Employer Engagement

Employee Engagement:
Rebuilding Employer Brand from the Bottom Up

Although employee engagement is a builder of an employer brand, many organizations approach brand building the wrong way.

Over the past decade, employers have scrambled to find new ways to stand out in the eyes of the top talent who possess the most in-demand skills. Many organizations optimized their strategies and embraced employer branding and employee engagement to wage the so-called War for Talent, the struggle to find and retain the best employees as a catalyst for improved business performance.

Simply put, employer brand is “the image of your organization as a ‘great place to work’ in the mind of current employees and key stakeholders in the external market (active and passive candidates, clients, customers, and other key stakeholders).” The primary concerns are the attraction, engagement, and retention initiatives targeted at enhancing your company’s employer brand.

1 Most often, employer branding is recognized as appearances on the “Best Places to Work” lists that appear in Fortune magazine or in local business journals around the country. Are employees proud to work at a company? Do candidates clamor to apply? If so, the company has a strong employer brand. A strong employer brand also has a significant bottom-line impact. Carol Parish at The Brand Union, a global branding organization, pointed out that companies that are most successful with employer brand also outperform the Standard & Poor index. “It’s a lesser known fact that companies with a high rating from both the consumers and their employees double that return. It’s extraordinary. If you can get the employees on board, what amazing business results you can have.”

2 Although employee engagement is a builder of an employer brand, many organizations approach brand building the wrong way. Most try to build their employer brand as they would a consumer brand – urging executives and managers to “live the brand.” However, branding can’t be exclusively a topdown initiative. In many ways, employee branding must start with employee engagement at the team level. For organizations rebuilding employer brands in the wake of the current economic slowdown, work should begin with repairing employee engagement. Improved employee engagement must begin at the team level.

Employer Branding Has Suffered in the Current Economy
The economic conditions over the past 18 months have dramatically changed the business landscape, and organizations have seen both their employer brands and employee morale erode as a result of layoffs, salary freezes, reduced benefits, lack of job security and increased anxiety.
This deterioration can in large part be attributed to a loss of employee engagement, simply defined as an employee’s emotional connection to an organization that inspires greater discretionary effort. Watching friends lose jobs, seeing pay and benefits reduced and worrying about keeping the job itself will diminish the effectiveness of even the most enthusiastic employee. Research from the Corporate Leadership Council, which has surveyed over 500,000 employees on their employee engagement levels since 2004, supports this. Before the downturn, roughly 1 in 10 employees was highly disengaged, that number increased to 1 in 5 at the end of 2008, and the preliminary data from the first quarter of 2009 shows that the number has increased to 1 in 3.3 . Businesses feel that loss of engagement in decreased earnings. Research shows that organizations with more than four engaged employees for every one actively disengaged employee saw 2.6 times more growth in earnings per share than organizations with a ratio of slightly less than one engaged worker for every one actively disengaged worker. In the past, Gallup estimated the cost of employee engagement on the U.S. workforce to be more than $300 billion.5 In the current economy, that figure could be much higher.

With this loss of engagement, employees are less able to find work stimulating or be the type of brand ambassador that would recommend the business to candidates or customers. What’s worse, former employees are hard-pressed to say anything nice about a company that let them go, no matter how much severance was paid or how well the offboarding process was completed.
To compound the problem, businesses that are letting people go are frequently hiring at the same time to bring in employees with key skills. The War for Talent has not abated in spite of the downturn, and many of the most in-demand workers are still hard to find. As the Aberdeen Group explained in its April 2009 report on Employer Branding, executives they surveyed believe that increasing competition for top talent and a shortage of key skills in the marketplace are the top two pressures they face today. Unfortunately, when organizations need a strong employment brands the most, most brands are suffering dramatically. Unfortunately, when organizations need a strong employment brands the most, most brands are suffering dramatically.

Trying to Fix the Problem, but Pursuing the Wrong Approach
In the words of advertising legend David Ogilvy, nothing will kill your reputation in the labor market faster than doing a great job advertising a work experience you don’t deliver. Organizations that promote themselves as a Best Place to Work when they’re anything but end up with an angry, cynical workforce that is only too happy to counteract their employer’s paid advertising with more credible word of mouth advertising.

