Category: Newsletter articles

Two phrases that you have probably heard multiple times during Covid-19, or even said yourself are “I am an extrovert so…” or, “I am an introvert”. There is no doubt that our time of lockdown resulted in jokes and memes catch-phrasing it as the ‘time introverts have been waiting for!’ But now that restrictions are easing, and workplaces are gradually moving back to face-to-face contact, what can we actually conclude?

Firstly, lockdown may have actually resulted in introverts and extroverts becoming more similar in their perceived perception of social connectedness, and while extroverts may have “suffered” more, it is not as dire as the media would have us believe (Dunn & Lyubomirsky, 2020). This same study also found that surprisingly, the world has been rather resilient, with the majority of people only slightly reducing their levels of reported loneliness.

Secondly, if you are an extrovert, you may have taken this opportunity to reconnect virtually with many old friends and colleagues over social drinks or games nights. While for many this this been a necessary coping mechanism and a great opportunity to do so, don’t expect too much from your introverted friends. Christine Manby explains her experience of being an introvert in Covid-19 – the constant messages and emails from people checking in and wanting to schedule Zoom catch-ups, video calls which she felt were overwhelmingly intrusive, and little to no alone time if you are sharing a residence with others. This may result in higher levels of exhaustion as we come back to meeting face-to-face.

The solution? If you are an introvert, pace yourself, and if you are an extrovert, perhaps leave the video calling to your extroverted friends and use a phone call when talking or meeting with your introverted colleagues or friends (Rosenberg, 2020).  If you are a leader, maybe allow your team to opt-in to virtual social events and catch ups, and ask your team whether they would prefer video–meetings or phone-meetings.  

Covid-19 has allowed many introverts to thrive, especially introverted leaders as they are able to focus on thinking and inspiring their team. Extroverted leaders on the other hand, may have found this time more challenging, but also may have either subconsciously or deliberately used this time to adopt some of the helpful traits that come naturally to introverts. This could result in them coming out of lockdown more balanced and well-rounded in their leadership style. You might be interested in looking at this article by Krister Ungerbock for some take-away points for leaders.

References:

Dunn, E. & Lyubomirsky, S. (2020). Extroverts are faring surprisingly well during lockdown. The Washington Post, May 5, 2020. 

Manby, C. (2020). The extroverts have arrived and destroyed my solitude. The Independent (London, England), p. The Independent (London, England), April 13, 2020.

Rosenberg, R. (2020). Viewpoint: Introverts and Extraverts in the Time of COVID-19. SHRM Better Workplaces Better World, April 29, 2020. 

If you manage people, you are sure to need to have a difficult conversation with one of your team at some time in your career.  It may be to manage a conflict, to deliver some news that your team member does not want to hear, or to give some critical feedback.  But most tough conversations that managers have with a team member are to do with poor performance or discipline.

It is unlikely that many managers would look forward to conversations about poor performance or discipline, but most know when they need to be had. 

So, if you are a manager, how confidently do you have the tougher performance or disciplinary conversations that you may need to have from time to time?

• Do you ever find yourself avoiding a difficult conversation?
• How effectively do you set and agree performance expectations when a team member is under performing? 
• Do you “take the monkey on your back” rather than empower your team members to solve their own problems?

There are many reasons why managers fail to have these conversations or at least fail to have effective conversations:

• For fear of causing upset, retribution or a negative reaction.
• Just hoping that things will improve naturally.
• Thinking it is quicker and easier to tell the underperforming employee what to do and expect them to do it. 
• Not wanting our emotions to get in the way of a constructive conversation – fearing we may say something we will regret.
• Allowing our own biases or preconceptions of what and why someone did what they did, think what they think, feel what they feel to influence our judgements. 

While many managers seemed to be naturally skilled at having difficult performance conversations, it is actually a skill that we all can learn.  Sure, we need to have the courage and the social self-confidence to initiate the conversation.  But there are a lot of communication skills that can be learned to enable managers to have effective performance conversations that lead to improved performance and behaviour change.

What skills could be useful to support you through these conversations?  Here are some tips:

1. Plan in advance. 

Ask yourself (and write down your answers if that helps):

• What do I want to achieve from this conversation?  What is the outcome I am looking for?
• What do I want to say?
• How are they likely to react?
• How will I respond if they react in the way I expect?

2.  Choose the appropriate time and venue.

• Do you need to arrange a meeting with the person or do you want to be spontaneous? 
• Decide on an appropriate venue.  Somewhere private and where interruptions can be avoided.

3.  Set the right tone from the beginning of the conversation.

• Your tone needs to reflect your message.  So, if it is a serious message that you are wanting to give, be professional and empathetic, but avoid giving false reassurances by being overly friendly or casual.

4. Having the conversation.

• Give specific feedback and state the impact on others:  “I have read the report you have prepared for submission tomorrow.  I can see that the executive summary and recommendations are still not entered.  Management is expecting the report tomorrow and it cannot be late.”
• Avoid name calling, labelling or making assumptions about the causes of behaviour, e.g., “You are lazy”, “You are not reliable”.
• Listen actively to what they have to say in response.  Reflect what they say to show your understanding.
• Ask lots of questions to probe further and build understanding.
• Avoid becoming defensive.  Avoid statements that start with “But….”.  Listen and reflect.
• Ask what the person will do to remedy the situation or improve their behaviour/performance?
• Keep asking questions until you have good agreement on the solution and next steps.
• Avoid providing solutions.  You will get better buy-in if you allow the other person to generate their own solutions.  Offer yours only if theirs are exhausted.
• Have them generate as many solutions as they can before evaluating them.  Don’t snuff out an option before considering it fully.
• Develop a plan of action:  What will be done next, by whom, and by when.  Define what success will look like.
• Decide on a date for review.

We may never enjoy these kinds of conversations, but we can learn to manage them effectively.  Fortunately, they are not difficult skills to acquire.  As you can see, many are basic communication skills – listening, questioning, probing, clarifying, reflecting, avoiding judgement and labelling, etc. 

