Ironically, the most important workers sometimes don’t receive adequate training. Herman Miller is looking to change that.
By Joe Mullich
The people who are most important to running a company today--and would most immediately be missed--often receive the least amount of leadership training, says Linda Milanowski, director of learning and development for Herman Miller, the 82-year-old-furniture maker.
Complete article at :Workforce
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Executive Comp: Pay Without Performance
Out-of-control executive compensation schemes are “widespread, persistent, and systemic,” and new reforms won’t clean up the mess, argue law professors Lucian Bebchuk and Jesse Fried. Q&A and book excerpt.
by Mallory Stark
In the new book Pay Without Performance: The Unfulfilled Promise of Executive Compensation, Lucian Bebchuk and Jesse Fried make the case that the executive compensation system in the U.S. is fundamentally broken. We like to think that executive pay is the product of arm's-length negotiation, that the executive bargains in his or her own best interest, while the board of directors bargains for the best interests of the shareholders. Bebchuk and Fried argue that, in fact, soaring executive pay is the result of management power.
Complete article at HBR
For latest on KM click here
by Mallory Stark
In the new book Pay Without Performance: The Unfulfilled Promise of Executive Compensation, Lucian Bebchuk and Jesse Fried make the case that the executive compensation system in the U.S. is fundamentally broken. We like to think that executive pay is the product of arm's-length negotiation, that the executive bargains in his or her own best interest, while the board of directors bargains for the best interests of the shareholders. Bebchuk and Fried argue that, in fact, soaring executive pay is the result of management power.
Complete article at HBR
For latest on KM click here
Why do organizations want "previous work experience"?
This post is triggered by Heather's post here.I also think there's a comfort level taking risks on new grads because they are less opinionated about what *works* in the business world (oh come on, I know I have an opinion on "how things work"...otherwise this blog would be b-o-r-i-n-g). But on the flip side, career changers bring so much maturity and different perspective to the table. Are hiring authorities worried that their next desired role is just an experiment? That they are trying something new because they failed at what they did before? Or do we embrace the risk taker?My response (not that I necessarily that I agree with it) tries to reason out why an organization might not look at somebody with "non-relevant" work experience for an experienced level opening.It is easier to get a transition with your current employer than to ask for a change with a new employer.Look at it this way, every hiring decision is a risk that the organization takes, and asking for previous experience is a way to mitigate that risk...that is because there are lots of factors that can be behind a successful talented person...like great organizational processes, a great team, top management support...you don't know if in your organization he/she will be as successful...but you still take a chance as the person has done this thing before...On the other hand hiring someone new without any previous experience in that kind of role actually means taking the most risk...sure it might pay off handsomely , but typically management is about reducing risks in most organizations.This post is triggered by Heather's post here.I also think there's a comfort level taking risks on new grads because they are less opinionated about what *works* in the business world (oh come on, I know I have an opinion on "how things work"...otherwise this blog would be b-o-r-i-n-g). But on the flip side, career changers bring so much maturity and different perspective to the table. Are hiring authorities worried that their next desired role is just an experiment? That they are trying something new because they failed at what they did before? Or do we embrace the risk taker?My response (not that I necessarily that I agree with it) tries to reason out why an organization might not look at somebody with "non-relevant" work experience for an experienced level opening.It is easier to get a transition with your current employer than to ask for a change with a new employer.Look at it this way, every hiring decision is a risk that the organization takes, and asking for previous experience is a way to mitigate that risk...that is because there are lots of factors that can be behind a successful talented person...like great organizational processes, a great team, top management support...you don't know if in your organization he/she will be as successful...but you still take a chance as the person has done this thing before...On the other hand hiring someone new without any previous experience in that kind of role actually means taking the most risk...sure it might pay off handsomely , but typically management is about reducing risks in most organizations. This post is triggered by Heather's post here.I also think there's a comfort level taking risks on new grads because they are less opinionated about what *works* in the business world (oh come on, I know I have an opinion on "how things work"...otherwise this blog would be b-o-r-i-n-g). But on the flip side, career changers bring so much maturity and different perspective to the table. Are hiring authorities worried that their next desired role is just an experiment? That they are trying something new because they failed at what they did before? Or do we embrace the risk taker?My response (not that I necessarily that I agree with it) tries to reason out why an organization might not look at somebody with "non-relevant" work experience for an experienced level opening.It is easier to get a transition with your current employer than to ask for a change with a new employer.Look at it this way, every hiring decision is a risk