Job Descriptions – Standards of Excellence or Minimal Required Standards?

What does a Job Description tell us? How does an employee respond when s/he sees job description for her/his role?

Job descriptions do tell us what is expected of the role. But what is the nature of these expectations? If a job description says A,B,C, and D needs to be done, should role incumbent just do A,B,C, and D and nothing else? A similar dilemma exists for Key Performance Indicators agreed on to for a role at the start of the year.

I would argue that job descriptions and Key Performance Indicators are minimal required conditions at the best. They define the skeleton.

To put flesh on that skeleton, is left to us. How much flesh we put on the skeleton and what contours the body takes depends on our willingness to exert ourselves.

This is a different way of looking at work. If we were to equate job descriptions and KPIs with something akin to accounting or quality standards, then meeting ‘job standards’ doesn’t necessarily lead to excellence. What is required is positive deviation over and above ‘job standards’ specified. How much deviation and in what direction – that is something which ‘individual energies’ would determine?

The question to ask oneself is ‘What am I going to do today which is over and above what my job description or KPI demands?’

-

Sourav

Career Choices

For the past few weeks, there is this question which I have been mulling over - Why do people make the career choices they make?.

I frequently find students making career choices on basis of elimination. ‘I am studying Commerce because I don’t like Science’. ‘I want to do Marketing because I don’t like numbers – hence Finance doesn’t suit me.’ I find this process of selecting something because other options are not acceptable intriguing. But then maybe that’s a reflection of our maturation process. We first figure out what we don’t want. Some of us, over time, manage to realize what we want. Even amongst those who realize what they want, a miniscule number seem to be able to gather the energy to pursue what their dream.

Edgar Schein does talk about 8 Career Anchors – Technical/Functional Competence, General Managerial Competence, Autonomy/Independence, Security/Stability, Entrepreneurial Creativity, Service/Dedication to a Cause, Pure Challenge, and Lifestyle.

But I find Edgar Schein’s model static. I don’t feel it captures the intra-personal and individual-environment dynamics involved when a person makes a career decision.

As per Schein’s model every individual has a Career Anchor which influences how the person makes his/her career choices. Let’s say a person has Pure Challenge as his Career Anchor. Does it mean that he would always opt to work in jobs which have Pure Challenge irrespective of other costs involved?

There are a number of things which are important to us at any point of time. These would be all or a combination of the 8 different career anchors. We may value them differently. So it’s perfectly possible that I may have Entrepreneurial Creativity as a Career Anchor but that doesn’t mean I would take up an Entreprenurial Creative role which has no Lifestyle or Security involved.

There are some things which are important for us at the hygiene level. Then there are other things which are motivators for us. What constitutes hygiene factors and what constitutes motivational factors is individual dependent. So money may be a motivational factor for one person while being a hygiene factor for others.

I feel our Career Decisions are based on an evaluation of what motivates us given presence of minimum acceptable quantity of hygiene factors. Take away hygiene factors and relevant career option would not be acceptable anymore.

Hence what is applicable to an individual is a network of career anchors – some of which are hygiene factors and some of which are motivation factors. The minimum acceptable levels of different hygiene factors might change from time to time. Preference order of motivators may change from time to time. Given presence of hygiene factors, we would work towards maximizing our motivational factors.

Also, this entire network of career anchors for an individual exists within the larger phenomenal field within which an individual lives. It hence influences and is influenced by this phenomenal field. Only if we were to accept this, would we be able to make sense of those situations when an individual takes career decisions which can’t only be explained by his network of career anchors.

As individuals what we can do is to reflect on the times we have taken critical career decisions, to understand what our career hygiene and motivation factors are. As Managers we should encourage our team members to engage in similar reflections.

Answers may not be straightforward, but the journey itself may be revealing and fulfilling.

-

Sourav

A Clean Canvas!

I was having a discussion with a friend over the weekend. We were exchanging notes on the most hilarious campus interviews we have been part of either as an interviewee or an interviewer.

Here are excerpts from 2 such interviews:

Interview 1

Panelist 1: Are you an extrovert?

Interviewee: I am an extrovert.

Panelist 2 (to himself): Which dud would tell you a no? Every interviewee who has undergone some form of interview preparation would proclaim himself to be a people’s person. And hello - what happened to non – leading questions?

Panelist 1: How do you say that? Prove it!

Interviewee: {Has a weird expression on his face which is a combination of intrigue, shock, disbelief and deep concentration}.

Panelist 2 (to himself): Wow! What a deep and insightful question? Would the interviewee now pull his chair closer to us? I hope not!

Interview 2

Panelist 1: What is your favourite book?

Interviewee: Book XYZ

Panelist 1: So what does it tell me about you?

Panelist 2 (to himself): That he is a geek! What else do you expect to hear?

Talks like these abound, especially when interview of a fresher is being taken. It reminds me one of the famous quotes I use to describe aimless interviews:

“A blind man asking a deaf person to show him the picture.” J.

