Tag: Employment

Courtesy at Work…Works!

A recent article on HRzone about rudeness at work sparked a big debate over at the Bad Behaviour LinkedIn group. We were drawn to a piece by Philip Broughton in last October’s (2009) Management Today called “Manners Maketh Management”, also drawing on Christine Pearson and Christine Porath’s research, “The Cost of Bad Behaviour”. Here are a few key findings.

After a single incident of incivility, 48% said they reduced their effort at work; 80% spent time worrying about it; 78% said their commitment declined; 66% felt their performance declined; 38% intentionally reduced their effort and 12% quit because of uncivil treatment.

Over 60% blame bad behaviour on an excessive workload. 4% say they do it because they like it.

83% of customers who witness incivility tell a friend, 55% take a less favourable attitude and 50% were less willing to use the company’s products or services.

Pretty powerful stuff eh?

And then a ray of light from Jonathan Wilson who suggested “The article suggests some of the least civil managers include Michael Leary, Gordon Ramsay, and Alan Sugar. Unfortunately, viewers seem to enjoy TV programmes featuring these people. I wonder how much these programmes encourage people to think that this behaviour is a part of leading high performance, or even worse, necessary?

I have had the pleasure of working for some very successful businessmen who were always courteous, including Michael Bishop, Richard Branson, Peter Drew and Frank Hope. Can others names leaders with whom they have worked who have paired politeness and profit successfully, please? I’m sure you can! I look forward to reading what made them special.”

Well I can’t claim the level of “brand” awareness Jonathan does with his leaders. But – I will always remember Mark Brinicombe. In 1994/5 I spent a whirlwind two years carrying out a number of interesting roles with Dixons Stores Group. I was fortunate to be part of the leadership team which set up, opened and ran the Guildford branch of PC World. Mark was the boss. He was quite a round guy, and was full of energy, good humour, enthusiasm and a desire to succeed. And he knew very well he couldn’t achieve that success alone.

I worked very closely with Mark as we recruited all the staff for the opening and began their training. We got involved with fitting the place out, stocking it, all kinds of things. Mark participated and led. We had to let people go in the induction period and he was always, and I mean always, polite, gentle and supportive when doing this. He would often as a member of the management team to sit in and observe so I witnessed this process first hand a few times.

Mark was able to motivate all the staff, everyone knew what they had to do to make the place buzz. He did this mostly through basic kindness. And enthusiasm and encouragement. I never saw him tell anyone off, and that was a unique experience in my time with this retailer.

There’s lots more I could say about Mark but what was the icing on the cake? Whilst busy at work one day I got a call from my Dad telling me my Grandpa had died. I wasn’t getting on well with my Dad at the time and he was calling me from Scotland on the day of the funeral. Gran had been too upset to call – I found out later. And Dad had just headed off without thinking to contact anyone. I was very upset at missing the chance to pay my last respects to someone I’d been very close to. The next couple of minutes were a little blurry but Mark spotted me and saw immediately something was not right. I was spoken to calmly by him as he guided me outside and we walked along for a little while. Mark was gentle and reassuring as we strolled around, and when back at the car park he walked me to my car and just said; see you when you’re ready. The store was busy at the time and he was needed by many more people than me. Yet he trusted his team, left them to it and gave me some focussed attention. I took the following day off then returned to work. He welcomed me back and we got back to the business of enjoying working together.

Best boss I ever had. One of, if not the very best leader I have worked for.

Thanks Mark.

Formal Interview vs X Factor Panel vs You Got a Better Way?

Job candidates may be hired depending on the order in which they are interviewed, in the same way X Factor contestants who sing later in the show are less likely to be voted off, research indicates. In an article published by Personnel Today, we see that researchers at Cambridge University’s Judge Business School have been investigating what gives winning game-show contestants the edge. They found that the order in which contestants perform plays an important role in their success.

Wyn Llewellyn, Director at ValueFlows Ltd, observed, “An interesting piece of research and a creative and invalid extrapolation – from X factor to recruitment process. A conflicting hypothesis might be – the later you are in the process, the more tired and jaded the selection panel will be, they may have seen a ‘star’ earlier and become biased towards them, etc.

Also consider the following; professional recruiters are working to clear selection criteria and are professionally trained to do so – the public who vote in X factor have neither of these characteristics – they just vote for who they like! Wait a minute – maybe a proportion of recruiters do that too!”

This got me thinking…

So hang on a minute. How many initial applicants for a role would you expect to be able to fulfil the requirements? 1 in 10 maybe? And how often would you expect the interview process to deliver the right results? Most experts would say that a 7 out of 10 success rate of interview process delivering right result is high. Hey, it’s nearly Christmas so let’s be generous and say 8 times out of 10.

Using these assumptions the chances of selecting the right candidate are about 2 to 1 against (and if you do turn the dial to a 7 out of 10 hit rate on interview process the odds against correct selection increase to nearly 4 to 1 against).

Let’s do the maths:

1000 applicants, 900 can not do the job, 100 can.

Of the 900 who cannot do the job, an 80% correct interview process will deliver:

720 of the 900 correctly identified as not able
180 of the 900 as able, even though they are not

Of the 100 who can do the job, an 80% correct interview process will deliver:

80 identified as able
20 identified as not able, even though they are

So if we divide the 180 incorrect able candidates by the 80 able candidates, 180/80 gives us 2.25 to 1 against.

So if the formal interview seems to correlate so poorly (if at all) with future effectiveness, well maybe we’d be better off taking our chances with Simon Cowell et al after all? At the very least this leaves me wondering if we should be considering alternative ways of connecting the right people with the right job role…what do you think?