In a world of social networking, this negative buzz can spread like wildfire over LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. The market response to deteriorated employer branding and weakened employee engagement has been led by organizations that offer programs that aim to rebuild what has been lost. Most employer branding programs follow a four-step process:

• Assess the current brand: Use a survey or questionnaire to understand how employees perceive the organization and how to focus the organization’s resources.

• Create a message: Develop a message platform that inspires employees and explains why you are a great company.

• Communicate the message repeatedly: Through every possible online and offline channel, reiterate branding messages as often as possible.

• Measure changes constantly for continuous improvement: Conduct more surveys and
assessments to see if messaging is having an impact.

The problem is that this top-down approach is based on traditional consumer branding that does Not take into account the different nature of the relationship between the employee and the employer. That relationship – the source of any employee engagement – is dramatically Different from the relationship a person has with a consumer product.

Research shows that the main driver of a good employer brand is employee engagement, but executives cannot legislate culture changes with mission or vision statements or through values clarification. Engagement must grow organically, one workgroup at a time. As two of the leading experts in employment engagement explained in 2007, “Too many organizations build anagement models on the assumption that managers and leaders have the power in the company/employee relationship, but that’s no longer always the case. The answer is employee ngagement or the ability to capture the heads, hearts, and souls of your employees to instill an ntrinsic desire and passion for excellence. Engaged employees want their organization to succeed ecause they feel connected emotionally, socially, and even spiritually to its mission, vision, and urpose.” However, many organizations still treat employee engagement as an employee ommunication issue or a management issue. Instead, most would be better served by pursuing a rassroots solution to the problem.

Many organizations still treat employee engagement as an employee communication issue or a anagement issue. Instead, most would be better served by pursuing a grassroots solution to the roblem.

Engagement Must Be Fixed at the Team Level
You know the saying, “Employees don’t leave companies, they leave managers.” Employees, and
particularly the newer generation of employees, care not only about opportunities for career
development and financial compensation, they also want good relationships with their team embers and supervisors. Employees want to be respected and treated as individuals with unique needs and desires. The only way to address these issues is at the team level. Employees are more likely to improve their performance when they are engaged not only with the work they do, but also with their co-workers, managers and any others that they interact with day in and day out. According to 2005 Towers Perrin research, 84 percent of highly engaged employees believe they can positively impact the quality of their organization’s products, compared with only 31 percent of those who are disengaged. However, employers must get them to believe it. That belief must occur at the team level.

Improved relationships among peers and between supervisors and subordinates have a significant impact on employee engagement, which in turn affects performance. Work relationships thrive in an environment in which personal communication and work-style preferences are understood, accommodated and respected. Because engagement is built on trust, re-engagement must be built on overcoming mistrust. Awareness of behaviors that support employees’ feelings of trust can help overcome such dysfunctions as:
• Quiet resistance or passive-aggressive behaviors: Resentment can build among employees in
organizations that have experienced layoffs or salary reductions. Rebuilding open, honest and
productive communication allows teams to deal with bottled-up emotions in an up-front and non-personalized way.
• Feelings such as lack of belonging or solidarity: Employees who watch colleagues lose jobs and wonder if their job will be next may become detached from their co-workers and the larger organization. Organizations can’t pretend that nothing happened. Managers must find a way to
acknowledge the past and learn how to draw these employees out of their detachment.
• Low energy levels experienced in the workplace or in team activities: Resentment and detachment can leave employees indifferent and result in them “just going through the motions” each day. To reignite employees’ passion, managers must show some empathy and not pretend
that cuts and reductions never happened.

However, awareness of these behaviors is just a start. What’s needed is the organizational commitment to change behaviors that impede collaboration and productivity, change orientation and accountability, and encourage behaviors that support the positive elements of job performance. To overcome workplace dysfunctions and reignite employees’ passion of their work through effective collaboration with their employees, managers must:

• Reaffirm structures: Managers need to know how employees want to work and provide the
necessary structure. Do they need a very hands-on or hands-off work environment? Are teams
expected to deliver the same amount of work as before layoffs with fewer people?

