Absolutely. College degree’s are NOT the most important factor at all for performance success. In fact, we helped a client with a redeployment and boot camp initiative where individuals who passed the assessment screening were sent to boot camp to be trained as IS professionals. Most did not have college degrees and were stuck or dead ended in their careers due to socioeconomic backgrounds.
All candidates who were screened in via the assessments passed the boot camp training and become successful professionals. In fact, the instructor said “a number of the assessed participants were at a better skill level and showed more potential and promise than many of the IS college grads he has worked with.” The bootcamp was taught by Stonebridge Technologies at the Texas Instruments facilities.
When people are placed in jobs that they are well suited to perform because of a good fit with personality characteristics and motivational needs, they perform best. When jobs are a poor match for one’s personality and motivational disposition, these roles tend to be highly stressful, disappointing, and performance success suffers regardless of the “degree” or educational background. To learn more about of this redeployment, boot camp training process and for insights on how to “grow your own” please see the full article titled: “Out of OZ – Finding Hidden Talent” at http://www.cdrassessmentgroup.com/News.php
The above was my response on linked in to the question about hiring someone without a degree.
.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Leadership Derailment
Do you agree that tolerance for inappropriate leader behaviors is a problem in most organizations today? We have found that some of the most “extreme” cases of leadership ineptitude are put up with year in year out. What has been your experience?
For an article on dealing with needed interventions when a leader is derailing, go to: http://www.cdrassessmentgroup.com/News.php and click on “Mixing Magic & Coaching - Leadership Derailment Intervention”
For an article on dealing with needed interventions when a leader is derailing, go to: http://www.cdrassessmentgroup.com/News.php and click on “Mixing Magic & Coaching - Leadership Derailment Intervention”
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
An Intriguing & Bold Case Study:
External Candidate for VP of HR position Screens “Hiring CEO” with Assessments
According to SIOP*, only about 13% of organizations reap the benefits of using scientifically valid personality and motivational assessment tools as an integral part of their selection screening process. However, one of our clients recently turned the normal assessment and screening process on its head.
To read this bold story, go to: http://www.cdrassessmentgroup.com/News.php
External Candidate for VP of HR position Screens “Hiring CEO” with Assessments
According to SIOP*, only about 13% of organizations reap the benefits of using scientifically valid personality and motivational assessment tools as an integral part of their selection screening process. However, one of our clients recently turned the normal assessment and screening process on its head.
To read this bold story, go to: http://www.cdrassessmentgroup.com/News.php
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
WSJ Women in Leadership Report
There is quite a buzz on LinkedIn today (ODNetwork Group) about the WSJ's special section on Monday, April 11 about lack of progress of women into senior executive positions. McKinsey suggests that a greater focus on developmental programs and coaching be deployed. Some disagreed.
Below my post in response to an OD Network discussion of the topic:
Actually, there is a great deal of investment in developing women in leadership; however, the investments are frequently as wasteful as those of their male counterparts. In fact, a DDI Global Leadership Forecast 2008/2009 survey reported that for leadership development initiatives HR leaders responses indicated that “only 29 percent rated the quality as high or very high.” Yet, around $40 billion was spent that year in leadership development investments (ASTD). Moreover, there is an abundance of studies showing that about 50% to 75% of leaders are not effective. The bottom line -- organizations are just throwing development investments out there, with good intentions, hoping something will stick.
Next, to the points Barry made. I agree. Structures of opportunity, particularly the informal influencing factors and biases, as well as, the need to retain power within traditional comfort zones, tend to dead-end many women’s careers and upward mobility.
On that point our research shows that with CDR Leadership Risk (derailment) behaviors, while there is usually a similar level of risk level scored on average by men and women leaders, the perceptions and negative consequences for women are often far greater and rather unjustifiable. Here’s an example: In a 2008 Pew Survey, respondents said that women (85%) not men (5%) are the more emotional sex. However, this is contrary to our CDR Character and Risk data (both personality based assessments.) In a recent gender study* we conducted, men leaders scored an average of 54% and women leaders 50% on Adjustment…. On the Hyper-Moody risk, men scored 56% and women 62%. There were no significant gender differences and this does not support the severe 85% rating assigned to women on “emotionality” in the Pew survey.
A couple of notes on this: 1) how emotionality is expressed varies; 2) for women, emotionality is often confused with “Interpersonal Sensitivity” or nurturing/caring and relationship building capabilities; 3) and, emotionality of male leaders is often associated with anger, impatience, etc., and is considered within accepted norms – from a social “perception” standpoint.
In the aforementioned WSJ article, I found a quote that illustrates the differences between actual risk behaviors and perceptions: “I can speak the truth. But I don’t feel as comfortable having a tantrum at the office. There are many men, particularly in financial services, who can scream, shout, throw things. Nobody blinks an eye.” Sallie Krawcheck, President Global Wealth & Investment Management, Bank of America, Wall Street Journal, 4/11/11, pg. R10
Great subject! Thanks for the discussion.
Nancy
*Study: “Risk Factors that Impact Women in Leadership”, data from 26 companies, men leaders n=120; women leaders n=110., 2008, CDR Assessment Group, Inc., Tulsa, OK.