Are there people in your business who are under-performing or just don’t seem to fit with the team or the company?  Ever asked yourself, why?

Cast your mind back to their interview.  Do you remember what questions you asked?  Were they questions about the core skills and personal attributes you know are important for this role?  If you were to hire for this role again, could you pull up the interview guide you used first time round?

If your answer to most, if not all, of these questions, is ‘no’, you’re not alone. 

Why?  Because you’re busy.  Because you need to fill the role….quickly.

It’s not you, it’s the interview.

Despite being one of the most commonly used selection procedures, interviews are also one of the least valid methods of selecting a candidate for a job.  Why?  Because lots of interviews are unstructured, ‘fire-side chats’.  From our experience working with hiring managers, many ask some questions about the candidate’s technical skills, and then make a number of assumptions about the candidate’s potential for the job.  Worse still, it is not uncommon for unconscious biases to creep in, that is, interviewers often base their selection decision on what the candidate looked like, what they were wearing, where they went to school, and lots of other things that are irrelevant to whether or not they could actually perform well in the job and in the business more generally. 

In short, the interviewing process may be letting you and other interviewers in your organisation down.

And, it could be costing you a lot of money.

The costs of getting hiring wrong are numerous.  From a purely financial point of view, the costs of re-hiring and training can have a massive negative impact on your bottom line.  Research has shown that the cost of mis-hiring can be between 2.5 – 4 times the employee’s salary.  But the costs aren’t just financial.  There’s also the opportunity cost – recruiting takes time!  What else could you be doing?  Then there’s the impact on, and disruption to, existing colleagues who often have to pick up the extra workload. 

Wouldn’t it be better if you had an interviewing process that provided you with information about a candidate that you needed to know such as, how they have secured a major client in the past, how they have handled periods of intense workload in the past, how they have gone about turning an under-performing team around, how they have juggled competing demands on their time in the past? 

An interviewing process where you asked all the candidates for the same role the same questions so you could make comparisons on the basis of important attributes that you know will be important for the role.

There is no denying that the technical skills of a candidate are important.  A financial analyst probably needs to have pretty advanced Excel skills and a merchandiser needs to know about and have experience using Planograms.  But if you think about why people haven’t worked out in the past, how often has it been related to their technical skills versus their motivational fit? 

It is highly likely that their technical skills were okay, but their capacity to deal with challenging personalities, their resilience to setbacks, their capacity to maintain high energy levels for prolonged periods of time, and their capacity to flourish in ambiguity, made it really difficult for them to perform effectively in the role.

The point is that if you just ask questions about a candidate’s technical skills, you are missing the opportunity to find out a lot more about other important interpersonal attributes and competencies that could make the difference between a good fit and a poor fit. 

Research consistently shows that putting some structure around the interview can significantly maximise its predictive power.  Developing a structured behavioural interview helps to overcome the inherent weaknesses in unstructured interviews and improves the accuracy of predictions being made about the person being hired.

Behavioural interviewing is a structured interviewing technique used to objectively assess a candidate’s level of competency in relation to particular skills required for the position.  By asking about a candidate’s past experiences, it helps establish the extent to which the candidate possesses the baseline capabilities and experiences for the position.  It also provides an initial evaluation of the candidate’s style or level of cultural and behavioural “fit” with an organisation and the role. 

Features of structural behavioural interviewing include:

• Focus on job-related behaviours
• Comparable information is collected across all applicants
• Questions and conditions are standardised across all interviews
• Responses are verifiable (via reference checking, etc.)
• Questions, and therefore answers, are based directly on the competencies associated with the job
• Helps overcome the impact of first impressions and other unconscious biases
• Lower risk of recruiting the wrong candidate
• Improved diversity in the organisation due to reduced unconscious bias
• Greater understanding of candidate strengths and development needs
• Fairness to candidates

There are ways to minimise the risks of mis-hiring and ultimately save yourself time and the business money.

Imagine you are applying for a new job. It is one you really want. You know that there will be tough competition. You ensure that all of your relevant skills, knowledge and experience are included in your résumé, and that your letter of application targets the competencies you will need in the new role. When called in for an interview, you behave in a way that is appropriate for the situation and give the best response you can. You know you are being observed with critical eyes. You manage the impression you make. You put your best foot forward. You see no reason to lie, tell half-truths or attempt to do anything other than to demonstrate the qualities that you believe the prospective new employer is looking for. 

And then they ask you to do some personality profiling. 

OK! You have done this kind of thing before and it highlighted some behavioural tendencies that you recognised could be areas for your development. You know that you can respond differently to the personality questionnaire this time so that those problematic traits are not as evident in your profile.

In these circumstances many job applicants may well decide to fake it…. or fudge it…. or manage the impression they make. It is estimated that about 30-50 percent of job applicant profiles are faked (Roulin, Krings & Binggeli, 2016). This is an alarming figure on top of the faking that we know can occur in résumés, job applications and even job interviews, etc. It is a tricky game for recruiters and hiring managers who are trying to work out what is true and what is not.

So, coming back to our scenario. You now have a choice – to fake it or not. You respond as honestly as you can, but you wonder if other applicants with whom you are competing are being equally as honest. It is tempting to ask yourself at this point: “Can I fake it to get the job?”

There is no doubt that you can fake personality tests. You only have to endorse strongly those attributes that you think your prospective employer wants and downplay those that are unfavourable. There is really no dispute about this in the literature. Just as it is possible for some to can fake their way through other parts of the selection process, you can also fake the personality test. 

To date, we have no way that is 100% reliable to detect or eradicate the potential for faking. Test developers have tried various techniques such as embedding nonsense items, building scales to measure social desirability of responses, warning candidates their results will be verified, using different response formats (normative versus ipsative), etc. But the effectiveness of these methods is unlikely to be foolproof. 

