I liked this article because it more or less confirms what we have been doing in our research for the past 15 years.  Our business, ECI, founded in 1996, is built upon the identification of high performance behaviors in a variety of environments and roles using statistical analysis of performance metrics. Like Google, we have found that this type of data analysis yields a valid and reliable formulation of the root cause for success.

But since we have been focusing all of our attention on identifying high performance behaviors within organizations, here are our best practices that Google’s analysts might want to consider on the next round of Oxygen studies:

1. It is not sufficient to screen for key words in performance reviews and anecdotal information. While that practice might put you in the ballpark, it won’t get you to your seat. There is too much variance and inconsistency in prose type performance reviews. If you really study a block of performance reviews, you find that most managers are not appropriately trained in giving objective, actionable feedback, nor are they consistently assigning ratings to performers.  This inconsistency of ratings across the review process skews the data.
2. Use force rank against a Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale to identify quartiles of performance for your overall population.  The overall ratings assigned in the standard performance review process cannot be relied upon to indicate who is the better manager. In our studies, we find that in 60% of companies, ratings are assigned for some other purpose than to evaluate actual performance levels. These include attempting to norm a population to a bell curve for compensation purposes, feeling that someone deserves a raise and having to justify this with the performance rating, and favoritism by the manager for the most politically savvy performers on the team.
3. Use multiple measures to confirm or overturn the presence of key high performance behaviors.  ECI’s rule is that if you identify a factor in one segment of the study, you must verify its presence in another segment in order to consider it applicable to the model.
4. Use valid and reliable metrics, such as indices, personality assessments, and other proven tools to identify core performance behaviors and behavioral preferences. If you incorporate a couple valid and reliable metrics in the study process, you can statistically compare the findings from these more rigorous tools to the less objective sources of data in your study to know with good certainty that you have proven a relationship to the high performance behaviors/factors you identify.
5. Make sure you include results from job analysis within your study process.  By observing the work in context, using a standardized interview form designed to assess the work environment, and identifying differentiating performance factors using this process, the criteria you establish should  pass the muster of the EEOC, if you decide to use this model for selection or promotional purposes.
6. Use professional statistical tools, such as SPSS, to confirm the validity around your model. When you put people into a room and say “does this look right to you?” or “how would you modify this finding?”, the only thing you are verifying is face validity. That is insufficient, in my estimation, to devise a management development program or another talent management process. You need the numbers to prove your model. Hopefully, the standard you achieve is at least a correlation significance of .70 against the ratings you used to identify your high performing population.
7. Don’t forget to look at the entire population, not just the high performing group. If you only study the top performers, you don’t know if the factor you identified is present for everyone in the group or only high performers possess it. In our studies, for example, we find that all sales people within a large sales force have good self-confidence, can withstand rejection and are motivated to persuade others. While these factors are critical to selling success, the only thing we can say with certainty is that the original screening process used to hire the sales force is doing a good job of identifying these factors. These are the rudimentary factors associated with all successful sales forces; they are essential, but they do not help us to identify the additional factors needed for success in a specific company culture, marketplace or customer group. The unique factors are those that drive exceptional results, lower turnover, and higher job satisfaction.

Google did recognize that generalized industry principles and recommendations are not good enough to really drive their organization’s unique high performing manager behaviors. I commend them for that perspective. I would love to take a look at their data and make a couple of recommendations on how they might enhance the validity and reliability of their study process, however. That would surely be a wonderful conversation.

In those cases, the department of labor and the courts have an easy time classifying a role as non-exempt in status.  The rep is required to make an average 7 – 9 customer visits per day, to deliver two or more key product messages when the opportunity arises to speak with a physician or other professional, and then must ensure that sufficient samples are available for the prescriber to dole out product, based on patient needs.  Because of the heavy focus on measured tasking (even though it is difficult to directly link the use of the product to the message delivered by the rep), the job assessor tends to say that very little is left to the rep’s own choice and that the job is pretty clearly defined in the various systems used to monitor performance.  When the job is clearly defined and leaves little to the choice of the performer, then it is classified as a non-exempt position.  There are a lot more standards that are applied to make this classification, but at the end of the day, freedom of choice on what is done and levels of decision making are at the root of the classification.