• Reestablish accountability: After staff reductions, accountability gaps may exist. Are managers
and employees clear about who is accountable for what? Is everyone clear about who is accountable to customers?

• Rebuild relationships: After watching managers and colleagues laid off, many employees have
been reluctant to make the emotional investment in extra effort. As the economy improves,
managers will still need to rebuild trusting relationships with employees. Discussing issues in an
objective, non-politicized and respectful manner is one step toward rebuilding this trust.

To begin taking these steps, managers need a tool to provide insight into the workplace needs and personal communication and work-style preferences of their employees. The Birkman method is the tool they need. Improved relationships among peers and between supervisors and subordinates have a significant impact on employee engagement, which in turn affects performance. Work relationships thrive in an environment in which personal communication and work-style preferences are understood, accommodated and respected.

Conclusion: The Birkman Method® is the Engagement Solution
The implementation of The Birkman Method has proven to be an effective tool to improve team
performance. By analyzing and describing individual needs, The Birkman Method is a source of
initiatives to drive and motivate workplace behavior that increases employee engagement and
strengthens your employment brand. Employee needs are the expectations they have about how relationships and situations should occur. When needs are met, they drive behavior in positive and productive directions. Unmet needs, meanwhile, can create potentially negative and less-than-productive behavior. The Birkman Method integrates needs measurements to assess the occupational interests that can shape careers and improve the fit of a person’s job role. As a result, The Birkman Method does not describe an individual in a vacuum, but rather in the complex, dynamic reality of the workplace. The unique construction and comparative database of The Birkman Method provides powerful insight into the factors that specifically drive a person’s behavior, creating greater choice and more selfresponsibility.
It accurately measures social behaviors, underlying expectations of interpersonal
and task actions, potential stress reactions to unmet expectations, occupational preferences and
organizational strengths. For more information about The Birkman Method, contact sales@birkman.com or visit http://www.birkman.com/.

The Birkman Method integrates needs measurements to assess the occupational interests that can shape careers and improve the fit of a person’s job role. http://www.birkman.com/

About Birkman
Birkman International (www.birkman.com) is the provider of the industry-leading personality
assessment that facilitates team building, executive coaching, leadership development, career
management and interpersonal conflict resolution. For over 50 years, corporate human resources professionals, independent consultants, executive coaches, educational institutions and other not-for-profit organizations have used The Birkman Method® with over 2.5 million individuals. The Birkman Method® accurately measures productive behaviors, stress behaviors, underlying needs, motivations and organizational orientation. Visit www.birkman.com to learn how The Birkman Method® can help you maximize human potential and achieve results that are both superior and sustainable.

Often as I attend panel discussions, speak directly with senior leaders and track individual performance, the topic of “gut feel” in hiring crops up. Unfortunately in many cases their “gut feel” has let them down and lead to an organizational nightmare. It’s not to say instinct and gut feel are totally ineffective but consider the following interview with Jack Welch (former CEO of GE) in an interview with Business Week magazine.
“Relying on your gut during hiring isn’t always a great idea. The reason: Our gut often makes us “fall in love” with a candidate too quickly. We see prestigious schools and great experience on a sparkling resume. We see a likable candidate who says all the right things in the interview. And even though we don’t admit it, too often we see a person who can quickly make a problem go away-namely, a gaping position we need to fill fast. So we rush to seal the deal.”
“So when it comes to hiring decisions, doubt and double-check you gut. Go beyond the resume. Dig for extra data, and don’t just make reference calls; force yourself to listen, especially to mixed messages and unpleasant insights.”
Additionally the use of multi-dimensional assessment tools to formulate questions for the references calls can further validate behavior, performance, fit and organizational strength.
For additional information on hiring top talent and building high performing teams, contact Peter Capodice at peter@capodice.com or 941-906-1990.
Capodice & Associates is proud sponsor of the www.FranchiseExecutives.com website where we will be posting blogs and future Executive Job opportunities. We hope to see you there!