The question is not “Can I fake it”, but “Will faking give me a better chance of getting the job?” The evidence that faking personality profiling gives job applicants an unfair advantage is mixed. Some researchers provide evidence that those applicants who fake have an unfair advantage while others show that there is relatively little impact (for a recent review, see Lee, Smith & Geisinger, 2017). 

At Allworth Juniper, personality profiling has always been a core component of the psychological assessment services we offer our clients. We are acutely aware of the potential for faking personality tests and recognise that it is very difficult to know if a candidate has faked their profile. Nonetheless, for us and for the clients who are committed to the proper use of personality profiling, the benefits significantly outweigh the risks. 

Our view is that, although it is very easy for candidates to rate themselves in a way that exaggerates their strengths and downplays their limitations, it is actually very difficult for them to produce a profile that is right for the job. And here are some reasons why we say this:

1. More is not necessarily better. There are some personality attributes on which too high a self-rating can be counterproductive. For example, while a good level of “sociability” and “social self-confidence” will be important for roles in which you need to build relationships and collaborate with others, too much may be counterproductive. Highly sociable employees are sometimes very chatty or are more interested in socialising at work than getting on with the job. 
   
2. It’s not only about your ratings – it’s about how your ratings compare with those of a norm group. Personality profiles represent standardised scores – how you scored relative to how others scored. So, you might have strongly endorsed all of the questions that looked favourable, but you don’t know how those in the comparison group rated themselves. If everyone has given a high rating on the favourable items, yours may not necessarily be any better than most. 
   
3. One attribute can counter-balance another. When we interpret personality profiles, we don’t just look at personality attributes individually. We look at clusters of attributes and interpret patterns or configurations. A high score on one attribute may mean something different when considered alongside another attribute. For example, a high score on the “decisiveness” attribute could be interpreted as a potential for reckless risk-taking in candidates who also rate themselves high on “optimism”. They see everything through rose-coloured glasses and figure that things cannot go wrong. On the other hand, a high self-rating on “decisiveness” may not be as much of a concern for risk-taking when the attributes of “optimism” and “impulsivity” are more moderate. It is not easy for these configurations to be faked by candidates as they will vary across personality tests and are a feature of the expert opinion of the professional interpreting the profile.
   
4. Extreme responses can be honest responses. It is possible for a candidate to endorse the extremes of the scale and return a profile that appears to be faked, but is actually an honest representation. These candidates are actually observed to be more extreme in their behaviour. For example, compared with most, they are much more outgoing, much more persuasive, much more conscientious, much more optimistic, etc. However, when we see profiles like this, we provide our clients with reference checking questions to confirm or disconfirm some of these extreme attributes. A good behavioural interview with the candidate can also help here.
   
5. No one size fits all. Our psychologists always interpret personality profiles against the requirements of the role. Attributes that are required for one job may not be necessary in another. For example, while attention to detail may be critical for a data analyst, too much attention to detail may be counter-productive for effective strategic leadership. To fake a personality profile requires a good understanding of the role. Candidates need to research and gain access to the best understanding they can of the personality attributes that will be required in the role. They need to get a handle on the culture of the organisation and the behaviours that will be necessary for success in the position. If they can do this effectively, they may actually have the social intelligence, awareness and adaptability that most employers seek.

So, candidates can, and probably do, fake their personality profiles and some may get away with it, particularly if the profile is not expertly interpreted. We cannot claim to always detect faked profiles, but candidates cannot be guaranteed they are more likely to be selected for a job simply by producing exaggerated scores. Our view is that it is insufficient to simply look for higher scores on favourable personality attributes (and lower scores on unfavourable attributes). To get the best out personality testing, expert interpretation of the nuances of personality and its relationship with work is required. 

We can advise you on how to minimise faking and get the best results from personality profiling. Done well, personality profiling can contribute meaningful data to support accurate recruitment decisions.

What are the benefits to individuals, teams, and organisations of reducing unconscious gender bias and increasing gender diversity at work?

Benefits to men from reducing gender bias

Research from The 100% Project indicates that Australian men are satisfied with what they are achieving in their careers, but not with the contribution they are making to their families, communities, or other life pursuits. In addition, men who are satisfied with their contribution to their family as a partner and/or parent are more likely to feel satisfied with their life as a whole. In the work context, employee engagement is higher in men who work for an organisation that encourages work-life balance, even if they don’t make use of these benefits (Page & Feenstra, 2011).

Despite the desire for work-life balance and family time, there is a strong perception that asking for greater work-life balance as a male negatively affects one’s career prospects, particularly as they have seen the negative impacts on women’s careers. Currently, Australian women are much more likely to shoulder the responsibility for raising families, bearing the mental load of managing the household, and caring for older relatives (ABS, 2017). Page, Korlevska and Feenstra (2011) asked over 400 Australian men and women to complete a survey and a test of implicit bias. The results revealed that both men and women more strongly associate work-life balance with women than with men and that, even if men want greater work-life balance, they are less inclined to ask for it than women. Thus the cycle: if men don’t feel that they can request greater work-life balance, women will continue to shoulder the weight of family and household responsibilities and will continue to ask for flexible working arrangements to enable this. This may, in turn, perpetuate the stereotype that women are less committed to their careers and are less likely to put in the time required to reach more senior roles.

Challenging and addressing the reasons that men don’t ask for flexible working arrangements, and encouraging and normalising work-life balance for men, such as PwC has recently done with their flexible parental leave policy (Patty, 2017) will:

• Enrich men’s work and family life
• Improve job satisfaction and engagement at work in men
• Enhance overall sense of wellbeing, and
• Help open up opportunities for women

ROI of diversity

In the ‘war for talent’, organisations cannot afford to limit their talent pool by not seeking out qualified women alongside men for management. If we let our unconscious biases continue, we may be reducing the pool of talent we are willing to consider for a role. This may in turn reduce diversity in our organisation.