that the organization takes, and asking for previous experience is a way to mitigate that risk...that is because there are lots of factors that can be behind a successful talented person...like great organizational processes, a great team, top management support...you don't know if in your organization he/she will be as successful...but you still take a chance as the person has done this thing before...On the other hand hiring someone new without any previous experience in that kind of role actually means taking the most risk...sure it might pay off handsomely , but typically management is about reducing risks in most organizations.This post is triggered by Heather's post here.I also think there's a comfort level taking risks on new grads because they are less opinionated about what *works* in the business world (oh come on, I know I have an opinion on "how things work"...otherwise this blog would be b-o-r-i-n-g). But on the flip side, career changers bring so much maturity and different perspective to the table. Are hiring authorities worried that their next desired role is just an experiment? That they are trying something new because they failed at what they did before? Or do we embrace the risk taker?My response (not that I necessarily that I agree with it) tries to reason out why an organization might not look at somebody with "non-relevant" work experience for an experienced level opening.It is easier to get a transition with your current employer than to ask for a change with a new employer.Look at it this way, every hiring decision is a risk that the organization takes, and asking for previous experience is a way to mitigate that risk...that is because there are lots of factors that can be behind a successful talented person...like great organizational processes, a great team, top management support...you don't know if in your organization he/she will be as successful...but you still take a chance as the person has done this thing before...On the other hand hiring someone new without any previous experience in that kind of role actually means taking the most risk...sure it might pay off handsomely , but typically management is about reducing risks in most organizations.
Written by Gautam Ghosh on his blog
KM reads click here
posted by Siddharth Nagpal
Written by Gautam Ghosh on his blog
KM reads click here
posted by Siddharth Nagpal
A dearth of HR talent
All is not well with human resources. Many European companies don't have enough HR professionals who understand business issues—a necessity for recruiting and retaining talent. At the same time, companies complain that HR fails to provide basic services efficiently. The gulf between the goals of this critical corporate function and the organization's needs has implications for recruitment, training, and development.
The take-away
The HR function is at a crossroads. Companies may need to adopt a two-tiered approach that distinguishes between generalists with broad business experience and specialists with a deep knowledge of HR issues.
Complete article at :McKinsey Quarterly
The take-away
The HR function is at a crossroads. Companies may need to adopt a two-tiered approach that distinguishes between generalists with broad business experience and specialists with a deep knowledge of HR issues.
Complete article at :McKinsey Quarterly
Designing Better Employee Benefits
Health care costs are rising so quickly that they threaten to eclipse profits in many Fortune 500 companies.
Given the impact of benefits costs, you might think that senior executives would be doing everything possible to control them and make the most of this investment in the workforce.
But in fact, most companies have failed to approach benefits with the same rigor they bring to other major investments, such as research and development.
Benefits plan managers should view employees as internal consumers and conduct research to learn how to deliver the most value at an affordable price.
Complete article at McKinsey Quarterly
Given the impact of benefits costs, you might think that senior executives would be doing everything possible to control them and make the most of this investment in the workforce.
But in fact, most companies have failed to approach benefits with the same rigor they bring to other major investments, such as research and development.
Benefits plan managers should view employees as internal consumers and conduct research to learn how to deliver the most value at an affordable price.
Complete article at McKinsey Quarterly
Creating a Positive Professional Image
n today’s diverse workplace, your actions and motives are constantly under scrutiny. Time to manage your own professional image before others do it for you. An interview with professor Laura Morgan Roberts.
by Mallory Stark
As HBS professor Laura Morgan Roberts sees it, if you aren't managing your own professional image, others are.
"People are constantly observing your behavior and forming theories about your competence, character, and commitment, which are rapidly disseminated throughout your workplace," she says. "It is only wise to add your voice in framing others' theories about who you are and what you can accomplish."
There are plenty of books telling you how to "dress for success" and control your body language. But keeping on top of your personal traits is only part of the story of managing your professional image, says Roberts. You also belong to a social identity group—African American male, working mother—that brings its own stereotyping from the people you work with, especially in today's diverse workplaces. You can put on a suit and cut your hair to improve your appearance, but how do you manage something like skin color?
Roberts will present her research, called "Changing Faces: Professional Image Construction in Diverse Organizational Settings," in the October issue of the Academy of Management Review.
Read the interview at : HBS
by Mallory Stark
As HBS professor Laura Morgan Roberts sees it, if you aren't managing your own professional image, others are.
