Welcome to the March 1, 2006 issue of The Total View

Published by Success Performance Solutions, Written by Ira S. Wolfe

Visit our Human Resources Blog and Perfect Labor Storm Blog where we can post daily (and more often) human resource updates, news, and Perfect Labor Storm facts. 

What's Inside:

1.   Second Place: First place for losers?

Your dream is to win an Olympic gold medal. You prepare for four years, maybe longer You dedicate your life to practice, practice, practice - giving up many of the things a "normal" teenager or young adult does in pursuit of the chance to stand atop the medal podium. You sacrifice your body and put yourself under a microscope for the world to view your every move.

Finally you reach the finals of the Olympics only to fall on your butt. You skate magnificently for one event and you are on the front page of nearly every newspaper in the world. But your flight to numero uno gets cut short after falling to the ice, flubbing a move that you have practiced thousands of times. You win second place. You did the best you could and should be thrilled to be one of only a select few in the world who have been awarded an Olympic medal.

And so goes the story of Sasha Cohen. Many people would consider any medal in the Olympics a once-in-a-lifetime achievement. In fact, just qualifying for the Olympics might be enough satisfaction in some circles to make you feel like a winner. I particularly smiled when watching Emily Hughes, the last minute replacement for the injured Kwan. She was told by her gold-medal winning sister, Sarah Hughes, just to go out and enjoy her skating. She did and surpassed everyone's expectations. You could tell by her beaming smile that winning a medal was her goal …..but winning wasn't everything.

But that's not everyone's view.

As one manager recently told me, "winning is just the first place for losers." He proudly described how he pushes his seven-year old son to be the best he can be. There is nothing wrong with that except he sees no reason in allowing his son to win unless he deserves. That goes from playing video games to racing him to the refrigerator. He wants his son to learn the pain of losing so bad that winning becomes the only thing. Just doing the best you can - and enjoying the participation - is not good enough.

And that attitude was oh-so visible when watching the verbal altercation between U.S. speedskaters Shani Davis and Chad Hedrick. Davis wanted to win the 1,000 meters. He was also an important leg on the U.S. relay team. Davis withdrew from the team to pursue his personal goal. The team lost and most experts agree that the U.S. team might have won had Davis skated. (Sound familiar? Can everyone say - Terrill Owens?)

Different levels of competitiveness show up every day in the workplace. To the manager described above, everything is a game and winning is the only reward. He's always up for a good "fight" and the surest way to motivate him is challenge him that he can't do something. There is no doubt that super-charged competitiveness gets results, but management needs to understand you can have only one winner in this case. Everyone else loses. And highly competitive individuals don't like to lose. Even worse, sometimes it is the organization that loses.

Sales-driven organizations generally seek competitive individuals. That makes sense. People driven to win exhibit drive, take initiative, endure pain and overcome setbacks.

But can a top performer be too competitive? Managers are faced with that somewhat paradoxcal situation every single day - the top producing salesperson who commands prima-donna status and runs off anyone who gets in his/her way. When things are going well, this super-competitive human takes the credit. When things go awry, it is always marketing, customer service, or the manger's fault. Good hard-working people, individuals willing to compete hard even if it means another teammate or the team wins, leave the organization. Nobody likes to be the loser all the time. In the end, one person is standing and you can't have one person teams.

I'm often asked: How can you measure competitiveness, drive, initiative, a desire to work hard and a willingness to work on a team?

One of the most predictable methods is simpler than most managers think. "Competitiveness" is one of the personality traits measured using the Big-Five Personality Model. Individuals who score a "10" on competitiveness resemble the manager described above. While they do get results, "10s" can be the best team players - unless he doesn't receive the attention and MPV. He may even sacrifice a team win for individual honors. These individuals thrive in "cut-throat" business environments or when incentives are offered for individual accomplishments.

Is there a desirable range for "team players"? Based on our research, individuals best suited to compete hard but work effectively on teams generally fall between 5 and 8. To varying degrees, these individuals have the drive to win but are willing to sacrifice personal glory for a "W" in the win column..

Is being less competitive a bad thing? No, this individual just tends to be cooperative - and joins the 50 percent of the population who are willing to sit on the sidelines and support the team in their efforts. Compared to the highly competitive who love a good challenge, cooperative individuals don't understand why you can't just enjoy playing the game. Keeping score is a foreign - even repulsive - concept. You might hear cooperative individuals say, "It's a shame there has to be a winner and loser." (To the highly competitive, the only shame is losing!) The ultimate cooperative individual may even lose on purpose knowing how important winning is to the highly competitive.

Other personality factors that play a big role in evaluating competitiveness and teamwork are group-orientation, emotional stability as well as values such as social and power/authority. Group-oriented individuals need to be involved with people while self-sufficient can work alone. In sports, group-oriented prefer sports like basketball while self-sufficient enjoy cross-country.