The evidence:

• Gender diverse companies are 15% more likely to outperform non-gender diverse organisations (McKinsey, 2015)
• Organisations with more female board directors have been found to have a 16% greater return on sales and 26% greater return on invested capital than those with fewer women on their board. Boards need to be at least 30% female in order to outperform all-male boards.
• Organisations with more women in senior leadership teams have been found to have a 10% higher return on equity, 48% higher EBIT, and 1.7 times the stock price growth of those companies who have no women in their senior leadership teams.
• Companies with gender diverse boards and management teams have greater organisational innovation (Catalyst, 2013).
• Teams with an equal mix of men and women outperform male-dominated teams in sales and profit, and in their problem-solving ability as a group. In fact, BHP have found that across administration, operations and field teams, teams with greater gender diversity had lower injury rates, greater adherence to work plans, and were more effective at meeting production targets (McPherson, 2017)

Ways to reduce bias

As humans, we all have different unconscious biases that can impact others in the workplace, often without us realising it. Below are some ways to reduce the impact of bias:

• Try to break down the myth of meritocracy. Help people to understand that, while we all have biases, they can negatively impact others at work, even to the extent of biasing who is promoted in the workplace.
• Have open and honest conversations about biases at work, and try to encourage all opinions
• Be aware of the language you use – is it inclusive?
• Ask yourself questions:  “Does my assumption seem fair?”
• When making new hires, define which qualifications are important, and consider using psychometric assessment and structured behavioural interviewing to understand your candidates better.
• Provide quality managerial training for all line managers – evidence suggests that women are more likely to leave roles because of a difficult manager than their male colleagues are (Catalyst, 2010). Having effective managers may mean that female staff are more inclined to stay in the business.
• Consider setting targets for the numbers of women in management and leadership roles in your organisation.
• Identify high performers based on competencies, not on stereotypes or their confidence in their ability.
• Identify critical roles with P&L responsibility and prioritise women and minorities for these key developmental roles (Thomas Falk Chairman & CEO, Kimberley-Clark Corporation.  Catalyst, 2010)
• Examine flexible work policies and the take up rates for both women and men. Take a leaf out of PwC’s book and work on ways to encourage and normalise flexible working arrangements for both men and women.
• Collect and review salary metrics – and take the WGEA pay equity pledge to recognise the impact of gender bias, review talent management data, and to set the expectation among managers that gender bias needs to be addressed in order to attract and retain the best talent.

It’s a lot to think about, but the first step is always starting the conversation and keeping the conversation going when it comes up against barriers. But, given the ROI of gender equity, its clearly worth it.

References

Carter, N.M. & Silva, C. (2010). Pipelines’ broken promise. Catalyst.

Hunt, D., Layton, D., & Prince, S. (2015). Diversity Matters. McKinsey & Company. 

McPherson, S. (2017, September 21). BHP has Added 1000 Women to its Workforce [LinkedIn Post]. 

Page, F. & Feenstra, F. (2011). What men want and why it matters for women. The 100% Project.

Page, F., Korlevska, K., & Feenstra, F. (2011). Men at work: What they want & how unconscious bias stops them getting it. The 100% Project.

Patty, A. (2017, September 18). PwC makes parental leave more flexible for dads, mums and foster carers. The Sydney Morning Herald. 

Do you know anyone like this?

1. The person who’s never had a baby, never looked after a baby, never even held a baby, who gives you advice on how to feed your baby, get it to sleep – and it’s your third baby
2. The passenger in your car who has never learnt how to drive, does not own a car, yet still gives you their advice on how to drive
3. The colleague at work who thinks he is a top performer yet never reaches his targets and consistently receives poor reviews

From time to time, we can all suffer from the condition of not knowing what we don’t know, however, the people above may be suffering from something else – The Dunning-Kruger effect.

Dr David Dunning and Dr Justin Kruger developed their theory in 1999 whilst at Cornell University.  They described a phenomenon whereby many of the people who are the least knowledgeable about something nonetheless believe that they are among the most informed and knowledgeable.  The essence of the Dunning-Kruger theory is that “incompetent individuals lack the metacognitive skills that enable them to tell how poorly they are performing, and as a result, they come to hold inflated views of their performance and ability” (Kruger and Dunning, 1999). 

Over the course of four studies, Dunning and Kruger found that those who were below average in a skill, lacked the competence to recognise their incompetence.  However, they are likely to feel confident that they actually are competent

According to Dunning and Kruger, it is ignorance that lies behind a great deal of incompetence.  Through a number of studies discussed in their paper, “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self Assessments” (Kruger and Dunning, 1999), they showed that incompetent people tend to:

• Overestimate their own abilities,
  • Fail to recognise genuine ability in others, and
  • Fail to recognise the sheer extent of their incompetence.

To put it another way, the most incompetent individuals are the ones that are most convinced of their competence.  Or as Charles Darwin once said, “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than knowledge”.

The unfortunate flip-side of this is that those who are most competent often underestimate their competence.  Research conducted by Kruger and Dunning (1999) showed that those who are skilled tend to under-rate their own abilities because they are keenly aware of how much they don’t know and therefore may lack confidence at times. 

For example, the person who can name 2 of the 7 dwarves tends to think, “I know 2”.  Those who know 6 of the 7 dwarves tend to think, “I don’t know 1”.  That is, the more you know, the more you focus on what you don’t know (May, 2007). 

As Dunning notes, the irony of the Dunning-Kruger effect is that “the knowledge and intelligence that are required to be good at a task are often the same qualities needed to recognise that one is not good at that task—and if one lacks such knowledge and intelligence, one remains ignorant that one is not good at that task” (Murphy, 2017)

So what does all this mean in the work context?

One of the most important distinctions to make is that confidence does NOT equal competence. 

In the work environment, if a manager does not closely supervise work, it is possible that he or she may judge performance on outward appearances using information such as the confidence with which one speaks about their performance, which evidence shows is not related to competence (May, 2007).

And given that research shows that the most competent people tend to underestimate their ability, it is imperative that managers show confidence in their best employees, even when they don’t necessarily have confidence in themselves.

