Clarifying the
Cycles
Cycle 1.
Identification of an individual’s safe and unsafe motivations at the time of hire.
"Testing is the best predictor
of success. It’s accurate well over half the time, while no other method even comes
close."
Managing Human
Resources Magazine, October 1992
For the past several decades,
Management has found that assessment and screening are key factors in proper employee
selection. Great care and expense have been used to create the appropriate questionnaires
to identify the right CEO, manager, supervisor, and secretary.
"A growing number of companies
. . . are no longer satisfied with traditional job interviews. They are making applicants
run a gauntlet of tests . . . [because] testing saves an enormous amount of money . . . we
hire better people and see a lower turnover."
Judith Dobrzynski,
Executive Tests Now Plumb New Depths
of the Job Seeker, New York Times, September 2, 1996
Evaluation tools have only been used
for hiring, not managing. This approach is shortsighted and much like the purchase of a
new car that has the safety belts and air bags removed after being driven home. In
today’s market, management must be educated in how to most wisely use available
safety instruments and technologies to enhance employee performance and safety.
The learning process, however, can
become confusing because there are more than 30,000 diagnostic tools currently listed in
Tests in Print (Burroughs Institute of Mental Measurements, University of
Nebraska-Lincoln). Corporate America must have access to individuals who are trained and
familiar with validated motivational profiles measuring self-esteem and other motivational
issues directly affecting safety performance.
When properly used these diagnostic
tools identify employees who are at risk. The process can be tailored to make the entire
company more stable and safe. The most logical step for any company is to have a trained
professional who can facilitate use of these assessment tools for more efficient
management of human resources -- not just as a hiring tool.
The illustration below was taken from
a specialty chemical company in the Southeast. The company continued to have EPA
challenges and accidents with the caustic chemicals and superbases they were mixing. Their
production staff was screened. Two appeared to have "UWDs." It is importance to
note that these two individuals were involved in every incident violation at this company.
Their graphs appear below.
Employee #1
(The top bar on the graph measures
developed motivational (technical) skills that produce "good" or "bad"
behaviors. The bottom bar of the graph indicates motivational sources (attitudes) or the
issues behind the skills.)
Employee #1’s challenge was a
lack of safety skills, not negative motivation. The employee simply needed more training
in safety procedures and mixing. After a period of training and monitoring, the employee
was returned to the position and now functions capably.
Employee #2
(The top bar on the graph measures
developed motivational (technical) skills that produce "good" or "bad"
behaviors. The bottom bar of the graph indicates motivational sources (attitudes) or the
issues behind the skills.)
Employee #2’s challenge was
deeper. Both attitude at the motivational source, and safety skills, were "at
risk." The employee was relocated from the hazardous position and entered an Employee
Assistance Program (EAP). Trained management effectively used employee motivational
assessment to isolate the source of these behavioral challenges.
This intervention is good management
and good business. Interventions on behaviorally challenged employees need to take place
to safeguard the whole. The tools, to be efficient, must be administered by trained
personnel within the company to maximize the potential results. These decisions, on
individual cases, often can be stressful but are necessary in today’s workplace,
especially in light of the catastrophic issues and bottom-line impact that just one
individual can cause.
Next
Section -->
|