Greetings Everyone - Many coaching clients struggle with creating a definition of the "new behaviors" required to obtain the objectives they have set for themselves in their Coaching Development Plan. I am pleased to share with you a template that I use to assist my clients with this task. They receive this template when they are completing their Dev. Plan.

Some clients have more success than others with the template. Any comments? Thanks!
Follow these steps to help define new, productive behaviors required to obtain the objectives you set in your Development Plan (DP).

I. ISSUE – Describe it; identify the Trigger event and your undesired Reaction.

II. OBJECTIVE – What is your Desired State, what do you want instead of your reactive (undesired) state?

III. REACTIVE CONSTRUCT – current undesired state. Describe your:
a. Thoughts (images)
b. Behaviors (external, internal)
c. Feelings (emotions, body sensations [flush, weak, defensive, angry, etc])

IV. PROACTIVE CONSTRUCT – future desired state. Describe your:

a. Thoughts (images)
b. Behaviors (external, interior)
c. Feelings (emotions, body sensations [empowered, present, clear, calm, etc])

V. SOURCES – what is available to you for reference:

a. Birkman Advanced Report, Stress Pages, Guide Pages, Comparative reports (if provided) and feedback information. Use Behaviors, Needs and Stress descriptors (and Stress Reversals) b. Birkman 360 Report results and feedback notes. c. Recent Performance Reports (if available). Use rankings, scores and any trends identified by reviewers. d. Use input from others not surveyed in Birkman 360.

VI. RESOURCE WORK (Important). After creating your future desired state for each DP issue, Imagine (mental rehearsal):

a. The Direct experience of desired state. (OBJECTIVE)
b. What the future desired state would be like. (PROACTIVE CONSTRUCT) Live it – your desired new Thoughts, Behaviors and Feelings.
c. Incentives and positive outcomes from new, self-empowered behaviors.
d. A positive re-frame on how to use new motivation to convert old reactions into triggers for new desired behaviors.

VII. PROACTIVE REHEARSAL - Application

a. Role play desired state in-person with trusted associate or family member.
b. In Coaching Phase, practice new behaviors and chart outcomes from interactions for use in upcoming Coaching sessions.

THE LARSEN GROUP, Inc. Optimizing Individual and Organizational PerformanceCopyright © The Larsen Group, Inc. 1995-2009. All rights reserved. 904.819.1715 info@consultlarsen.com
roger.larsen@att.net

"Here is something Birkman publishes as a sort of guide for utilizing the
Components in targeted organizational (and relationship) issues.
We think it can be enhanced. Critique it from your point of view; indicate if
you think a particular Component reference may miss the mark (and what
should take it's place, if any); and also what Component(s) would you add to
particular issues and why?"

If you would like this in a word doc, pls let me know and I'll email one to you.

Jean Maslanka Kelley

COMPONENT LINKS WITH COACHING ISSUES

Giving feedback on performance – Esteem, Authority
Awareness of feelings and special needs of others – Esteem
Use of candor as a tool – Esteem
Dealing with sensitive or tough business issues – Esteem, Authority
Social enthusiasm – Acceptance
Participation in meetings – Acceptance, Authority
Open lines of communication – Acceptance, Esteem
Comfort in interacting with groups – Acceptance, Esteem
Spontaneous expression – Acceptance, Esteem, Freedom, Authority
Managing meetings effectively – Structure, Authority
Clarity of delegation – Structure
Project management – Structure
Time management – Structure, Activity
Sustaining systems and procedures – Structure
Cooperation/conflict – Authority, Freedom
Use of Authority – Authority
Listening Skills – Authority, Acceptance, Esteem
Openness to other’s ideas – Authority, Structure, Freedom
Risk taking vs. security – Advantage, Challenge, Thought
Materialistic winning vs. intangible values – Advantage
Comfort with bargaining vs. negotiating – Advantage, Authority
Competitiveness vs. long range benefits – Advantage, Empathy
Urgency in decision-making – Activity, Thought
Balance between thought and action – Activity, Thought
Patience with planning and pacing – Activity
Intensity in work commitments – Challenge
Approach to establish credibility – Challenge
Goal setting and achieving – Challenge
Practicality ideas vs. creative ideas – Empathy
Controlled vs. expressed enthusiasm – Empathy, Authority, Freedom
Comfort in shifting business priorities – Change
Patience with interruptions – Change
Flexibility in accepting externally imposed change – Change
Conforming and cooperating with team – Freedom, Acceptance
Willingness to take initiative – Freedom, Authority
Resistance to work/social demands – Freedom, Acceptance
Patience – Authority, Thought, Empathy
Consistency in positions taken - Thought