Enter the legal department at the pharma company.  In the last couple of years, there has been a strong push in job descriptions to place language around independently developing strategy, establishing priorities for the territory in terms of selling activities, and establishing one’s own daily schedule.  Using the word professional to elevate the role of rep to business “owner”  who is accountable to develop key contacts and manage a broad range of relationships has been an attempt to elevate the expectations of the role.  Somehow, these added wordings don’t quite do enough to elevate the role to the exempt level, however.  The accountabilities are still the same – see the docs, deliver the message, influence drug of choice, and leverage the relationship to access other medical providers.

What is interesting to me is the fact that with the rapidly changing landscape of the healthcare environment, the addition of so much more complexity in healthcare providers, formulary positioning, specialty pharmacies, large IDNs, care provider networks and institutions has made the job of sales rep much more difficult.  Reps have to know the clinical and treatment aspects of their products better than most physicians.  They need to understand how to help the doctor use the product with patients whose access to the drug is limited by their medical coverage or geographic location and care networks.   I doubt that the old reach and frequency model would even work effectively today in many of these situations, outside of some less sophisticated marketplaces that are not as heavily impacted by managed care practices.

A new customer development model that has emerged requires the representative to assess all of the local conditions and to devise a strategy that best addresses these conditions, while aligning to company goals, the compliance and regulatory environment, and physician preferences.  This hardly looks like a non-exempt position when you increase the complexity of the work to this level and note the amount of variation in responsibilities and approach that will is needed to perform the role properly.  Given the amount of technical clinical knowledge needed, the in-depth strategy setting and innovation required to succeed and then the amount of collaboration and networking expected, measuring success is not a simple matter of measuring number of calls, delivering the approved marketing messages, and devising the most efficiency call route.

In recent visits to the field with our client’s reps, we have seen reps changing the treatment preferences of surgeons, helping to gain approval for treatment for non-formulary drugs by establishing pre-approval systems in physician offices, and a much higher presence of medical science liaisons providing targeted messaging to pave the way for treatment protocols into the future.  The level of work being done today, which is surely indicative of the future requirements of the position, is more consultative than it is selling work.  The further the role moves in the direction of consulting, where expertise and counsel are the primary services or products provided to customers, the more difficult it will be to classify rep jobs as non-exempt.

Interesting that this case was settled in the current marketplace in the manner that it was.  Pharma companies are going to need to redefine the rep’s accountabilities, given all the complexity their people are facing today, and to reposition the rep’s defined efforts from purveyors of product to business consultants.   And those reach and frequency models will need to fall by the wayside, too, since they really do not apply to what most high level sales reps are doing today.

I believe this is an indicator of more change coming in the pharmaceutical industry. We will be seeing different sales models, new ways of getting information out to the medical community, and providing value added processes to help offices gain access to treatments for patients.

The premise of a “Stay interview”  is interesting, because it could help an organization to understand why people stay with their company.  This information could be used in many ways.  First, it could be used as a recruiting tool, to attract top talent, by telling them what current employees say about the role and/or company.  Next, it could be used to see which benefits your employees love and which ones aren’t as useful.  Finally, the information can be used to improve efficiency with in the position, by asking employees for their ideas to increase productivity.

Any way you look at the “Stay Interview” it makes sense for a business to try it.  It could have a dramatic effect on an organization, while being cost-effective and easy to use.  Here at ECI, we could actually take the “Stay interview” and put it into a survey  that employees take electronically.  Then we could use performance data to compare the responses of Top Performer against other performance groups to see what your best employee’s really value and how that compares to the others.

If you would like to learn more about ECI’s survey options please contact us!