"People are constantly observing your behavior and forming theories about your competence, character, and commitment, which are rapidly disseminated throughout your workplace," she says. "It is only wise to add your voice in framing others' theories about who you are and what you can accomplish."
There are plenty of books telling you how to "dress for success" and control your body language. But keeping on top of your personal traits is only part of the story of managing your professional image, says Roberts. You also belong to a social identity group—African American male, working mother—that brings its own stereotyping from the people you work with, especially in today's diverse workplaces. You can put on a suit and cut your hair to improve your appearance, but how do you manage something like skin color?
Roberts will present her research, called "Changing Faces: Professional Image Construction in Diverse Organizational Settings," in the October issue of the Academy of Management Review.
Read the interview at : HBS
Sizing the emerging global labor market
The topic of offshoring generates extreme differences of opinion among policy makers, business executives, and thought leaders. Some have argued that nearly all service jobs will eventually move from developed economies to low-wage ones. Others say that rising wages in cities such as Bangalore and Prague indicate that the supply of offshore talent is already running thin.
To a large extent, these disagreements reflect the confusion surrounding the newly integrating and still inefficient global labor market. Much as technology change is making it possible to integrate global capital markets into a single market for savings and investment, so digital communications are giving rise to what is, in effect, a single global market for those jobs that can now, thanks to IT, be performed remotely from customers and colleagues.
Complete article at : McKinseyQuarterly
To a large extent, these disagreements reflect the confusion surrounding the newly integrating and still inefficient global labor market. Much as technology change is making it possible to integrate global capital markets into a single market for savings and investment, so digital communications are giving rise to what is, in effect, a single global market for those jobs that can now, thanks to IT, be performed remotely from customers and colleagues.
Complete article at : McKinseyQuarterly
Who's Responsible for Getting Bob Hired?
One of the Accountemps commercials just got through airing. I love the farcical nature of the ads and the creativity of the writers. The other thing is, those commercials make me think about a lot of things. They've been food for several proposed blogs that were started and lost or started and saved until I could finish later. Incidentally, Later is coming. But she still needs to finish putting on her make-up.
Back to Accountemps. There was the ad where Nerlman was looking for work for the intern. That one was ripe. There was the first one where Nerlman was calling in sick and learned about Bob. I also remember the one where the manager was taking credit for the excellent reports that were being produced. The VP was looking forward to talking with him about that. And today's gem is about Nerlman's wanting to do something important -- more than he's usually allowed to do. So Mr. [what'shisname?] tells him instead of the finance report, Nerlman can do Payroll while Bob (the temp) does the report. "What's Payroll?" Nerlman asks after celebrating the task with some significance.
But today's commercial comes on the coattail of some real life interactions where a person with excellent credentials is passed over while the recruiter continues their search for the needle in the haystack. So it's time to ask two questions (if not more): (1) How the heck did Nerlman get hired? (2) Why has Bob from Accountemps not been hired?
Nerlman is the consummate slacker. But he's been with the company for as many years as Carter has pills (or peanuts; it depends on which Carter we're talking about). He's good at supervising the intern but the intern is a whinny, sniveling teenager whose worth is stapling papers.
On the other hand, Bob knows how to do every financial function. It must be that Bob has not yet earned his certification. Or maybe he wants the independence (independence?) that temping allows. He's a commitment phobe. There was one commercial where Nerlman was moving his things into the last person's office and Mr. [what'shisname?] said Bob would be moving in there while the replacement was found and speculated that Bob may be the replacement.
So why haven't they hired Bob? Maybe Bob's agency is asking too much in the temp to perm fee percentage. But if this company that keeps calling Bob back in has such challenges and appreciates Bob's proliferate talents and skills so much, why have they not made the first step toward turning around their ROI dive by extending an offer or at least learning how to do a better job of recruiting, screening, and onboarding? Why is it that a recruiter hasn't latched onto Bob like tar on a stick and placed him in one of the Big Four?
Or maybe Bob sees the mess that exists at the company and has mentally said to himself, "Never, in a million years. That's the job from Hell," because there's so much waste and disorganization that it would take too much energy to get things sorted out and kept that way in the long run. Short-term, specific projects help him keep his sanity while driving up his worth.
That brings up another issue. Is Accountemps paying Bob a premium for all of the skills he has? Have they increased his hourly rate to reflect the amount of his demand, especially with Nerlman's company?
