More Wisdom, Discernment, Integrity and Why They Matter

Building leaders is on almost every organization's agenda.

Hiring good people can be a costly process.

Losing employees--regardless of cause--can be equally expensive.

And whether the issue is How One Bad Apple Can Create a Toxic Team, Crazy Co-workers , Bad Bosses, or the rule of No Assholes, people in the workplace are apparently driving other people in the workplace crazy.

What's Happening In Organizations?

Corporations have HR professionals, behavioral interview training, search firms that screen and test, assessment centers, assessment tests. . .

I believe that what is missing--and what needs to be purposefully added to the organization effectiveness equation--are Wisdom and Discernment applied with Integrity.

The vast majority of screening/hiring/promoting practices focus on education, experience, and task-related performance.

But take a hard look at the reasons for dismissal and lack of promotability (not a real word according to the spellchecker!). I've seldom seen well-screened people leave a company because of their technical incompetence. The issue is almost always one of "fit." "How" the individual operates is, in some way, inconsistent with what the organization really thinks is best for itself. (And vice-versa).

Do any of these reasons for separation sound familiar to you?

• He's not a team player
• We need people who can work without a lot of supervision
• We need people who can take supervision
• She doesn't provide enough direction for her people
• She provides too much direction for her people
• He doesn't think about options and possibilities when making decisions
• This company doesn't value my creative thinking
  
• This company doesn't value the fact that I always follow the rules
  

(Please feel free to click on Comments and add your favorites. If I get enough, I'll post a Top__List).

How Can We Change This to Make a Difference ?

Yesterday's post  sets the stage for some thoughtful answers by ending with this:

When we're hiring and promoting, wouldn't it be worthwhile to know who we're getting--not just what we're getting?

It seems to me that we need to understand at least two things in order to make that happen:

1. What "kind of people" do we want? (What values do we hold that need to be evident in our people)?

2. What does it take to develop and use wisdom and discernment needed in business?

What Kind of People Do We Want?

This seems to be the part that is overlooked. Sure, interviewers might say "I liked her" or "He seemed serious enough about the business." Deep down inside, don't we really need to figure out some general characteristics that will help the individual and the work team hit it off over the long run? If it's the kind of job that has management responsibility or potential, then what kind of characteristics do we want to see in our leaders? I know we want them to be able to reach their goals. But what kind of people do we want them to be while they are doing that?

When the issue of "best fit" arises, it becomes foolish to ignore the reality that "how" we are is, in part, the manifestation of "who" we are. To hire and promote based on intellectual/behavior criteria ignores the social and relational nature of organizations. An entire generation of managers, interviewers, and job candidates have been sold on the idea that "past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior." It sounds good. It sells well because it is "scientific." One can create behavioral questions or assessment scenarios that can surface and confirm whether or not a person has, or is able to, perform specific functions. That kind of validation is certainly important. But will that person be able to perform those things well in your organization, given your unique mix of relational expectations, communication patterns, systems, and management?

What if we decided to be intentional about the use of wisdom, discernment, and integrity in the process? And how would that happen?

The Need for A Third Installment

We experienced a severe ice storm and were without heat for a number of hours today. It was important to me to at least begin this post because I stated yesterday that I would. In order to get this part up for subscribers before the end of the business day EST, I'm going to publish this much now. (The date and time stamp is not working correctly). I intend to continue this tomorrow (Friday). Thanks for your understanding. . .I value our conversation greatly.

 

Comments

[peter vajda]

Wouldn't it be interesting if, a first interviewing question is, "Why are you on the planet?" and then asked the candidate to go away and reflect on it and come back tomorrow and discss what they saw about themselves.

Responses might run the gamut from "to passionately support others", "or compassionately work for the betterment of humanity through business" to "make as much money and amass as many toys as I can."

Responses can be matched with the organization's vision, values and purpose. I think the deal that finding candidates who provide a "best fit" must sync up with the organization's values. The research says folks don't leave organizations, they leave managers. So, a question is, "Is there some type of disconnect when managers want to hire folks with 'best fit' potential, find them, hire them and then these hires eventually leave because there is no 'fit'." Fit with whom?...with what? Hmmm. In this case, is it always about the employee not fitting in? Perhaps it's about "physician, heal thyself."