Personal Website List

Jacquelyn Wieland has added his website to our list. You can find our list in the right side bar of this blog.

Thank you Jacquelyn!

Personal Website List

Susan Ashley has added her website to our list. You can find our list in the right side bar of this blog.

Thank you Susan!

Personal Website List

Mark N. Voeller Ph.D. has added his website to our list. You can find our list in the right side bar of this blog.

Thank you Mark!

Personal Website List

Mike Goodfriend has added his website to our list. You can find our list in the right side bar of this blog.

Thank you Mike!

Call for Web Pages.

Call for Web Pages.
I am constructing a link section that contains business and personal web pages for the members of this blog. If you would like for me to list your websites in our sidebar then please email me your name and the title of your web site/page and the URL.
You can email the information to me at kazmandu@aol.com

Information Example:
“Leadership Forum” by Mary Smith http://www.leadershipforum.com
“Thought for the day” by Mary Smith http://thoughtfortheday.blogspot.com

Thanks!
Kaz Maslanka

Be A Contributor To This Blog.

If you have an interest to contribute to the endeavors of this blog then we would like for you to do 2 things.

First – set up a Google account. by going to google.com (see help images below)
Second – email jkelley@jeankelley.com and ask her to grant you permission to be a contributor. An email will be sent to you

The image below is the first thing you see when you go to Google.com -- Click the "sign on" button in the top left corner and go to the next screen.

Click on the button that says "create a new account" And follow the instructions.

Once you have created your Google account you are ready to receive an invitation from jkelley@jeankelley.com . Email her to send you an invitation. When you get the invitation it should look similar to the image below. Click on the blue line and follow it to the next screen.

Here is where you accept your invitation and are ready to join the group.

Once you have finished you can go to http:www.blogger.com and sign in to your blogger dashboard. Start posting!

If you have any questions you may email me at kaz@kazmaslanka.com

Cheers!

International clients note "cultural bias"

In the last few months I’ve debriefed several dozen people from around the globe who work in four different internationally-distributed organizations in my company. There were two groups from Australia, and individuals from India, Germany, China, Japan. and the Middle East. Some of them asked about what they termed “cultural bias” of Birkman. I didn’t know what we know about where it is biased. So that is one question I have for all of you. What DO we already know about where Birkman is culturally biased? If we’re starting the list, here are some things I picked up:
Several said they don’t have many of those jobs.
Several noticed wording issues. They took the assessment what Birkman thinks is English but the Australians and Indians have their own version)
Australians say they are socialized to not stand out or promote themselves. They call it the “tall poppy syndrome”. The tall poppy will be cut down. They said something to the effect that the Birkman implied it was desirable to stand out.
What have you run into and how do you handle it?

Reversals and Hidden Reversals

Reversals galore!

I learned a lot in Level Two but I didn’t learn how to make sense of “these” Birkman scores. Although I don’t help students for a living, this is the daughter of a colleague. She will have a marketing degree soon but has no idea what she wants to do after she graduates. Can anyone help me help her figure out what direction to take?

Has anyone seen this many reversals on one report? If you'd like me to post a profile summary let me know. (Lynn is helping me get used to working with comprints - not my favorite way of seeing these data.)

Jean Maslanka Kelley

Call for Testimonials

Historically, the so-called "advanced" Birkman training has been little more than a re-hash of the Level I material. The current Level II training was designed to provide considerably more in the way of useful interpretive information. And, successful completion of the class enables one to refer to oneself as a "Senior" Birkman consultant. Since the class evaluations have been consistently high, it occurs to me that perhaps it would be good for the "junior" consultants to hear from some of you Seniors.