Here we have the consummate and elusive desirable candidate -- a qualified candidate. Yet the right recruiter has yet to pick him up and place him in the right situation. Do we really recognize qualified when we see it? Do we really understand what constitutes and what has led to being qualified?
And by the way, just exactly who is responsible for getting Bob hired?
Back to Accountemps. There was the ad where Nerlman was looking for work for the intern. That one was ripe. There was the first one where Nerlman was calling in sick and learned about Bob. I also remember the one where the manager was taking credit for the excellent reports that were being produced. The VP was looking forward to talking with him about that. And today's gem is about Nerlman's wanting to do something important -- more than he's usually allowed to do. So Mr. [what'shisname?] tells him instead of the finance report, Nerlman can do Payroll while Bob (the temp) does the report. "What's Payroll?" Nerlman asks after celebrating the task with some significance.
But today's commercial comes on the coattail of some real life interactions where a person with excellent credentials is passed over while the recruiter continues their search for the needle in the haystack. So it's time to ask two questions (if not more): (1) How the heck did Nerlman get hired? (2) Why has Bob from Accountemps not been hired?
Nerlman is the consummate slacker. But he's been with the company for as many years as Carter has pills (or peanuts; it depends on which Carter we're talking about). He's good at supervising the intern but the intern is a whinny, sniveling teenager whose worth is stapling papers.
On the other hand, Bob knows how to do every financial function. It must be that Bob has not yet earned his certification. Or maybe he wants the independence (independence?) that temping allows. He's a commitment phobe. There was one commercial where Nerlman was moving his things into the last person's office and Mr. [what'shisname?] said Bob would be moving in there while the replacement was found and speculated that Bob may be the replacement.
So why haven't they hired Bob? Maybe Bob's agency is asking too much in the temp to perm fee percentage. But if this company that keeps calling Bob back in has such challenges and appreciates Bob's proliferate talents and skills so much, why have they not made the first step toward turning around their ROI dive by extending an offer or at least learning how to do a better job of recruiting, screening, and onboarding? Why is it that a recruiter hasn't latched onto Bob like tar on a stick and placed him in one of the Big Four?
Or maybe Bob sees the mess that exists at the company and has mentally said to himself, "Never, in a million years. That's the job from Hell," because there's so much waste and disorganization that it would take too much energy to get things sorted out and kept that way in the long run. Short-term, specific projects help him keep his sanity while driving up his worth.
That brings up another issue. Is Accountemps paying Bob a premium for all of the skills he has? Have they increased his hourly rate to reflect the amount of his demand, especially with Nerlman's company?
Here we have the consummate and elusive desirable candidate -- a qualified candidate. Yet the right recruiter has yet to pick him up and place him in the right situation. Do we really recognize qualified when we see it? Do we really understand what constitutes and what has led to being qualified?
And by the way, just exactly who is responsible for getting Bob hired?
Reference Checking for Job Applications
You have found your dream employee. She has all the right qualifications and experience. She passed her interview with flying colors. She has even agreed to your payment terms without a hiccup. So what's the problem? You should hire her immediately, shouldn't you?
A smart manager would do a bit of homework before offering the job. My advice to managers would be: read the fine print. If you have a great catch in your clutches, chances are that you have not examined the catch well enough. Many managers overlook the importance of reference checking. It seems like a waste of time. These are the typical reasons given against reference checking:
No real data is ever found out about the employee through reference checking.
The referrer may have a vested interest in giving positive or negative feedback.
Reference checking makes analysis difficult.
I don't deny these reasons as irrelevant. However, one has to see the tradeoff between the two options. With reference checking, you can:
Discover new information, which is not revealed through interview
Establish the veracity of the employee's track record
Corroborate the opinions of the referrer with available facts
A systematic process of reference checking ensures that the information is not confusing. Here are some points to keep in mind:
Verify the relationship between the referrer and the applicant
This is probably the best place to start a full-scale examination. Check about the nature of relationship between the referrer and the applicant. An ex-professor is a good referrer, but there has to be substantial interaction between them to warrant a detailed reference. If the ex-professor hardly knew your candidate, then the reference would not be of much use. If possible, insist on references from people who have had substantial interaction with your candidate.
Sort out the accolades from the facts
Some reference letters are full of adjectives to describe an applicant. These fluffed up nonsense lend no credibility to the writer or the applicant. Look out for such references. Read the letters to accumulate information about the candidate. Then, verify the accuracy of the facts stated in the letter by interviewing the candidate. This will help you gauge the significance of the achievement.