The implications of the Dunning-Kruger effect in the workplace and what you can do about them

1. In the recruitment context

• Don’t be swayed by a candidate’s projected confidence and assume that they have the competence to do the job.  This is one of those unconscious biases that we need to avoid.  One way to do this is to ensure that you ask structured, behavioural questions in the interview which require the candidate to tell you about a time when they demonstrated competence in a particular area. 

2. Training

• Competence needs to be assessed and re-assessed.  When employees have completed a training program, don’t assume that they are now fully competent in that area even if they seem very confident in their ability.  Assess them on their competence.  And assess them again in six or twelve months’ time.  Get feedback from other people who work with them.

3. Performance review

• Use a number of measurable performance standards and have concrete performance goals that are difficult to refute.  
• Offer training and development in those areas in which performance is poor.  It is possible that many people are underperforming simply because they don’t know that they could be doing better or what really great performance looks like.  It’s not that they’re necessarily being defensive, rather they just lack the knowledge to know what they don’t know.

The good news is that the Dunning-Kruger effect is not necessarily permanent.  With time, training and feedback, some studies have shown that the unskilled and unaware problem can be resolved.  That is, people can recognise and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill if they are exposed to training for that skill (Kruger and Dunning, 1999).

Finally, some wise words to consider:

“The only true wisdom is to know that you know nothing.” (Socrates)

“Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.” (Confucius)

References

Kruger, J. and Dunning, D. (1999).  Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121-1134. 

May, R. (2007).  Why the Dunning-Kruger Effect is Ruining Your Business. 

Murphy, M. (2017).  The Dunning-Kruger Effect Shows Why Some People Think They’re Great Even When Their Work Is Terrible. 

If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got.

Henry Ford

Do you ever feel that you are so busy getting things done that there is not enough time to think and reflect on how you might do things differently?  In today’s fast-paced world of work, the pressure of tight deadlines, customer demands, a competitive market place, and the need to deliver immediate results can fill our day with a lot of activity.  Top this off with the need for work-life balance and the juggling of family responsibilities, and there seems to be little time available to step back, reflect and ask ourselves: “Is there a better way?”

Why is it important to reflect?

According to Professor Patricia Castelli of Lawrence Technical University (Michigan, USA), leaders who are reflective can bring about improvements in employee well-being, engagement and performance.  Not only are reflective leaders more effective managers, but reflective leadership can result in improved organisational performance. 

Although the focus here is on reflective leadership, reflective practice is not just for leaders.  Reflective practice is for anyone who is learning a new skill, developing a new competency, has a problem to solve, or is looking for a more innovative solution.  It can be a useful and effective approach to learning and problem-solving in any role, and in life in general.

What is reflective practice?

Reflective practice is the deliberate examination and critique of our experiences in order to build new understanding, to learn, and to solve problems.  Reflective practice requires self-observation, critical thinking, the ability to evaluate oneself, and the ability to take others’ perspectives.  It requires an open mind, a non-judgemental stance and a willingness to step back and look at things in new ways.  Leaders who model reflective practice in their relationships and conversations with employees can support them in building insight into their own behaviour and help them to develop new skills and competencies.

The ability to reflect

Professor Castelli has identified three abilities that are necessary for effective reflective practice:

• Self-awareness – focusing on your own behaviour and evaluating it in a candid manner;
• Mindfulness – paying attention to your feelings, actions and thoughts;
• Wisdom – thinking through the available options and the consequences of your decisions.

Six behaviours that make reflective leaders effective

Professor Castelli identified six behaviours that underpin the success of reflective leaders.  To be a reflective leader, you should:

1. Value open communication.  Have an open-door policy; be a good listener; empathise; be constructive in your feedback; and be credible.  Open, honest communication without judgement is essential for people to feel safe to admit and learn from our mistakes.
2. Build self-esteem and confidence.  Build relationships that are encouraging and supportive; provide direction and feedback; be a coach and mentor, and provide positive reinforcement.  Critical feedback should be clear, specific and constructive to enable learning and development.
3. Challenge beliefs and assumptions.  Question your own and others’ assumptions; recognise blind spots; be open to alternatives; show a willingness to change; and share lessons learned.  Our actions are guided by our assumptions about why things are the way they are or why people do what they do.  Challenging our assumptions can lead to different interpretations and different approaches to what we do and how we relate.
4. Create a safe environment that promotes trust.  Be consistent in your behaviour; act as a role model for the behaviours that are desired; value opinions even if they are different from your own; and show integrity. 
5. Help others understand how their work relates to the achievement of organisational goals.  Explain how tasks contribute to organisational goals; and acknowledge others’ contributions. 
6. Respect diversity.  Respect others’ customs/values; promote inclusiveness; and be sensitive about individual differences.

Some useful steps to help you reflect

Gibbs (1988) provides a useful framework for reflection that is simple, yet comprehensive.  He provides a series of questions that you can ask yourself when you practice reflection alone, or that can be used by a trusted manager or peers to support your self-reflection.  Journaling can also be an effective way to reflect on incidents and tasks that you encounter in your work.  Here is Gibbs’ framework for you to try.

Description

Ask yourself what happened.  Describe a scenario in which you were uncomfortable, uncertain or feel that you could have managed differently.  Don’t make judgements yet or try to draw conclusions; simply describe.

Feelings

What were you thinking and feeling at the time?  How did the situation affect you?  Again, don’t move on to analysing these yet.

Evaluation

What was good or bad about the experience?  What went well?  What didn’t go so well?  Now you can start making some value judgements.

Analysis

What sense can you make of the situation?  What assumptions have you made to explain what happened or what you did?  What other interpretations could you make?  Generate as many explanations as you can.

Conclusions

What can be concluded from these experiences and the analyses you have undertaken?  What else could you have done?

Personal action plan

What are you going to do differently in this type of situation next time?  What steps are you going to take on the basis of what you have learnt?