What do you think the candidate goes through when asked such questions? (and here I let loose a bit of my rhyming abilities J)

“He fumbles and then mumbles, follows it up with bumbles and stumbles and finally expectantly tumbles. All this while the heart of one panelist crumbles while the brains of the other panelist rumble.”

This according to me is a manifestation of a lack of clarity on what to select a candidate on. Now when it comes to an experienced candidate, we have the canvas of prior work experience to fall back upon, viz: similarity of work experience or industry, our judgement on the candidate’s performance on the job, etc. This happens to be a large canvas on which we can let our biases loose (e.g: Retainability of this candidate may be an issue, this candidate is not committed or serious) and it also allows us to camouflage our lack of clarity on what we should be hiring a candidate for. But when it comes to interviewing a fresher we don’t have this camouflage at our disposal and in the face of lack of clarity, even the best of us, tend to fumble (and pretty obviously at that).

-

Sourav

When do Self Evaluation Tools Work?

Do self evaluation tools help in an organizational context?

Or rather the question should be ‘When do self evaluation tools help in an organizational context?’

There are 2 requirements for ensuring effectiveness of self evaluation tools. Firstly, respondents must be willing to mark choices which genuinely characterize them instead of marking ‘more socially acceptable choices’. Secondly, respondents must be willing to identify areas for action and act on them. Often the usual response after taking a self evaluation tool is ‘I am of this type and that explains why I behave the way I do. I am ok with this and I don’t think I need to change anything.’

As Managers and Facilitators at workplace what can we do to make self evaluation tools more effective?

It is easy to say that we must administer these tools to individuals only when they are ready for the same. There is merit in this school of thought but there is also a danger. This danger is of managers/facilitators being passive spectators in the entire process; of absolving oneself of any responsibility to actively shape their workplace.

The question is ‘When are individuals ready to answer genuinely to self evaluation tools, identify action areas, and act on the same? What can managers/ facilitators do to create relevant environmental conditions?’

There are two ways of addressing this situation. You either create conditions for ‘safety’ or of ‘discomfort’. Do you remember the times when you experimented or when you felt you changed significantly? These would have come either from situations where ‘discomfort’ with status quo was so high that you had no option but to change, or from situations characterized by ‘safety’ where you chanced upon a better way of doing things while experimenting and adopted the same.

Which one is a better environmental condition to create – Discomfort or Safety?

Would you want to be in discomfort 7 days a week, 365 days a year? I am fairly sure most people would not want to be in discomfort continuously.

I do feel the challenge for managers/facilitators is to create conditions of ‘safety’ at the workplace. When an employee feels safe, he is willing to experiment. Self evaluation tools can work under such circumstances. Feeling safe is a state of being we are okay being in continuously – rather we would want ‘safe conditions’.

Does this mean there is no place for discomfort at the workplace? There is place for discomfort – but not continuous discomfort. You would not want your adrenaline pumping 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

What should a manager do if he realizes there is no sense of discomfort within his team ever? I would contend it does not matter as long as from the safety domain within which the team is working, it is extending itself and performing well. And if you really want individuals to answer genuinely to self evaluation tools and act on identified areas, I doubt whether conditions of discomfort/non-safety are effective.

-

Sourav

Phenomenal Field and Informed Choices

Some months back a friend shared an article on how learnings from the Roald Dahl’s “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” can be applied to selection and recruitment. The article spoke about 3 ways of approaching selection and recruitment:

• Psychometric paradigm – this is about selecting a candidate for the organization. Hence look at what is required of an individual to do the job and then assess the candidate on these parameters. The underlying assumption here is that jobs are relatively stable and individuals are the variable which result in performance or non – performance on the job.
• Social Process paradigm – an interview is a part of wider gamut of social interactions..don’t look at an interview as an end in itself..be sensitive to people.
• Person – Organization Fit paradigm –This is about both the parties getting full information on each other and then making an informed choice. Hence there is a lot of mutual information sharing which happens. Hence anchoring candidates onto the company would start off much before making the final offer. It would ideally start off from the first interaction he has about the company. Second, you just don’t stop with evaluating the person for the job. You get to know his “phenomenal field”. The underlying assumptions here are that jobs are not relatively stable and individuals are not the only variable that impact performance/non – performance on the job. You will need to evaluate an individual in terms of the context he would be getting into (the work team, bosses, culture, etc).

Should we look at the “phenomenal field” of an individual?

At the end of the day, all change is caused by individuals. Hence individuals are the instruments for change. But then is there a case for considering the social context s/he would get into? There is a risk of stereotyping here but at the same time it is imperative to understand how an individual would be able to work with and through the key stakeholders in a social context. The focus here is not on whether the individual is significantly different from the others in the system. The focus is rather on how the individual would be an active creator of effective social interactions.

What about “anchoring an individual” towards the company?

Anchoring an individual should start off from the first interaction. Irrespective of whether an individual gets selected or not, s/he still would have formed impressions about your company and would be a messenger. Sharing information with individuals is an important part of creating buy in for the individuals. Anything which is different is bad – that’s normal human reaction. This is the mindset of a new comer to the organization – especially a lateral hire. Anchoring him around how things might be different in your workplace is an ongoing responsibility of the recruitment manager until the joining process is completed, and subsequently of the immediate boss.