Another colleague told us that the most important thing to do is focus on what you do well and capitalize on it.  Identify your core sales channel and devote all your effort to building your business there.  Identify potential customers who are within that channel and shake the proverbial tree until you achieve success.  While this strategy is a bit more scary, it certainly makes sense, since what you do well is generally something that you know very well, probably can be done pretty cost effectively, since you do it so often, and something that you can do without adding additional resources in most cases.

The third strategy I think is important is to get rid of the customers who require a lot of support and care, but who provide you with little revenue.  If they aren’t profitable, then you are better off without them.  Focus the resources you just freed up to work on expanding your business with the customers or potential customers you know are profitable and who see you as a partner, not a vendor.   If it costs you money every year to negotiate contracts with the client, and you are continually reducing pricing and providing more service for less revenue, you might want to take a close look at that customer to see if they really provide you with a return on investment.

The last strategy I think is important is to continually expand the relationships you have within your customer base to be sure that you have multiple points of contact within the organization in case the customer’s business changes quickly.  If you only know one or two people and these people are at a fairly low level or at the extreme, at the top of the organization, when times are difficult, you know who goes first.  Make it a practice to know people at all levels of the organization so that when change comes, the new broom doesn’t sweep you out the door.

While none of these ideas are particularly innovative, except perhaps the one from our friend in Japan, adversity is the mother of invention.  I am taking time to think of ways to apply these ideas to make some lemonade.

I always try to be honest with these requests, but to watch what I say with care.  I am open in sharing the strengths of the individual and in offering examples of positive business contributions the individual made to the organization.  When asked about the individual’s weak areas, I also try to be open, but I rarely offer examples, even when pressed.

The other thing we do here at ECI is to prepare an exit letter that states what we will say about the individual when other employers call for references.  In this way, we have some documentation to use in the process and are more likely to stick with the facts of the matter when someone calls to check references.

More often than not, my own experience is that people want to do well at their work.  The reason they fail is more of a mismatch issue, either with the work group to which the person is assigned, to his or her manager or to the company.  Often employees expect and need certain things to do their jobs effectively and the company cannot consistently supply the things the person needs.

For example, some individuals believe that they will soon become managers, since we are a smaller employer.  So, they work hard and hope they will soon be promoted.  We tend to be very clear about the fact that we are a very flat organization and your promotion will probably be more like “you get to work on more complex accounts and larger projects,” but people don’t usually hear that part.  Sometimes a person takes on a role in the organization, and they get stuck in that box for the whole time they are in their career with you.  A lot of this has to do with a perception of the individual and people’s prior experiences which tend to color the actual assessment of the person’s real skills and capabilities…or in the alternative, the individual may have a blind spot he/she is unable to accept.

For others, they want to work independently and to provide to the client what they believe is best for them, regardless of the company’s philosophy or business approach.  The problem with that one is that there is generally a history with a client and as a consulting firm, you’re probably best off in approaching the client in they way they are accustomed, rather than frequently trying new strategies or systems.  Their knowledge of how you work is probably why they hired your company in the first place.

I was lucky this time.  I was able to talk about the prior employee in a favorable way, because the employee does have many fine qualities and made a positive contribution to our company.   If I had been the placement counselor, I think I might have asked a couple more pointed questions to see what I could find out.  Silence is as strong a predictor as an in-depth answer at times.

The next time I hire, however, I am going to look into Skill Survey.  This is an online application where potential employers ask the candidate to provide work references and contact information for prior employers of the candidate.  Each prior employer is asked to complete an online confidential questionnaire and to rate the candidate on key work areas.  The responses are all rolled up for the employee and you get to see what others have to say about the individual’s prior work experience in a nicely presented report.  Apparently, the response rate is very high on this application and the information yielded is far superior to what you can get doing a phone check.

And the big advantage is I don’t have to answer those phone calls anymore.

The first question is “Which program are you talking about?”   EEO and affirmative action?  Uniform Guidelines for Selection or the OFCCP?   And who needs to comply?  Are their organizational size limitations, government contracts needed to require compliance, or other things that are of importance?  Here are some citations for your reference that may help to answer, or confuse, you  on the matter.

