The importance of the Personal Analysis Report in effective Job Fit
Almost daily we are reminded of the importance of behavioural styles in the selection of candidates for specific roles.
This doesn’t just apply in recruitment situations where it is of the the most obvious importance, but also in internal promotion and appointment to new roles.
As far back as 1936, in his preface to his now classic book “How to Win Friends and Influence People”, Dale Carnegie asserted that about 15% of one’s financial success is due to one’s technical knowledge and about 85% is due to skill he called “human engineering” – personality and the ability to lead people.
Studies carried out by Stanford University and Harvard University have since confirmed Mr Carnegie’s assertions with Stanford suggesting that the figures are nearer 12.5% to 87.5%! The main point is that behaviour is critical to the success of an individual in any role and to choose someone for a position that doesn’t suit his/her behavioural style is gambling with that individual’s future.
We had this pointed out to us very clearly in a project that involved a business that was struggling early in the recent recession. After completing Extended DISC Personal Analysis Reports for a challenged executive team, three of the team resigned after receiving their reports and went in search of jobs that suited their behavioural style.
Each one of those individuals contacted us and told us that obtaining the report was the best thing that ever happened to them in their careers as each one found roles that better suited their style - they were much more motivated and content in their new employment.
A perfect example of ill considered choices in placing individuals in roles can be seen from the four examples of the Flexibility Zones taken from reports produced for an organisation that hadn’t been using Extended DISC methodology in the selection of staff in external and internal recruiting.
Two of the four people involved (see right) were promoted from roles that suited their style into roles that seriously challenged them. They were promoted because they had successfully performed their duties in a specific role without any consideration of the pressure that would be placed on them in their new positions.
As far as the first example is concerned (D behavioural style (Profile II) moving to I behavioural style (Profile I)) it wasn’t so much a matter of the individual feeling pressure but he felt he wasn’t being provided with the opportunity to utilise his natural “D” style traits. He “rebelled” in a typically “D” fashion causing considerable disruption in the team!
The second individual (CD to I) was clearly uncomfortable in having to engage in what was essentially, cold calling, and there was evidence of stress related symptoms in his report.
The second two were placements that were recommended by an external recruiting firm that was not using Extended DISC, but had utilised another assessment system that didn’t consider the difference between natural unconscious behaviour and the “perceived need to adjust” (conscious behaviour) in their assessment of the candidates.
The first example (SC to I) involved a person who had demonstrated good customer service skills and so was promoted to a role that required face to face selling that made him very uncomfortable. The two job requirements were subltly different,- the new role requiring a more outgoing behavioural style whereas the job that the individual had succeeded in was largely through client contact via telephone and emails, obviously suiting his natural unconscious behavioural style.
The second example (DC to IS) related to a person who had worked in a technical field showing excellent knowledge of the product but was then promoted to a direct sales role, again involving face to face meetings. This caused her a good deal of discomfort and she was already losing motivation when the consultant accepted the assignment. She did not have the patience for face to face meetings nor did she enjoy “cold calling”. The two roles obviously trequired quite different behavioural styles.
The consultant involved in this case was engaged because of the discontent surfacing in the sales department after the employment of the two new candidates but it was soon discovered that the problems went beyond the appointment of the two new recruits as the second two reports of the two people promoted into sales roles showed a similar pattern.
The recommendation of the consultant was to revisit the job descriptions of each one of the four people involved with a view to re-defining roles that better suited their unconscious behavioural style. It also meant that new recruits had to be found but this time the appointments were made based on the individual’s natural behavioural style.
We were told by the consultant some months later that the outcome resulted in a more effective and successful sales department. A happy consultant and an even happier client!