Most companies are losing out heavily on performance. Not just “losing out” but losing out heavily.
How can I say this? Quite simply, from experience. I have seen the inside of companies across many industries, in a variety of sizes, in a number of countries, and never cease to be amazed at how wilfully they waste potential. Few seem to understand this and, when they have been advised of it — even had it proved — they do not consider changing things for the better.
Then they wonder why there is a high level of both disengagement and staff attrition eating away at customer service, competitiveness and profits.
So, what is happening?
Take a look at the diagram below and imagine yourself working through this apparently simple filing process using the assets as labelled.
Thus, in the first step of the process for example, we have the “job” of being a desk (as labelled) being undertaken by an asset (as pictured — the filing cabinet.
Now, I am sure you will say:
1. This is ridiculous.
2. No-one would use these assets in this manner. It would be totally inefficient.
3. People would get stressed trying to cope.
The truth about each of these statements in turn is:
1. Correct. It is ridiculous.
2. Wrong! This kind of thing is done every day in the workplace in most companies.
3. Correct. This is happening as a result.
Using items to do things they are not built to do will ruin performance. Trying to change their properties, like turning the “desk” (filing cabinet) on its side to use it like a desk, remains far from ideal and it is still difficult to operate this way.
But is item 2 really happening? Are assets being used for purposes other than those for which they are designed? Yes. Absolutely. Definitely. Most certainly. Let me illustrate further.
1. This is ridiculous.
2. No-one would use these assets in this manner. It would be totally inefficient.
3. People would get stressed trying to cope.
The truth about each of these statements in turn is:
1. Correct. It is ridiculous.
2. Wrong! This kind of thing is done every day in the workplace in most companies.
3. Correct. This is happening as a result.
Using items to do things they are not built to do will ruin performance. Trying to change their properties, like turning the “desk” (filing cabinet) on its side to use it like a desk, remains far from ideal and it is still difficult to operate this way.
But is item 2 really happening? Are assets being used for purposes other than those for which they are designed? Yes. Absolutely. Definitely. Most certainly. Let me illustrate further.
Come back to reality – the reality of people as assets.
Take a look at the illustration below, where the people are “labelled” as being in certain roles but behaviourally “built” for something different.
I have used the same labels and pictures but added behavioural assessments:
The behaviour “pattern” demanded by the “job” (the Label).
The natural behaviour “pattern” of the “person” (the Picture) placed in the job.
Thus, in the first step of our process, we have the “job” of being a desk (as labelled) being undertaken by an asset — the filing cabinet (as pictured). There is clearly a strong mismatch.
The behaviour “pattern” demanded by the “job” (the Label).
The natural behaviour “pattern” of the “person” (the Picture) placed in the job.
Thus, in the first step of our process, we have the “job” of being a desk (as labelled) being undertaken by an asset — the filing cabinet (as pictured). There is clearly a strong mismatch.
You will notice there is one exception where behavioural assessment shows a person suits the behavioural demands of the job: the hole punch. We have an asset with the right behaviours for the job to be undertaken comfortably and well.
Ask yourself the question: how would a person feel about:
Ask yourself the question: how would a person feel about:
- Being forced to take on a role for which they are not behaviourally “built”?
- Being pushed to produce results in spite of such limitations?
When you consider that around 70% of people are disengaged at work, does this not begin to explain one of the major reasons for it? Does it not also begin to say a great deal about morale, performance and attrition?
Yet this can be so easily prevented to a great extent
... By careful and objective behavioural assessment of both job demands and of a person’s natural strengths. Organisations who have taken this step report higher levels of performance, morale, engagement and retention. (I can supply live cases that illustrate this fact.)