In today’s world the individual chooses the organization as much as the organization chooses the individual. At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of the organization to ensure it makes an informed choice and the candidate gets the opportunity to make an informed choice too.

-

Sourav

HR-Team Discussions

What are town hall discussions between HR Managers and teams they work with meant to accomplish?

Visualize a HR Manager having a discussion with a team of around 15-20 employees. What should be the content of the discussion? Who all should be there? What should be the decision making process during such discussions?

Here are a few thoughts:

• I frequently hear that it helps line function to get an independent point of view on health of HR processes in a team. This is the reason why HR Managers usually meet teams without representation from the line hierarchy. But at the end of day, implementation would have to be done by line function. Hence it is necessary that all relevant people are present in the room. Until and unless it is an exigency (e.g.- a complaint against the boss needs to be investigated), the team should always be met along with their reporting manager. The reporting manager has implementation authority when it comes to his team, and any solution proposed which does not having his buy-in would not work.
• There might be situations when reporting manager or other key stakeholders are not in the room. In such situations it is necessary that all stakeholders are talked to before a conclusion is formed on any issue. So when points are raised by team about important stakeholders not present in the room, the HR Manager should mention something like ‘I’ve heard what you guys have to say on this issue. I would further talk to XYZ person to understand his take on the issue. I would get back to you on the way ahead by around this time.’
• Such forums can be used to discuss in detail certain key HR initiatives/processes being focused on in the year and get the team’s buy-in for implementation at the local level. Hence it is necessary that HR Manager is clear about initiatives/processes he would discuss and what outcomes he would aim for in the meeting.
• Such forums are a place to explore health of HR processes in team. This is not easy to evaluate. For any HR process there are 2 levels of evaluation. First, has process being executed in letter? E.g – have goal setting, mid term reviews, and end term reviews happened for each team member? Second, has the process being executed in spirit? This is where an exploration of how the conversation in each part of the process was would help. The objective at this second level is around – was that particular conversation effective in meeting objectives of the process?
• Such forums also provide an opportunity to understand intra-team dynamics. Is this team effective? How are the relations within the team? Again the unit of observation and analysis would be conversations within the team.
• It is important that clarifications on road ahead are made. Whatever can be committed to should be committed to right away. A note to all stakeholders who were not present in the room should be sent. The objective is to ensure these stakeholders also understand what behaviors they might need to change or what the team expects from them.
• There is a possibility that a HR Manager comes across a team which acts powerless or doesn’t take ownership for issues it faces. The primary objective of the discussion in such meetings would be to make the team members aware of the dysfunctional role they are playing and egg them on take ownership to resolve the issues they want resolution to.

-

Sourav

The Thinker or The Implementer

Take a closer look at the statue in the photograph. Would you call him a Thinker or an Implementer?

What about you? Would you classify yourself as a Thinker or as an Implementer?

What are the words/phrases we associate with a “Thinker”? Intelligent, Brooding, Sure footed, Reflecting, Intellectual, Philosophical - are some of the positive ones. Indecisive, Not so sure footed, Risk Averse, Slow, Less energetic - are the not so positive ones.

What are the words/phrases we associate with an “Implementer”? Fighter, kaam kar lega, “fist pumping, chest thumping - no odds are too high for him”, “Sleeves rolled up, sweat dripping from forehead, on the battle field guy”, crisis manager, never says no – are some of the positive ones. Tunnel visioned, Can’t dig beneath the surface, Knows the whats but not the hows and whys, Can’t think beyond the obvious - are the not so positive ones.

Compare the positives and the not so positive words/phrases for the two categories and you would see the point I am trying to make. We tend to classify “thinkers” and “implementers” as two mutually exclusive sets. If you are good at thinking then you surely are not so good at implementation. If you are good at implementation then you surely are not so good at cognition. Our day to day lives abound with examples of this belief in action.

We tend to classify certain jobs as requiring more/less brains than other jobs. Consequently we classify them as “our type” or not “our type” of job. Certain jobs require you to get your hands dirty – you get to know the ground realities in such kind of jobs. Certain jobs require more grey cells – we should do these jobs after we have got our hands dirty.

The belief also gets reflected in the way we take many of our people related decisions: “He is a thinker. This job requires someone with action orientation”. The belief also gets reflected in the way we approach situations – “This is a crisis situation. There is no time to think; let us act”: “If you think, you can’t act fast enough”: “This is a complex/critical situation. Take your time! Give it a lot of thought before you act!”

I am not sure as to how thinking and implementing can be separated from each other.

Almost everyone I have asked “Are you a thinker or an implementer?” has chosen one of the two options – have hardly come across anyone who says that I am both. But when I ask them to recollect instances where they have displayed cognition and/or implementation, they are able to come up with situations in both cases.

By the way, “The Thinker” is the name of the statue! :)

-
Sourav