Stability determines how individuals will react to losing. The very stable will be somewhat resistant to criticism and rejection. The very stable won't give up easily because the stress just doesn't get them. Ironically, too much stability may also allow individuals to be complacent with losing. Remember, their strength is an ability to shrug off criticism. But overextended, this strength can become a weakness - ignoring constructive criticism

Individuals who value power and authority strive to be in control of their own destiny. If winning is their goal, other team members may get in their way. Why do you think so many teams break up after winning (and losing) the World Series or Super Bowl? If everyone on the team strives to be the most Very Important Person, someone feels he is less important and less valued. And off they go to a team that "values" them more. (You obviously see what happens when power and authority and the economic value are the two top motivators.)

Finally the social value infers a passion to work for the betterment of other people. Social-driven individuals can be perfect team mates, working hard for the good of the team. Michelle Kwan withdrew from her last chance at Olympic gold to make way for Emily Hughes. Had Chad Hedrick valued team work a little more, he might have "valued" Davis' decision to go for his own gold? Then again, with more Social and less Power and Authority, Hedrick may not have gone home with three medals.

The events surrounding the Olympics is just a microcosm of the workplace. Identifying top producers and building Olympic goal medal teams isn't brain surgery. All it takes is an understanding of the key personality traits and behaviors driving an individual's skills, needs, wants and desires. And those answers are easily available in the newest generation of personality and behavioral testing.

Evaluate competitiveness, a willing to work with others. emotional stability and more with TotalView Assessment Systems, ASSESS and Business Values and Motivators.

2.  Perfect Labor Storm Alerts # 507 to 508

Don't miss day-to-day updates on Perfect Labor Storm. Save the Perfect Labor Storm blog to your favorites.

Fact #507:   The impact of population ageing is increasingly evident in the old-age dependency ratio, the number of working age persons (age 15 - 64 years) per older person (65 years or older) that is used as an indicator of the 'dependency burden' on potential workers. Between 2000 and 2050, the old-age dependency ratio will double in more developed regions and triple in less developed regions. The potential socioeconomic impact on society that may result from an increasing old-age dependency ratio is an area of growing research and public debate.
(Source: The Aging of the World's Population, United Nations)

Fact #508:   In urban China, the problem of elder dependency on a shrinking family is particularly severe (since there are usually no public or private retirement funds). It is referred to as the “4-2-1 phenomenon”: Four elderly grandparents, two retired parents, and one working child who is responsible for all of them.
(Source: The Aging of the World's Population, United Nations)

Don't be caught in storm without all the facts. "The Perfect Labor Storm Fact Book: Why Worker Shortages Won't Go Away" is a must-read leading edge forecast that predicts workforce trends for decades to come. Order your copy today - Only $7.95.

3.  Survey: Who should HR report to?

The baby-boom generation contains the largest number of people ever voluntarily to give up work in such a short time. Because it is larger than the generation that follows it – and any that preceded it – it casts a long shadow over the companies it is set to leave behind.

Businesses are rapidly approaching the “demographic cliff" and yet Human Resources in many businesses is still not seated at the executive table. When it is, organizational charts vary with HR reporting to the CEO, COO, CFO or other senior executives.

We'd like to hear from you. Who should HR report to and why? Please take a minute or two to complete this two-question opinion survey  and then forward the link to co-workers, clients, HR managers, and executives you know.

Results will be published on or before March 15, 2006 in this newsletter and at www.super-solutions.com.

4.   Quotes from Hire Authorities

At Koch, we have a new vision of employees. Employees don't have jobs; rather they have a set of rights, responsibilities, and rewards that enable them to best contribute.

Charles Koch, executive

5.   Reference Checks and Employee Verification

Electronics retailer RadioShack Corp. announced Monday that its president and chief executive, David Edmondson, resigned in the midst of an investigation into credentials listed on his resume. Edmondson, who became RadioShack (Research)'s CEO last May after being groomed for the spot, admitted last week that he had "clearly" misstated his academic record on his resume and on the company's Web site.

Too busy to check employee references? Tired of getting only bits and pieces of useless information from previous emplohyers? At Success Performance Solutions we can help you check references and verify education. Why waste time getting the run-around and leaving phone messages that don’t get returned?

Contact Pat Crouse for more information about our reference checking and education verification service.

6.   Prevalence of Counter-Productive Behaviors

A research study “Productivity Crimes: Realities, Risks & Profit” (Batrus Hollweg) has documented the prevalence of counter-productive behaviors among food service employees. Eight counter-productive behaviors were identified and measured: product theft, cash theft, food violations, drug/alcohol abuse, unreliability, sexual harassment, anti-diversity and disrespect for others. Here are some of the findings:

27 percent have given food to family and friends and not charged them.
44 percent knowingly ignored rules regarding the handling of food.
52 percent came to work hung-over from alcohol.
28 percent came to work hung over from drugs.
44 percent said they had not shown up for a scheduled shift at work.
41 percent did not complete work assigned to them because they knew co-workers would pick up the slack.
26 percent said they were late for work.

You can stop hiring employee with counter-productive behaviors with Candid Clues.