This, then, is a request for testimonials from those of you who have completed Level II. What did you think of the class; and how has it benefited you with your Birkman-related business? Thank you in advance for your contributions.

Generations

Your interpretation of my comments is correct! I know that Matt Zamzow at Birkman has done some looking at the generations, so Birkman may actually have some data on this.

Is anyone else out there??????

Millennials and CA

Thanks for taking the time to post, Susan! I was feeling lonely out there in cyber space.

I'm especially interested in your comment since I just finished co-authoring a program: “Multi-Generations at Work,” and have spent many hours interviewing Millennials and Xers but did not give them the Birkman. I’m green with envy that you get to see the survey results for Millennials so you are able to do your own front line research. I’ve not been able to administer the Birkman to many Millennials or to the younger Gen-x ers. Most of the people with whom I work (Birkman-wise) have been in the work force for 20 years or more.

What I understood from your posting is that you think many Millennials and Xers have low CA scores because they are frustrated with Baby Boomer values and corporate life in general? Those are good points. Pls let me know if I’m projecting my own “stuff” on to what you wrote. I’m sometimes guilty of that.

As an aside, based on what I learned from interviewing Millennails and Xers for the program, I found the Xers much less tolerant of Baby Boomers than Millennials. However, the Millinnials in my study didn’t agree with “how” Baby Boomers “do and/or distribute” the work. Most seemed to think that their generation knew faster and more efficient ways to complete most every task and if asked would share this opinion eagerly. Is this what you’re finding too?

Jean Maslanka Kelley

Low CA Hi SA

You asked about a combination of low Corporate Adaptability and high Social Adaptability. I am seeing this combination with some Millenials and Gen X-ers and it usually accompanies frustration with the corporate world and Baby Boomers.

Welcome and Question

Hi Everyone,

All of you know Lynn, and almost none of you know me, so here’s a little about me. I’ve been in business for myself my entire adult life. I started using the Birkman in 1986, under the supervision of Gerry Nelson, while operating Jean Kelley Search and Staffing.

I’ve been around so long that the words to describe the components have changed. We all learned in Level II (or before) that Structure means Insistence. Back then, Insistence was the actual word that described the Structure scale. Challenge was called Ego Drive. I was never sure (still not) what that meant.

My one-to-one engagements (Leadership development) make up 80% of my practice. The engagements last from three months to one year. I consider myself to be a consultant first, and a Birkman practitioner second. Depending on the situation and what kind of measurement I need, I use other instruments as well.

Somehow I escaped Statistics in college so in Level II, I learned many things and had no construct on which to hang them. What I’m saying is: I still have a lot to learn.

My original urge for this blog was selfish:
1. I like to learn something new every day and this blog will help me reach that goal.

My second motivation is somewhat altruistic:
2. To give the Birkman and the people who blog here, a global presence. (To make all of us more “Googleable.”)

As you know, my brother helped to get us started. At the same time Lynn and I worked several days on a name for the blog, and Roger Kenrick crafted the final title: Methodical-Musings. There is a reason for the dash between the words. Methodical Musings.blogspot.com was already taken. So when you share the URL with your colleagues be sure to mention that there is a dash between the title words.

Now for my dilemma: Today I reviewed a Birkman. The participant had a 1 on Corporate Adaptability and an 8 on Social Adaptability. I’ve rarely seen that. Have any of you seen a score like that? What implications does that score have in the corporate world? What components do you look at in concert with this to make sense of it all? Help s’il vous plait. 

Jean Maslanka Kelley
www.jeankelley.com

Setting the Record Straight

Setting the Record Straight
(Can I Achieve Forgiveness Before I Die?)