Multiple References
In the case of reference checking, the more, the better is not a good thumb rule to follow. Rather stick to a limited number. However, it is good to get references from a cross section of people. So a good rule is to have one reference letter of each: (1) a professor or academician (2) a superior or ex-boss (3) a member of a social institution, if the applicant is an active social worker. You can cross verify information to check for any discrepancies. For example, if the reference letter from the professor claims that the applicant is hard working, check if there is a mention of the same trait in other reference letters too.
Phone based reference checking
References can also be verified over the phone. Before making the phone call, make sure to have a list of questions ready. Have a column where you can note down facts or interesting details. Pose specific questions like "Can you tell me how was X's relationship with her colleagues?", rather than asking, "Can you tell me more about X's working style?" If you ask specific questions, you will get specific answers. If a person is being vague about the answers, press for information without sounding too nosy.
Reference checking could be done intelligently if planned and executed well. It can be an important tool for recruiters who want to zero in on their final candidate.
A smart manager would do a bit of homework before offering the job. My advice to managers would be: read the fine print. If you have a great catch in your clutches, chances are that you have not examined the catch well enough. Many managers overlook the importance of reference checking. It seems like a waste of time. These are the typical reasons given against reference checking:
No real data is ever found out about the employee through reference checking.
The referrer may have a vested interest in giving positive or negative feedback.
Reference checking makes analysis difficult.
I don't deny these reasons as irrelevant. However, one has to see the tradeoff between the two options. With reference checking, you can:
Discover new information, which is not revealed through interview
Establish the veracity of the employee's track record
Corroborate the opinions of the referrer with available facts
A systematic process of reference checking ensures that the information is not confusing. Here are some points to keep in mind:
Verify the relationship between the referrer and the applicant
This is probably the best place to start a full-scale examination. Check about the nature of relationship between the referrer and the applicant. An ex-professor is a good referrer, but there has to be substantial interaction between them to warrant a detailed reference. If the ex-professor hardly knew your candidate, then the reference would not be of much use. If possible, insist on references from people who have had substantial interaction with your candidate.
Sort out the accolades from the facts
Some reference letters are full of adjectives to describe an applicant. These fluffed up nonsense lend no credibility to the writer or the applicant. Look out for such references. Read the letters to accumulate information about the candidate. Then, verify the accuracy of the facts stated in the letter by interviewing the candidate. This will help you gauge the significance of the achievement.
Multiple References
In the case of reference checking, the more, the better is not a good thumb rule to follow. Rather stick to a limited number. However, it is good to get references from a cross section of people. So a good rule is to have one reference letter of each: (1) a professor or academician (2) a superior or ex-boss (3) a member of a social institution, if the applicant is an active social worker. You can cross verify information to check for any discrepancies. For example, if the reference letter from the professor claims that the applicant is hard working, check if there is a mention of the same trait in other reference letters too.
Phone based reference checking
References can also be verified over the phone. Before making the phone call, make sure to have a list of questions ready. Have a column where you can note down facts or interesting details. Pose specific questions like "Can you tell me how was X's relationship with her colleagues?", rather than asking, "Can you tell me more about X's working style?" If you ask specific questions, you will get specific answers. If a person is being vague about the answers, press for information without sounding too nosy.
Reference checking could be done intelligently if planned and executed well. It can be an important tool for recruiters who want to zero in on their final candidate.
Does Personal Attribute Influence Recruitment Decisions?
Are we influenced by a person's attire, mannerisms, charisma? Or do such traits expose our own inadequacies and thereby affect rationale?
There is an old saying that goes: First impression is the last impression. Scores of job applicants are learning the benefits of personal grooming. People who otherwise dress sloppily wear their best for their interview. Why? Because they want to create a lasting impression on the minds of the interviewer.
The applicant adapts his taste to meet expectations of the interviewers. So, a person usually in jeans sticks to formal attire. The lady who loves to wear vibrant colors chooses to wear dull, sober colors. Out goes personal style, in come corporate etiquettes.
It is not just the clothes. Candidates bedazzle their recruiters with a host of other impressive things. The candidate has the best mannerisms on display. He flashes a benevolent smile now and then, which clouds judgment.
I am not against well-mannered candidates. In fact, I like professionals who behave like one. Their attitude tells me that they are serious about getting the job. The problem, however, is on the other side of the recruiting table. Sometimes, interviewers get so carried away by first impressions that they immediately form a bias for or against the individual. Objectivity gets overrun by prejudice.
