent gets to choose where they want to work. 

[1] Chuck Russell. Right Person, Right Job, Guess or Know, Second Edition. (Amherst, MA: HRD Press, 2003).