We all owe Roger Birkman for his tremendous contribution – not only to our own careers – but also to the psychological community. Less often acknowledged these days (except, perhaps, by Dr. B) are the arguably-equal contributions made by the late, great Dr. Roy Mefferd through his developmental work with The Method. One of the very great pleasures of my tenure at Birkman was the time spent with Dr. Mefferd. Indeed, my own labors would look very different without his wonderful contributions. However, it is time to confess that I was an accomplice to some “developments” that have haunted me for many, if not most, of the years since that time. Indeed, I should acknowledge and redress many past sins, but since they are too numerous for a single exercise, I will limit this particular discussion to the three bipolar scales: Public Contact:Detail; Global:Linear; and, Conceptual:Concrete.

Once those parameters had been thoroughly developed and tested, and were ready for production, we needed to develop snippets that would aid readers in their understanding. It was more than a little humorous watching Roy with a dictionary in one hand and a thesaurus in the other, frantically producing word maps and trying desperately to summarize the underlying meanings of the scores while maintaining some semblance of the true associations. The rest of us sort of waited around until he came up with something that he thought made sense; then we’d all get together in committee and debate the relative merits of his suggestions. For the most part, this was an effective, if inefficient, mechanism for verbalizing that which is dreadfully antagonistic to being verbalized. With respect to what is now being called Preferred Work Styles, we did a really bad job.

In statistics – especially statistics associated with social research of any kind – it’s important that what you say about something has at least a marginal basis in reality (truth?). When you build a statistic with simple items, it is usually pretty straightforward to keep the words consistent with the meanings of those items. But as you add complexity, for example by using multiple already complex items to produce yet another statistic, those underlying items can become masked by the influence of all the others, until they no longer have any real “definitional” power by themselves. The situation is akin to using both eggs and milk in a recipe (along with other ingredients). You can’t tell from the end product whether either or neither was used, much less in what amounts. When that happens, you must depend on what you know about the sample of data that you used to produce the statistics. More often than not, it is some characteristic (or set of characteristics) of the sample that reveal the true meaning of your new statistic, and not the original meanings of the building blocks. (It’s a cake, for crying out loud! To describe it in either milk or egg terms would not communicate the real nature or essence of the cake.)

The PWS scores are the result of linear regression equations, each utilizing between 15 and 20 complex building blocks (other Birkman parameters) which are weighted according to their level of “importance” to the equation. One result of their development is that they cannot be defined by the things which contribute to them. This much was clear to us. But in these three cases we proceeded to ignore everything we knew about the samples! And the rest, as they say, is history. So this is my belated attempt to say, “I’m sorry for those past transgressions,” and finally come clean. [Actually, I’m being a little harsh. Roy did start out by mapping characteristics he knew to be associated with the samples, but we took him so far afield that the end result has only marginal association with those characteristics.]

So here’s the real scoop: Those three two-tailed parameters were developed for very specific reasons, which was to make (establish) distinctions between certain groups. Let’s look at them in order.


Public Contact versus Detail
The development sample for this scale consisted entirely of people in administrative jobs; half of whom were in high-interaction, “front office” type jobs and public relations (this half also included some extroverts, but whose job situation was unknown), and the other half were in “back office,” high-task jobs (and some introverts whose job situations were unknown). So this is essentially an extrovert – introvert scale. This scale – at its core – distinguishes people who prefer interactive jobs from people who prefer tasks. It was developed specifically to make that distinction. And it does so with a lot of power. It is very predictive relative to that distinction. By the way; in the context of this scale, detail refers to task, not to what we might think of as “paying attention to details.”

This is perhaps the “cleanest” of the three scales, in terms of the verbiage associated with it in the Birkman literature. We didn’t stray to far off base with this one. High PC indicates a strong preference for assignments which offer lots of interaction and opportunities to discuss and even debate; while high Detail indicates a strong preference for assignments and responsibilities which involve “doing stuff” (as opposed to discussing stuff). To illustrate my ongoing insistence about the energizing, de-energizing nature of these scales; think about your own score here, If you score high on the PC side, you may have noticed that your most tiring days (working) are those which keep you pinned to the desk/computer “doing things” all day. And if you score high on the Detail side, you are most fatigued after a day of nothing but meetings. Middle scores genuinely need a balance of both in order to feel like “it was a good day.”