To elucidate the point, let us take a typical example of a biased interview. A harried looking executive walks in for an interview. His disheveled appearance creates a negative bias. This bias reflects in the interview, which allows no room for comfort. In such a discomforting scenario, it is quite likely that the applicant would not perform well. From this point on, the interview goes downhill. Naturally, the applicant is rejected without a second thought. One can argue that the applicant lost out due to poor preparation. However, we cannot rule out the role of bias in this interview process. While most people would blame the poor performance of the applicant, it is also possible that the recruiters have to take a share of the blame.
Take the example given above with a modified outcome. A harried looking executive walks in for an interview. The recruiters ignore his looks and continue the interview as they would with any other applicant. There is an atmosphere of comfort. The applicant is encouraged to talk freely. In this situation, both the candidate and the recruiters are in a position to focus on 'real' issues. The recruiters can look beyond the external factors to evaluate the true potential of the candidate. The interview process can be termed fair and non-judgmental.
Psychologists say that bias is often a reflection of our own personality. Individuals have inherent preference or dislike for certain mannerisms. We see people as an extension of our own persona. We react positively when a person has a special skill that we don't have. For instance, a person with no driving skills admires others who drive well. Likewise, we tend to dislike people, who don't have the same set of values that we do. This explains why many people hate hypocrites or liars, because these qualities are against their values.
Very often, bias affects impartial evaluation of employees. A non judgmental interview can focus on applicant's real talents. Managers can avoid serious hiring mistakes if they keep objectivity in perspective while doing an interview. Employers must recognize that bias can have a significant impact on interviews. An in-depth analysis can reveal bias factors in decision making process. The first step in eliminating bias is to accept that bias can affect rationale. Once that is done, the road ahead becomes visible.
There is an old saying that goes: First impression is the last impression. Scores of job applicants are learning the benefits of personal grooming. People who otherwise dress sloppily wear their best for their interview. Why? Because they want to create a lasting impression on the minds of the interviewer.
The applicant adapts his taste to meet expectations of the interviewers. So, a person usually in jeans sticks to formal attire. The lady who loves to wear vibrant colors chooses to wear dull, sober colors. Out goes personal style, in come corporate etiquettes.
It is not just the clothes. Candidates bedazzle their recruiters with a host of other impressive things. The candidate has the best mannerisms on display. He flashes a benevolent smile now and then, which clouds judgment.
I am not against well-mannered candidates. In fact, I like professionals who behave like one. Their attitude tells me that they are serious about getting the job. The problem, however, is on the other side of the recruiting table. Sometimes, interviewers get so carried away by first impressions that they immediately form a bias for or against the individual. Objectivity gets overrun by prejudice.
To elucidate the point, let us take a typical example of a biased interview. A harried looking executive walks in for an interview. His disheveled appearance creates a negative bias. This bias reflects in the interview, which allows no room for comfort. In such a discomforting scenario, it is quite likely that the applicant would not perform well. From this point on, the interview goes downhill. Naturally, the applicant is rejected without a second thought. One can argue that the applicant lost out due to poor preparation. However, we cannot rule out the role of bias in this interview process. While most people would blame the poor performance of the applicant, it is also possible that the recruiters have to take a share of the blame.
Take the example given above with a modified outcome. A harried looking executive walks in for an interview. The recruiters ignore his looks and continue the interview as they would with any other applicant. There is an atmosphere of comfort. The applicant is encouraged to talk freely. In this situation, both the candidate and the recruiters are in a position to focus on 'real' issues. The recruiters can look beyond the external factors to evaluate the true potential of the candidate. The interview process can be termed fair and non-judgmental.
Psychologists say that bias is often a reflection of our own personality. Individuals have inherent preference or dislike for certain mannerisms. We see people as an extension of our own persona. We react positively when a person has a special skill that we don't have. For instance, a person with no driving skills admires others who drive well. Likewise, we tend to dislike people, who don't have the same set of values that we do. This explains why many people hate hypocrites or liars, because these qualities are against their values.
Very often, bias affects impartial evaluation of employees. A non judgmental interview can focus on applicant's real talents. Managers can avoid serious hiring mistakes if they keep objectivity in perspective while doing an interview. Employers must recognize that bias can have a significant impact on interviews. An in-depth analysis can reveal bias factors in decision making process. The first step in eliminating bias is to accept that bias can affect rationale. Once that is done, the road ahead becomes visible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)