Make reflection a regular part of your self-development as a way of improving your performance, and building competence and confidence.  And if there isn’t sufficient time to make reflection a regular practice, see if you can use it when things are not going as well as you might like or to help you make sense of unsettling situations. 

While it may seem pretty basic, to communicate effectively there are some fundamental communication skills that we sometimes forget to use or use well.  These three key skills are: listening, understanding and asserting.  When used appropriately, they can lead to greater success with difficult conversations, coaching staff, giving feedback to peers, expressing your opinions, and so on.

Listening

Effective communication also involves fully listening to the message.  Open body language such as uncrossing arms, making eye-contact, nodding, leaning forward, and facing the person speaking, show that you are attending to what they are saying, and you aren’t distracted.  Failure to attend can be an immediate block to communication, as people don’t feel like they are being heard.

Active listening, and reflecting back what the person is saying, is also crucial as it demonstrates that you understand what they are trying to say.

• Paraphrasing – repeating what they have said, but in your own words
  • “So, your IT team is growing across both Australia and the rest of the Asia Pacific.”
• Reflection – repeating the underlying emotion or feelings in what they have said in your own words
  • “Your move from the UK seems to have been a really enjoyable and rewarding experience.”
• Clarification – asking questions to determine if your understanding is correct
  • “I’m not quite sure I understand what you are saying.”
  • “I don’t feel clear about the main issue here.”
  • “When you said …….. what did you mean?”
  • “Could you repeat …?”
• Summarising – putting the main points of the conversation into your own words
  • “It seems that overall you are aiming to do … while maintaining… ”

Good questioning is essential in properly understanding the message.  In most situations, the most effective type of questions are those that are open-ended and relevant.  They are useful because they cannot be answered with a simple “yes” or “no”.  They:

• elicit information without creating defensiveness
• allow the individual to express their point of view
• allow discussion to develop
• encourage individuals to come up with their own solutions.

Open-ended questioning is harder than you might think! But as an easy tip, open-ended questions generally begin with what, who, when, where, how, and why.

Understanding

The most effective communication happens when each party understands the other’s perspective and emotions, making it a conversation rather than simply a transaction.  Being aware of others’ feelings helps to build rapport and shows that you value the other person.  For example, being sympathetic to their losses and happy for their achievements and successes, and getting to know the person and their situation, can really make an impact.  Asking for their opinions, and considering the emotional impact of what you are saying or how you are saying it, can also produce positive outcomes.

Our emotions largely affect how we communicate, and can sometimes result in us seeing things through a certain lens, or making judgements before the person has finished speaking.  Showing empathy by trying to see things from others’ perspectives, without judgement or our usual preconceived bias, can help to clarify their point of view.  Try to be aware of when your emotions and judgement creep in, and try to be clear and honest when offering your perspective.

Asserting

Finally, when communicating, you want your own message to get across to the other party.  Assertiveness is expressing yourself in ways that accurately represent your feelings, opinions or preferences – without putting yourself or others down in the process.

Many people find it hard to be assertive. One of the barriers to assertive communication is the self-defeating belief that “I don’t have the right to express my opinions, beliefs, or feelings”.  Often, people will feel guilty if they do try to assert themselves, and they will resort to aggressiveness (being pushy), passiveness (not speaking up for yourself, and putting your needs last), or passive-aggressiveness (expressing angry or aggressive feelings in an unopen way).

There are three basic things you need to start believing, before you can be assertive[1]:

• You have the same right as others to express yourself and be heard
• If you exercise this right to be heard, you may find you are happier
• In the long-term, being non-assertive may hurt you and your relationships

Finally, try to avoid “you” messages, such as “you were being rude in our meeting”.  They can be confronting and the focus is placed on the person and not the problem.  Because “you” messages make it seem like you are attacking or blaming the other person, the listener may become defensive, which isn’t the best way to start.  Instead, try to use “I” messages, such as “I felt annoyed when you left the meeting to answer your phone twice”.  In this way, you own the feedback and the focus is on the behaviour, not on the person, giving them a chance to change it.

---

[1] Counselling and Psychological Services (CAPS), (July 2011). Learning to Communicate Effectively. The University of Sydney.

As performance review time approaches, many organisations and managers start to focus on how to give their team members constructive feedback. Of course, constructive corrective feedback should be given all year round, so that the performance review becomes more of a recap of the year’s feedback and progress, but that’s a topic for another day.

For most of us, the focus is on how to give feedback, not how to receive it. Most development and training about feedback is focused on the giver, and how they can improve their approach to giving feedback, so that the receiver is more likely to act on it. But, when you think about it, the success of the feedback actually relies more on the receiver’s ability to understand, accept and take action on the feedback. In fact, if we think about the endgame, the receiver is in complete control of the outcome itself.

Why do we resist feedback?

Our Fear

When someone says, “Can I give you some feedback?”, what do you think of? Even though feedback can be positive or negative, most of us think of being given feedback as a negative experience. In fact, research suggests that when trying to improve an individual’s willingness to receive corrective feedback, our fear of the feedback experience has three times the impact than does developing the skills of the feedback giver (Zenger & Folkman, 2015).

This fear can be reduced across an organisation by introducing a culture of seeing feedback as normal and positive. Managers can also start to give corrective coaching feedback more regularly, and can take the step of regularly asking for feedback on their own performance, to normalise asking for feedback.

Our Ego

We aren’t all ego-maniacs, but we do all have an ego. It’s our sense of self-importance, self-perception or self-esteem. And, whether our ego is big or small, feedback can seem like a threat to it, a threat to how we see ourselves.

Management consultant Dick Grote suggests that most of the time, when given corrective feedback, we listen defensively. We look for exaggerations, inaccuracies and incorrect conclusions. The thing is, when we are defensive we often become argumentative and close-minded to the feedback, and then we take no action.

Plus, if we only seek out or listen to positive feedback that reinforces our behaviour (and makes our ego feel great), then we miss valuable opportunities to learn and grow.