Below my post in response to an OD Network discussion of the topic:
Actually, there is a great deal of investment in developing women in leadership; however, the investments are frequently as wasteful as those of their male counterparts. In fact, a DDI Global Leadership Forecast 2008/2009 survey reported that for leadership development initiatives HR leaders responses indicated that “only 29 percent rated the quality as high or very high.” Yet, around $40 billion was spent that year in leadership development investments (ASTD). Moreover, there is an abundance of studies showing that about 50% to 75% of leaders are not effective. The bottom line -- organizations are just throwing development investments out there, with good intentions, hoping something will stick.
Next, to the points Barry made. I agree. Structures of opportunity, particularly the informal influencing factors and biases, as well as, the need to retain power within traditional comfort zones, tend to dead-end many women’s careers and upward mobility.
On that point our research shows that with CDR Leadership Risk (derailment) behaviors, while there is usually a similar level of risk level scored on average by men and women leaders, the perceptions and negative consequences for women are often far greater and rather unjustifiable. Here’s an example: In a 2008 Pew Survey, respondents said that women (85%) not men (5%) are the more emotional sex. However, this is contrary to our CDR Character and Risk data (both personality based assessments.) In a recent gender study* we conducted, men leaders scored an average of 54% and women leaders 50% on Adjustment…. On the Hyper-Moody risk, men scored 56% and women 62%. There were no significant gender differences and this does not support the severe 85% rating assigned to women on “emotionality” in the Pew survey.
A couple of notes on this: 1) how emotionality is expressed varies; 2) for women, emotionality is often confused with “Interpersonal Sensitivity” or nurturing/caring and relationship building capabilities; 3) and, emotionality of male leaders is often associated with anger, impatience, etc., and is considered within accepted norms – from a social “perception” standpoint.
In the aforementioned WSJ article, I found a quote that illustrates the differences between actual risk behaviors and perceptions: “I can speak the truth. But I don’t feel as comfortable having a tantrum at the office. There are many men, particularly in financial services, who can scream, shout, throw things. Nobody blinks an eye.” Sallie Krawcheck, President Global Wealth & Investment Management, Bank of America, Wall Street Journal, 4/11/11, pg. R10
Great subject! Thanks for the discussion.
Nancy
*Study: “Risk Factors that Impact Women in Leadership”, data from 26 companies, men leaders n=120; women leaders n=110., 2008, CDR Assessment Group, Inc., Tulsa, OK.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
CDR Executive Development Retreat at Riviera Maya Resort Announced
We are pleased to announce the exclusive:
CDR Executive Development Retreat on July 7 -12, 2011 at
Zoëtry Paraiso de la Bonita, a Wellness & Spa Resort in Mexico
This CDR Executive Development Retreat is designed for those executives who are ready to rev up their personal energy, refocus, and renew their performance edge.
The Retreat host, global executive assessment and development firm, CDR Assessment Group, Inc., combines custom curriculum design and just the right environment to maximize each executive’s personal learning experience. Zoëtry is a luxurious all-inclusive boutique resort set on 14 acres perfectly situated along the Riviera Maya. It has a private beach and is just 20 minutes from Cancun’s International Airport.
This exclusive Retreat offers a holistic approach to executive development including in-depth assessment, executive coaching, strategic authentic leadership workshops, action planning, fitness or a health risk consultation, and a memorable spa experience. Then, of course, participants and their guests will find much more to do to rejuvenate at Zoëtry.
Getting started is easy – executives register and then simply take the CDR 3-D suite online and have their initial executive coaching session by telephone. Then, it’s off to the Retreat for a mix of half day workshops, one-to-one coaching, and time for to revitalize, refresh and reenergize.
Do not mistake this Retreat as unchallenging or light, for the CDR 3-D Suite and our coaches cut to the chase with straightforward, hard hitting and useful insights to fast forward the development process. At the first coaching session, each CDR executive coach will get to the root causes of their client executive’s performance behaviors, talents, skills, motivational needs, and risk factors. We respect the value of our clients’ time and our coaching approach is direct, unvarnished and productive.
To access more the Retreat brochure, FAQs and the Registration form, please go to: http://www.cdrassessmentgroup.com/retreat.php
CDR Executive Development Retreat on July 7 -12, 2011 at
Zoëtry Paraiso de la Bonita, a Wellness & Spa Resort in Mexico
This CDR Executive Development Retreat is designed for those executives who are ready to rev up their personal energy, refocus, and renew their performance edge.
The Retreat host, global executive assessment and development firm, CDR Assessment Group, Inc., combines custom curriculum design and just the right environment to maximize each executive’s personal learning experience. Zoëtry is a luxurious all-inclusive boutique resort set on 14 acres perfectly situated along the Riviera Maya. It has a private beach and is just 20 minutes from Cancun’s International Airport.
This exclusive Retreat offers a holistic approach to executive development including in-depth assessment, executive coaching, strategic authentic leadership workshops, action planning, fitness or a health risk consultation, and a memorable spa experience. Then, of course, participants and their guests will find much more to do to rejuvenate at Zoëtry.