1. OFCCP: “The Executive Order prohibits federal contractors and federally-assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do over $10,000 in Government business in one year, from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Executive Order also requires Government contractors to take affirmative action to insure that equal opportunity is provided in all aspects of their employment.”
2. EEO Guidelines: Each Government contractor with 50 or more employees and $50,000 or more in government contracts is required to develop a written affirmative action program (AAP) for each of its establishments. This section also requires annual tracking and reporting of data about candidates being selected, promoted or released.
3. Uniform Guidelines for Employee Selection Procedures: The Guidelines cover all employers with 15 or more employees. They also apply to government contractors and subcontractors.  The Guidelines establish procedures for instituting all tests, selection processes and inventories used to make hiring decisions.

So the short answer is, if you have 15 or more employees, then you had better take a look at your selection process to ensure that it does not discriminate against protected classes and that you gather sufficient information in interviews, tests or inventories, reference checks, background screens or other procedures to avoid falling awry of the 4/5ths Rule.

The 4/5ths Rule is part of the EEO Guidelines and says that no selection procedure may screen out individuals within protected classes at a rate of 80% of the rate at which it screens out the unprotected classes.

1. Does your company have more than 15 employees?  If so, then you must comply with the Uniform Guidelines and be sure to remember the 4/5ths Rule.  No government contracts mean you don’t need to worry about instituting the affirmative action plan just yet.  If you have $10K in government contracts, however, then you need to write the affirmative action plan and institute it.
2. Does your company have over 50 employees and $50K in government contracts?  If so, then you must comply with the Uniform Guidelines as above and also take action to institute an affirmative action program, including the written affirmative action policy and annual reporting.
3. Does your company have contracts with the government that yield $10K or more per year?  If so, then you must prepare and institute a written affirmative action policy.
4. Does your company use the internet to advertise your openings and gather resumes?  If so, then the newest OFCCP guidelines say you need to be soliciting information on race, gender, age, and ethnicity.  Your applicants get to decide whether they will provide the information, but you need to ask for it.  Also, it is a very good idea to respond electronically to every individual who submits interest in your position and ask them to verify that they are in fact interested.  A good practice is to ask them to return additional information to you.  Lack of a response documents that they are not an active candidate for your consideration.

At the end of the day, rather than try to distinguish your accountability in devising selection criteria on your own, and what information you should be tracking, ask your company attorney to advise you.  And once you have your selection process in place, have your attorney review it and take his or her advice on how to improve it.  Business is tough enough these days without having to deal with a claim arising out of any of these laws, guidelines or agencies.

As one of our writers pointed out a few posts ago, the reason most people start looking for a new position is that they are feeling as if they don’t “fit” within the roles to which they are assigned.  The easy “misfits” to recognize are the people who can’t seem to understand what the assignment is, or they can’t get things done, or who dive too deeply into the complex details of their work, thereby missing the “forest for the trees” at the end of the day.  Sometimes, this is a matter of coaching and teaching to build the confidence needed to get the job done.  Other times, this is a matter of egos, and something you probably won’t be able to resolve.

The more difficult ones to recognize are the people whose work is so superior that you believe everything is stellar.  You know the person might be a bit stressed, but since they do so well with your customers and rarely need support, you keep telling yourself that things are fine.  You listen to your clients telling you what a good job this person is doing and figure that, because of this, the person is fully gratified in the role.

You find yourself particularly shocked when these individuals tell you they have found another job and will be leaving soon.  After the fact, you go back and you look at the results of the good performer’s ECI Behavioral Insight and start questioning yourself because you knew this all along.  The results tell you that this person likes a stable environment, where an orderly approach is in play.  They prefer knowing the rules and having everyone abide by these within the team.  They take pride in devising a process, then using the process in new projects, since it worked so well the last time.  They don’t like having to invent thinking for every project that comes along.  Because of the high standards they set for themselves, their chances of feeling fulfilled in such an unpredictable environment as exists at ECI for the long term term are probably somewhat limited.