Instead, Grote suggests actively telling ourselves to listen to the feedback without planning our response. Try to assume that the feedback giver has good intentions and wants to help you improve. Remember, they are criticising your work, not who you are as a person.

Our Brain

From a neurological perspective, dangers and risks that we encounter trigger our automatic, primitive threat response – ‘fight or flight’. Leading NeuroLeadership expert, David Rock, suggests that, as social creatures, negative feedback can also trigger this response, particularly feedback that impacts our sense of:

• Status: our perceived importance relative to others
• Certainty: our sense of familiarity, clarity and understanding
• Autonomy: our level of control and freedom in our lives
• Relatedness: our sense of safety or trust, particularly with those in a different social group, team, or level in the organisation
• Fairness: our perception of respect, equality and justice

Rock suggests trying to view feedback as an exciting opportunity to learn and improve. If you find feedback to be ambiguous or confusing, ask questions to clarify and better understand the feedback given to you. If you feel as though feedback is taking away your sense of autonomy, try to understand the purpose of the processes and guidelines being spoken about (it’s usually about increasing quality or efficiency of work) and how they can help you be more successful. If you’re distancing yourself from the feedback giver because you’re hurt by what they have said, try to remind yourself of the connection you have with the feedback giver and behaviour that shows you have a supportive and trusting relationship with them. And finally, try not to compare yourself with others during feedback.

Growth Mindset

Psychologist Carol Dweck and her colleagues have shown that there are growth mindsets (those who believe their talents can be developed through hard work and learning) and fixed mindsets (those who believe their talents are innate gifts). We all have a combination of growth and fixed mindsets, which change and evolve based on how we view our experiences.

Recent emphasis in the business world has been on a growth mindset. In a growth mindset, we learn to see feedback and criticism as an opportunity to grow, learn and develop. Failure is encouraged and celebrated as a learning opportunity, as is corrective feedback. But creating a growth mindset isn’t just about taking risks and putting in effort – it’s about the learning, progress and the processes involved, such as the benefits of seeking help from others and trying something new.

That said, we all have triggers that pull us back into a fixed mindset, like the ones mentioned above. Learning to recognise these triggers, and how they can reduce a growth mindset, is key. The next step is how to work with these triggers to pursue goals that challenge you.

Becoming a better feedback receiver

• Actively listen to feedback without planning your reply
• Start to change your mindset – your talents aren’t all innate, most of them you learnt and honed over time
• Recognise the triggers that pull you back into a fixed mindset – how can you acknowledge them but also put them aside so you can learn?
• Try to view feedback as a great opportunity to grow and develop
• Ask questions to clarify and better understand the feedback
• Try to understand the purpose of the processes and guidelines raised in your feedback and how they can help you be more successful
• Remind yourself of the relationship you have with the feedback giver – they are probably trying to help you improve! Assume they are coming from a good place
• And finally, try not to compare yourself with others during feedback

References

Dweck, C. (2016). What having a “growth” mindset actually means. Harvard Business Review published 13 January 2016. 

Zenger, J. & Folkman, J. (2015) Feedback: The Leadership Conundrum. Talent Quarterly pp31-38.

Grote, D. (2015). How to Handle Negative Feedback. Harvard Business Review. Published 17 August 2015. 

Rock, D. (2009). Managing with the brain in mind. strategy + business, issue 56.

More and more organisations today recognise the value of including psychometric assessment in their employee selection process. This is because psychometric measures of cognitive ability, personality and motivation provide a standardised method of evaluating individual capabilities and styles, and can result in more objective, better informed hiring decisions. 

That said, the data collected during the pre-employment assessment process can have enormous value beyond selection. Assessment results may also have application during the onboarding process and during development planning for the successful candidate.

Optimising results for onboarding

Onboarding is key to retaining and engaging talent. It is the process by which new hires become adjusted to the social, cultural and performance aspects of their jobs quickly and smoothly, and learn the attitudes, knowledge, skills, and behaviours required to function effectively within the organisation. A study in the Academy of Management Journal¹ found that the first 90 days of employment is critical to building rapport with the organisation, management and colleagues. New hires had more positive attitudes about their job and worked harder when support levels were high from the team and leaders. Conversely, when support was not offered, new hires were unhappy and unproductive and didn’t stay much beyond four months.

Each year, almost 25% of the working population undergoes some type of career transition. Given how expensive turnover is to a company (e.g. recruitment costs, lost productivity, etc), it is important to support new employees with comprehensive onboarding to ensure their success. Benefits include:

• engaged and motivated employees who are aware of, and connected to, the company culture
• lower turnover and higher retention
• employee loyalty and satisfaction
• productive new hires
• increased revenue
• employees who feel valued and supported 

22% of staff turnover occurs within the first 45 days of employment². According to an Onboarding Benchmark Report published by the Aberdeen Group³, 90% of employees make their decision to stay at a company within the first six months of their employment. However, organisations with a standard on-boarding process experienced greater new hire productivity and 58% of employees were more likely to still be with the organisation after three years².

The data from the pre-employment assessment can be extremely valuable in the onboarding and development planning process to identify employee potential and/or development opportunities. For example, it can provide information pertaining to:

• how quickly the incumbent is likely to learn and come up to speed with new concepts
• what motivates them e.g. do they prefer autonomy or close supervision
• the areas in which they may require support
• how they are likely to respond to performance feedback
• how they like information to be communicated – for example, lots of details or broad concepts
• what their strengths are and how they can be leveraged
• the most appropriate intervention given the development need

In short, the value and usefulness of pre-employment assessment data reaches beyond the selection stage. It also has enormous value in onboarding and development planning for the successful candidate. As a hiring manager, it is critical that you do as much as you can to make the transition into a new organisation as smooth and efficient as possible for the new employee, their colleagues, and for yourself.