Getting started is easy – executives register and then simply take the CDR 3-D suite online and have their initial executive coaching session by telephone. Then, it’s off to the Retreat for a mix of half day workshops, one-to-one coaching, and time for to revitalize, refresh and reenergize.
Do not mistake this Retreat as unchallenging or light, for the CDR 3-D Suite and our coaches cut to the chase with straightforward, hard hitting and useful insights to fast forward the development process. At the first coaching session, each CDR executive coach will get to the root causes of their client executive’s performance behaviors, talents, skills, motivational needs, and risk factors. We respect the value of our clients’ time and our coaching approach is direct, unvarnished and productive.
To access more the Retreat brochure, FAQs and the Registration form, please go to: http://www.cdrassessmentgroup.com/retreat.php
Because of the personalized attention given to each executive, space is limited. The deposit deadline is March 4, 2011 so be sure to respond promptly to secure your enrollment.
• To learn more about registration, please contact: Rebekah Garrett at 918-488-0722 or email: rgarrett@cdrassessmentgroup.com
• For resort information and travel questions, please contact Penny Sheldon Travel at 888-336-8133 or email at: travelagent@cableone.net
Friday, October 1, 2010
Too Much Recognition?
Can a leader give too much recognition?
Yes -- too much or the wrong type of recognition and attempts at positive reinforcement can backfire. Showing sincerity and making sure that the effort is worthy is essential. Next, it is imperative to know how individuals want to be rewarded most. What may be a reward or great recognition for one person, may be an aversion or distasteful experience for another.
We measure ten key "Driver & Rewards Needs". One of these is "Fame & Feedback" and I have two quick stories that depicts the impact of rewards backfiring. We had a client who rewarded a nursing manager as the "leader of the year" and picked her up in a limo, celebrated at a big party-like event in the parking lot with all employees present, and she was the honoree. Well, she scored under 5% (on a scale of up to 100%) on her need for Fame & Feedback. She told me that if they ever did anything like that again that she would resign immediately. She was mortified. She said it was the worst day of her life.
At a university, one director who I had coached who herself had a low score on Fame & Feedback, rewarded a new employee with a balloon bouquet as thanks for bringing in a new corporate client. She was trying to acknowledge that others frequently have a higher need for recognition than she had so her intent was admirable. Well, with this gentleman, she was wrong. She sent the bouquet without having his data -- later to find out that his score on Fame & Feedback was even lower than hers. (Of course we laughed after that story but this did re-affirm the point.)
Interestingly, with this same scale when people have high scores (needs), we have coached people who have left jobs because they didn't get sufficient thanks or appreciation for their contributions. They didn't get the respect or visibility they so needed. (Even though it doesn’t cost the business a cent.)
FYI, the other Drivers & Reward facets we measure include: Business & Finance (money), Artistic Endeavors, Companionship & Affiliation, Amusement & Hedonism, Humanitarian Efforts, Power & Competition, Scientific Reasoning, and Safety & Security. So the question is on all of these for each person: is it a driver, non-interest or aversion or unimportant to you? Managers typically err by rewarding what they personally value most which may or may not match what the employee really wants and needs. While the intention may be sincere, rewards can and do backfire.
Yes -- too much or the wrong type of recognition and attempts at positive reinforcement can backfire. Showing sincerity and making sure that the effort is worthy is essential. Next, it is imperative to know how individuals want to be rewarded most. What may be a reward or great recognition for one person, may be an aversion or distasteful experience for another.
We measure ten key "Driver & Rewards Needs". One of these is "Fame & Feedback" and I have two quick stories that depicts the impact of rewards backfiring. We had a client who rewarded a nursing manager as the "leader of the year" and picked her up in a limo, celebrated at a big party-like event in the parking lot with all employees present, and she was the honoree. Well, she scored under 5% (on a scale of up to 100%) on her need for Fame & Feedback. She told me that if they ever did anything like that again that she would resign immediately. She was mortified. She said it was the worst day of her life.
At a university, one director who I had coached who herself had a low score on Fame & Feedback, rewarded a new employee with a balloon bouquet as thanks for bringing in a new corporate client. She was trying to acknowledge that others frequently have a higher need for recognition than she had so her intent was admirable. Well, with this gentleman, she was wrong. She sent the bouquet without having his data -- later to find out that his score on Fame & Feedback was even lower than hers. (Of course we laughed after that story but this did re-affirm the point.)
Interestingly, with this same scale when people have high scores (needs), we have coached people who have left jobs because they didn't get sufficient thanks or appreciation for their contributions. They didn't get the respect or visibility they so needed. (Even though it doesn’t cost the business a cent.)
FYI, the other Drivers & Reward facets we measure include: Business & Finance (money), Artistic Endeavors, Companionship & Affiliation, Amusement & Hedonism, Humanitarian Efforts, Power & Competition, Scientific Reasoning, and Safety & Security. So the question is on all of these for each person: is it a driver, non-interest or aversion or unimportant to you? Managers typically err by rewarding what they personally value most which may or may not match what the employee really wants and needs. While the intention may be sincere, rewards can and do backfire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)