So, yes, in my coaching work, and those ein the men's groups I facilitate, the bottom line is "who am I" and "how am I" at work, at home and at play. And, a major underlying question that informs our work is, "What's right about NOT being in integrity at work, at home and at play?" The answer cannot be "nothing" since so many consciously choose to "do and "be" at work (home and play)from a place that is not authentic and out of integrity. So, a good place where we start the process is with an exploration, self-examination and self-reflection...which, if done honestly, sincerely, and self-responsibly, can and does lead to wisdom, insight and AHAs, often painful and uncomfortable...but at least, perhaps for the first time in one's life, it's about the truth.

Also, Steve, one of your questions, "What kind of people do we want?" to me, must be preceded by the question, "What kind of person am I? Really? Really, really? This step takes integrity, honesty, vulnerability, and strength and courage. Then, we ask, what kind I people do I (the True and Real I, not the fake, phony and "faux" i) want. That leads to real "fit."

When one refuses to "know thyself", how then can this one ask that others be in integrity, be authentic, be honest, be trutsworthy and when these others are not, how can one become upset? A bit of hypocricy? Duplicity? Perhaps.

You say, "What if we decided to be intentional about the use of wisdom, discernment, and integrity in the process? And how would that happen?"

Taking the time to explore, to inquire into, and then see the "truth" about who I am and how I am...can allow one to be discerning, and wise and in integrity. But, for me, not until then. One cannot read a book about integrity, for example, "get it" and "poof!" be in integrity at 9:00 Monday morning. Hard as sone tries.

Your second question, "What does it take to develop and use wisdom and discernment needed in business?"...again, time...and a focused, intentional self-responsible commitment to looking at the truth of who I am and how I am in relationship first, with myself, and then with others.

For me, this discovery process is where it starts. With "me". As I say to my clients, this is the one time in life you can say, "It's all about me!" and it's OK. Painfully, and liberatingly (a word?) OK.

[Alexander Kjerulf]

Yes!

And fortunately some companies are doing this already. Southwest Airlines are famous for saying that they "hire for attitude and train for skill." Menlo Innovations, a software compay in Michigan hire software developers based on a process they've invented called eXtreme Interviewing (http://positivesharing.com/2006/09/extreme-interviewing ), which aims first and foremost to find out how good applicants are at teamwork and secondly their technical skills.

Otherwise you end up with an endless process of "Hire for skill, fire for personality."

Peter: I love your take on this. Who am I and How am I are the two questions we must all answer for ourselves, and work is increasingly the scene where we get to do it.

[Steve Roesler]

Right, Alex, I am with you. Both of those companies have done the organizational version of what Peter noted, namely, "Who are We?"
Then they proceeded from that solid foundation.

Southwest Airlines continuously receives public and business-writer accolades. So one would wonder why, being so outstanding for so long, others haven't "gotten it?" I suspect that when they looked at what was really underneath it all, it was easier to proceed with the familiar and acceptable (regardless of their ineffectiveness) than to do the soul-searching required to create a unique brand, a unique culture, and truthfulness about who they are.

Kind of reminds me of watching teenagers (and, at one time, being one!).

1. "You can't tell me what to wear. I am my own person."

2. Looking around the classroom at how others are dressed: "Hey, where did you get that?"

3. At the store: "I want the same coat that my friend here has."

What we are really seeing in companies is the same resistance to maturity, only in an organizational context.

Teenagers feel the pressure to be the "best that they can," but are often discouraged by others when they want to "become the best at who they are."

[Steve Roesler]

Peter,

Indeed, it all starts with the individual and the personal development--or lack of it. My experience is that one intentionally seeks to learn truth about life and then begins to live truthfully; or one seeks to have,begins to make concessions for gain, then wonders why the achievement is stifled, or fleeting, or un-fulfilling over the long run.