Enigma of assessing attitudes

She is a whiner. He is shirker. Never reaches on time. Has an excuse for everything; is rude; is mocking; is inconsistent; is annoying. These are the running stories of dealing with employees all over the world. Managers are tearing their hair apart trying to deal with employees whose behaviour is a constant irritant.

Hours and hours of productive time goes by thinking, discussing, stressing, monitoring, people whose attitude is dangerously conflicting. The PSP leadership IQ, three-year study says 81% employee failures are due to poor or negative attitude.

The Harvard Business Review published an article, ‘The Price of Incivility’, that revealed 98% of workers have experienced rudeness or negativity in the office at some point in their careers. The study goes on to reveal that 80% of people who experience negativity lose time worrying about the incident, leading to nearly half of them not working as hard or spending less time working.

Companies are constantly struggling with the dilemma of hiring the right man for the right job. HR is facing challenging complexities in its recruitment goals. They are creating the job specifications based on the traditional model of job descriptions. Job descriptions are mostly task specific descriptions of the job at hand. They are talking of the functional role of the employee. In a typical marketing job the description will focus on brand development, introducing new variants, social media spend, etc.

In the end they do mention about team building skills generally but nothing that is a criteria that will screen out toxic employees.

The dilemma of dealing with specialized jobs that require specialized experience really narrows down the field. Many companies are wanting to hire for attitude and train for skill. In the end they hire for skills and try to train for attitude with very little success.

The problem is that skill and functional screening is easy and tangible, attitude and behaviour are not. However, if 80% of the problems occur due to the employee attitude, it does require serious attention. Let us see what can be done pre-hiring and post-hiring to ensure that the organization does not suffer due to a misfit selection:

1- Candidate referrals feedback— The recruitment objective should focus on finding about the attitude and character of the candidate. Thus once short listed, the CV needs to be checked for the correct information. The quality of the referrals is important.

Most of the times names of those who will give a good report are written. The reason given for leaving the last employment needs to be verified. If the reason matches the organization’s feedback, the process should be taken forward. If there is a variance that itself is a watch out call. If a second source confirmation proves that the reason given was not true, no matter how skilled the candidate is, he should not be short-listed for interviews.

2- Pre interviewing observation— To observe the candidates behaviour in a candid camera way, the waiting room attendant needs to be trained to fill in a certain form. There needs to be a comprehensive checklist given to the attendant on the factors of appearance, behaviour, etiquettes, etc.

The clothes, the shoe laces, the hair, the posture, the patience, the tone, etc., can all be gauged when the participant is in a natural disposition. Sometimes their behaviour may indicate rudeness, etc., that can give a signal to watch out further.

3- Personality testing— Personality testing is a common tool used by companies. Briggs-Myers and many others personality tests are available. There is a controversy over their findings. The Thematic Apperception Test or TAT is good way of discovering people’s family and interpersonal dynamics. These tests can be used to support an evidence already there but should not be the only tool to form an opinion about.

4- Assessment centers— The assessment centers can also provide some useful insights. The candidates are in the form of a group. The group exercises are a good way to observe behaviour.

Given that they are competing with each other, the instinct to be aggressive or passive can be observed. Listening or dominating can be analyzed. Giving others a chance to give their input can also be gauged. Presentation and communication skills can also be assessed.

5- Probation observation— The on-boarding and probation are treated as routine, where functional familiarity is provided through various programmes of rotation and training. Probation should be treated as the on the job attitude assessment period.

I remember how so many students from the top university selected as management trainee in a company ran away as they were asked to go to market in 47 degrees temperature. Send them to rural communities, make them do all sorts of odd jobs, let them share work and get a feedback on their behaviour and conduct. Hardly any candidate who is hired, gets laid off in probation.

The reason being that it is treated as routine. If three months is too short, make it longer. It is better to lose unfit candidates early. The longer you keep them, the more costly they will become and the more difficult to take a decision on them.

6- Make attitude count— If the candidate escapes through the interview and probation process, ensure that attitude is a non-negotiable promotion criteria.

The easy employees to dislodge are those who are dishonest or those who are incompetent. The most difficult category is the one who is a high performer but has an attitude issue. Many companies face a dilemma of a high performing smart alecs. This guy knows he is important and uses this to get away with misbehaviour.

Organisations need to be very careful in trading behaviour violations in exchange of performance. That is why good companies tie up promotions to attitude and performance. The employee needs to know that nothing in the world will save him from any attitude toxicity.

Companies who make an example of such cases go through the pain of losing some star players, but in the long run succeed in preventing the culture from becoming distrustful and resentful. Organisations struggle to carry the baggage of performing but uncivil employees. They look at the loss of revenues if the employee leaves.

The question they need to ask is what is the cost if the employee stays? What happens to employees who are in the firing line of their attitude? A survey conducted by the Harvard Business Review states 63% lost work time trying to avoid the offender. 66% admitted to a decline in performance. 78% experienced a decrease in commitment to the organization.

And, ultimately, it will be passed on to the customer. 25% of individuals who experienced incivility admitted to taking their frustrations out on customers. The weeds in the garden must be removed, or they will remove the garden.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024