Global versus Linear
Oh, my gosh! What have we done? Check it out:
The development sample for this scale consisted entirely of people in Production-type jobs; half of whom were employed in jobs which placed people outdoors (construction, farming, ranching, wildlife-related, etc.), and the other half were in jobs which were indoors (using/fixing equipment, working on assembly line, technology-related, etc.). This is a scale which predicts a preference for inside (Global) or outside (Linear) working environments. Nothing more! Now it may make sense to you that people who prefer working indoors think and solve problems differently than people who prefer working outside, but there is no scientific or statistical evidence to back up that theory. All that is basically made up (and I’m culpable here)! How we managed to get from inside/outside to “holistic versus sequential” is frankly beyond me; but we did.

Again I invite you to look at your own score and consider for a moment the “beauty” of this scale, and consider your own sources of productive energy. I submit that you will find one here. High linear scores welcome those opportunities to “get out.” Lunchtime (away from the office) can be re-energizing not only physically but also psychically.

Now before you point out that you spend a lot of time outdoors even though you are high Global, let me quickly add that this has little (if anything) to do with how one spends their recreational time. This is about work; not about play. If your job requires a lot of time spent out-of-doors, and you are high Global, I suggest that you are already looking for an alternative source of income. Bottom line: If what you tell people about their Global/Linear scores deviates too far from indoor/outdoor working environment, you are on a slippery slope.


Conceptual versus Concrete
Although not quite as egregious as Gl/Ln, the verbiage associated with this scale is also made up, having little association with its development. The sample used to create this parameter consisted only of people in sales positions (are you beginning to see the real relationships here?). Half of those were selling intangibles (“Conceptual”) while the other half were selling tangible items (“Concrete”). So this scale was originally developed for the sole purpose of distinguishing tangible sales from intangible or service sales people.

The nature of sales and the characteristics of the work situations associated with the data provide us with a little more leeway here than in the other two scales. In other words, it isn’t much of a stretch to think “product versus process,” or even “project versus process” (process would be the Conceptual side in both cases). A product and a project share some key similarities (having definite starting and ending points; a sense of completion or accomplishment; etc.), but the word “project” is more appropriate for most organizational use. That is the distinction I use most often in my own work.

However, it does seem to me to be too much of a stretch to ascribe the use of “abstract information, experience, intuition, and knowledge” more to a process orientation than to a project orientation. Nor do I find that Concrete orientations have a monopoly on the use of analysis and facts to solve problems. Indeed, most accountants are conceptual. Don’t tell them that they don’t use analysis and facts to solve problems! (Furthermore they probably should generally avoid the temptation to find “fresh and imaginative solutions.”)

While it’s true that these scales were produced for very specific purposes, and predictively they are quite powerful in their application (consistent with their intent), it is also true that they have something to say about everyone, not just those in administrative, production, or sales jobs. For me, that information is more descriptive or even prescriptive in its utility. Following in summary fashion is how I typically couch these scales in training and understanding:

Public Contact / Detail is about daily routine. High PC prefers a work day of responsibilities and activities involving interaction. In contrast, high Detail prefers a work routine consisting more of activities involving tasks (i.e., less interaction).

Global / Linear is about working environment. High Gl prefers an indoor environment (and the trappings associated with same); high Ln prefers freedom to move around, and at the extreme, even an outdoor work setting.

Conceptual / Concrete is about approach to work. High Cn looks at productivity from a systemic, procedural orientation; high Ct prefers work with more of a project orientation.


Now I recognize that many of you have adopted wondrous approaches to working your magic with your clients using these scales, and I’m not about to suggest that you should stop doing so. But I am suggesting that you exercise caution when “interpreting” these scales (I would beg you to avoid terms like problem-solving style or way of thinking), and am hopeful that this little diatribe proves to be of some use to you in those endeavors.

Welcome

Hi welcome to the Methodical Musings Blog. I am your administrator to help in a technical capacity for the blog as well as answer any questions that any member has. For questions about content / issues, please notify Jean Kelley or Lynn Greene (you can email them from their profile info)
Thanks!
Kaz