In these cases, you just have to be thankful for having the person with you for a time and hope that the experience provided good learning and growth.  And of course, you always keep in touch with them to follow their progress into new places.

The answer to that one is, it depends….If you utilize a tool that is not well constructed and tends to score populations or groups differently, then the answer is probably true.  This is why you need to do some diligence before instituting the use of any tools within your talent management systems.  Avoid the use of tools that must be hand-scored or interpreted by an individual, as these may generate rater bias.  Styles inventories are fine for development and team building, but should not be used for selection purposes.  Tests that are easy to fake, such as word inventories (which statement/term is most or least like you) should also be avoided, unless the test documentation can provide high reliability and validity.

Be sure to ask the test provider for the technical report or validation study before introducing any new tool within your company and have that report reviewed by someone familiar with testing to ensure that the findings are sufficient to demonstrate reliability and validity.  Also, ask about disparate impact on protected classes to see what studies have been done and what proof the test provider can offer you that the tool does not discriminate.

The research around the importance of cultural fit could cause companies to put diversity aside in favor of only hiring people who match a particular success model, since these people should have a better chance of success.  When this occurs, it is generally a result of some key factors.

1. The test being used in fact causes disparate impact as it scores.  If it didn’t, then all people, regardless of gender, race, age, or ethnicity, who demonstrate particular preferences or tendencies will match the core factors for success.
2. Too much emphasis is being placed upon the results of the test.  This is frequently a problem where training is not consistently offered in how to use test results and how not to use test results.
3. Avoid the use of a test that produces a Recommendation – Good Match to Position, Poor Match to Position – Recommended or Not Recommended, then you increase the chances that your managers will look at this bottom line first and put aside the information they gathered in interviews or in the work experiences.
4. Hiring managers don’t really know what factors lead to success in a particular role or position.  They tend to look for and hire people who are more like them, rather than people who demonstrate the core factors for success for a particular role.

Note that we’re talking about core factors for success.  If you want to encourage diversity, stick to the core factors for success and hire people who are motivated by the work and the general milieu of your culture, rather than they possess one or two key traits that you know are common to people in your company.  We once had a client who refused to look at any candidate who didn’t have a score of 50% or higher on Pace/Urgency.  We had to do a good deal of education to show that Pace/Urgency wasn’t the only core factor for success.

Put less emphasis on secondary style factors, and avoid doing as our client above did, unless you are driving change in your culture.  If you need people with more initiative, then look for individuals who possess independence, high energy, a bit more tendency to take risks and who are quite flexible.  These tendencies are all readily measurable in a good personality assessment.  Once your new hires are on the job, however, make sure to manage them as they need to be managed, or they will soon move elsewhere!

If you follow these simple principles, then you will be able to hire a diverse population who are a cultural fit with your organization.  Using good assessment tools isn’t something you need to be afraid of.  Consider Home Depot.  The EEOC recommended that they include such measures to help hiring managers make better hiring decisions on the basis of more objective information, after a suit of discrimination was raised.

Meet Jim, an aspiring sales executive with background in the finance industry.  Jim is looking to gain exposure outside of the financial industry and to attain a role that moves him up the proverbial “ladder”.  In the finance industry, Jim excelled in various sales roles, acquiring greater levels of responsibility very quickly.  He has thrived in the structured, regulation-driven environment in which his company operated within the industry.  Looking to expand upon his professional resume, Jim is now exploring employment with organizations across various industries.  Although Jim’s experience has primarily come within the finance industry, he believes that he can easily transfer his knowledge and skills to a different environment.

What is the best fit for Jim? Organizations, of course, are very focused on finding the ideal fit for not only the role they are hiring for, based on skills and experiences, but also for a good match to the organizational environment and culture.  But how many companies focus on ensuring that their role, corporate environment, and organizational culture are truly an ideal fit for the applicant?  It is easy to assume that if we, the organization, find the ideal fit then the organization must be a perfect fit for the individual as well.  Unfortunately, this assumption may be inaccurate at times.  Applicants are eager to make a good impression during their interview and may have the propensity to sacrifice concerns or misgivings of their fit to the role or the organization in order to give the “correct” answer or tell the interviewer what it is they think they want to hear.