References

1. Kammeyer-Mueller J., Wanberg C., Rubenstein A., and Zhaoli S (2013.)  Support, Undermining, and Newcomer Socialization: Fitting in During the First 90 Days.  Academy of Management Journal, 56: 4, 1104-1124.
2. “SHRM Presentation” by The Wynhurst Group, April 2007
3. “Getting Onboard” by Madeline Tarquinio. HR Management. The research quoted is from Aberdeen’s Onboarding Benchmark Report, August, 2006. The data is derived from a survey conducted in partnership with the Human Capital Institute and interviews with senior executives in the human capital management community. For more information on the report visit Aberdeen’s research.

A job vacancy needs to be filled.  An ad is placed, resumes received, a short list of candidates created.  What happens next?  An interview.

However, unless it is well designed, the interview can be one of the least reliable and valid methods for predicting how a person will perform in a specific job, team and organisational culture.

One of the reasons for the limited effectiveness of some interviews is that they are generally unstructured.  For example, it is often the case that a number of candidates for the same role may all be asked different questions by the interviewer resulting in very little comparable data between candidates.  Also, as an interviewer, it is very easy to allow our subconscious to influence our perception of candidates based upon how they look, what they say, what they are wearing, and our own stereotypes.

As you probably know, the implications of making poor hiring decisions are numerous and include the recruitment and training costs of hiring a replacement, reduced employee motivation and morale, and disruption to colleagues and customer relationships.  All the more reason for ensuring that the method(s) used in recruitment is reliable, valid, and will help predict performance on the job.

What can you do?

Research has consistently shown that putting some structure around the interview can significantly maximise its predictive power.  Developing a structured behavioural interview overcomes the weaknesses inherent in unstructured interviews and therefore improves the accuracy of predictions being made about the person being hired.

What is behavioural interviewing?

Behavioural interviewing (also referred to as competency-based interviewing) is a structured interviewing technique used to objectively assess a candidate’s level of competency in relation to particular skills required for the position.  It helps establish the extent to which the candidate possesses the baseline capabilities and experiences for the position.  It also provides an initial evaluation of the candidate’s style or level of cultural and behavioural “fit” with an organisation and the role.

The aim of the behavioural interview is:

• To identify evidence of desired, job-related behaviours by asking about a candidate’s past experiences.
  • For example, instead of asking a hypothetical question such as “How would you go about managing a new team?”, you would ask a candidate to “Tell me about a recent experience in which you had to manage a new team of people.”
  • The interviewer would then probe for information regarding what the candidate actually did, how successful their approach was, etc.

Advantages of Structural Behavioural Interviewing

• Focuses on job-related behaviours
• Comparable information is collected across all applicants
• Questions and conditions are standardised across interviews
• Responses are verifiable (via reference checking, etc.)
• Questions, and therefore answers, are based directly on the competencies associated with the job
• Helps overcome the impact of first impressions and other inaccurate stereotypes

Allworth Juniper partners with its clients to help minimise the risk of making a poor hiring decision.  Training hiring managers in how to plan, conduct and evaluate a structured behavioural interview is one way in which we achieve this.  Our interviewing workshops are experiential, providing participants with ample opportunities to practise the skills learnt through the theory components of the workshop.

For further information, please contact us on 02 9223 2774.

Looking for ways to reduce the likelihood of gender bias occurring in your recruitment practices?

Gender bias is a very real issue in recruitment and selection. Although at times it may be subtle, the consequences of biased recruiting can be long lasting for an organisation and for the candidate.

The example: John Vs. Jen

In a study conducted at Yale University in 2012, researchers gave two separate groups of hiring managers two identical resumes, one with the name John and the other with the name Jen. Based on the information in the resumes, the hiring managers were asked to rate their assigned candidate on four areas: their competence, their hireability, their mentoring capabilities and their salary. The results were astonishing. John was rated higher across all areas despite the fact that the information provided in both John’s and Jen’s resume was identical.  

Why does Gender Bias occur?

Not Attracting Female Candidates

Some traditionally male dominated industries report having difficulty attracting female candidates.  This is partly to do with the lack of women choosing these industries as their career option.  For example, women make up approximately 14% of the places given to university engineering courses (Engineering Australia, 2012). Another contributing factor is that these industries may not be marketing themselves as a viable career option for women using strong employer branding. 

Unconscious Bias

We ALL hold unconscious biases. Bias is a potentially damaging yet innate human characteristic which ultimately assists us to navigate the world and the people in it.  Here are some well-known and well researched examples of social biases that aren’t only applicable to gender:

Like me bias.  This is where a recruiter might meet a candidate that they perceive is like them. For example, they might both be fans of the same football club.  Once that has been established, the recruiter will assume the candidate is similar to them and, as such, have a better impression of this candidate compared to the rest of the applicant pool.

Halo effect.  This is where a recruiter’s judgement about a candidate (either negative or positive) is applied to other areas of the applicant’s candidature.  For example, if a candidate is perceived as attractive by the recruiter, they might subconsciously attribute other positive traits such as intelligence and education to that candidate also. 

Stereotyping.  This is where the recruiter anticipates the candidate will perform in a certain way based on preconceived ideals. For example, the recruiter may have formed a mental representation about what type of candidate should do the required role.  If a candidate is perceived as the wrong ‘fit’ because of an external factor (gender, age, race, background) they may be unsuccessful.

The solution: How can we reduce gender bias?

Strive hard to reach a 50/50 split of male and female candidates.  Make sure you’re marketing your business as an equal opportunity employer to attract a variety of top talent.

Try blind interviewing. This is where all identifying information about candidates is removed from the screening stage of the recruitment process and as such, removes the chance of unconscious bias at the outset.

Provide your interviewers with thorough training on structured and behavioural interviews so that all candidates are treated equally.

Avoid using gendered words in position descriptions and during interviews. For example, Chairman, salesman etc.

Implement unconscious bias training workshops and help your employees be aware of their biases.

Implement psychometric testing as part of the recruitment process. They are one of the most objective measures of a candidate’s cognitive capability, personality and potential