Going back to our friend, Jim…Jim is interviewing for a sales manager role with a successful computer system design company.  The company is a trend-setting, forward-thinking organization focused on innovation and leading the way in the industry.  Jim has had some qualms over whether or not he would be comfortable working in such an “outside the box” environment.  His previous experience was in a very structured, guidelines-driven environment which he thoroughly enjoyed and felt comfortable in.  Although he questions his fit to the computer system design company, he goes forward with the interview and is hired.  Nine months later, Jim is living in a land of ambiguity and is surrounded by creative minds who are more comfortable “bending the rules” than abiding by them.  Jim is not comfortable in his position nor in the organizational environment which is a stark contrast to his ideal work situation.  Jim is back on the search for a role and company that is truly a good fit for him.

Jim’s situation is not an uncommon one.  This “mis-fit” between applicant and environment results in reduced morale, job satisfaction, as well as increased absenteeism and turnover.  This costs the organization time and money on hiring, on-boarding, and training processes while costing the employee stress, time out of work, and emotional well-being.  But how in the world do companies figure out if the two-way street of “fit” is in alignment?  Interviews and supporting hiring tools, such as personality inventories, can be invaluable to ensuring this alignment.  Although neither is a “magic elixir”, asking very detailed, targeted interview questions that uncover the individual’s work and style preferences can uncover critical information needed to determine fit.  Moreover, personality inventories, such as the ECI Behavioral Insight, provide the interviewer with information about the candidate that extends beyond the skills and experiences commonly found on the resume.  Personality assessments allow the hiring manager to gain insight into the innate behavioral tendencies of the applicant, including information regarding natural motivators and drivers.  Where these motivations strongly differ from the work environment or characteristics of the role, the interviewer can probe to gain a better understanding of the potential misalignment between the candidate and the role/organization.

“Fit” issues are a major concern for organizations due to the tremendous costs companies incur after a bad hire.  It is important for organizations to take a holistic approach and consider concerns of “fit” from not only the perspective of the company, but also that of the applicant.  For more information about job, organization, or motivational fit or the ECI Behavioral Insight, send us an email or give us a call!

At ECI, we regularly conduct studies of organizations in our efforts to assist in the reduction of turnover.  All too often the findings of these studies reveal undefined culture and divergent viewpoints among leadership.  In order to avoid cultural lack of fit the first place to begin is of course, the most obvious, to define your company’s culture.  Culture should be a topic on meeting agendas regularly.  It does tend to evolve with marketplace shifts, other external factors, and especially changes in personnel, so it should be discussed and agreed upon biannually.  An objective 3^rd party study is a very effective, but not absolutely necessary, way to determine and define your organization’s culture.  You can quite simply gather your leadership and have a round table discussion with your vision and mission statements as starting points.  You may actually find that there is discord between your mission and vision and leaderships’ collective viewpoints of the current culture.  If this is the case, the time is ripe to embark on an initiative that re-aligns your company’s culture with the values of its employees.  Researchers report that companies with alignment between their mission and vision and culture are at least twice as successful as others.

One simple way to either preserve or adjust your company’s culture moving forward is through the administration of a personality assessment.  Valid and reliable assessments reveal the innate motivators and drivers of individuals.  You can adapt your culture by identifying what works well within your organization, then defining those traits that are common among your top performers.  You can then manage lesser performers more appropriately by gaining an understanding of where, how, and why these lesser performers are inherently different.  Additionally, moving forward, hiring to a profile that leads to success and aligns to your culture will create greater cohesiveness among your teams.

Skills, knowledge, and experience are rather straight forward aspects of an individual to measure and assess.  These elements of a candidate are fairly easy to evaluate during an interview, reference check, or even a simple resume screen.  However, it is the more personal, value-based aspects of employee and organization that determine success or failure of fit.  The importance of alignment between your company’s culture and the values and goals of your employees should never be underestimated.