This happened to a global resource company client of mine a couple of years ago. They had advertised for a senior engineer to fulfil the role of Project Manager for all of their major feasibility studies that were in the pipeline. The person they had shortlisted had all of the right experience and qualifications, and had recently been employed in a role at another company that involved major project oversight. Prior to that, this candidate had a succession of business development type roles which relied on his engineering experience and training. According to my client he seemed like the right person for the job. Certainly he seemed to ‘tick all the right boxes,’ but there was something that didn’t quite seem to gel in their due diligence and so they asked me for my assessment. It concerned the fact that the two reference checks they had undertaken were throwing up anomalies that they could not reconcile and they wanted to know why. Here is what I discovered…

After profiling the candidate which included both quantitative on-line testing as well as a two hour discussion and qualitative assessment of his language patterns, I was able to confidently report to my client that neither of the previous employers were lying, and that both were correct in their personal assessment of the candidate’s performance. It depended less on whether he had the competency to undertake the role and more on his motivational preferences as to how he was motivated to use the skills he had and process his model of the world. His ‘motivational fingerprint’ if you will. Here is what I said…

    … “For the Project Oversight role where project leadership involves conceptual analysis and strategy, detailed risk assessment, systemic thinking followed by a properly structured plan of action taking into account all of the competing factors, the candidate has the experience and training but his ‘motivational fingerprint’ does not support him working in this way.”

Across the board he had rated motivational patterns like Concept and Structure; Reflection and Patience (i.e. Thinking before Acting); Focus on Information and Systems; Problem Solving (Risk Mitigation); Evolution (i.e. Gradual Change and Development); and Depth Orientation as quite low in his preferences. His language patterns in the discussion we had, reinforced this assessment of mine. Note: This is not to say that he was not trained nor competent in these disciplines. It is just that it was not his preferred way of working or using his skills.

    … “For the Business Development role where leadership involves the ability to seek out new development opportunities; make quick decisions; initiate action; and drive a team towards a long term goal, the candidate exhibits all of the action-oriented patterns one would expect to see as part of his motivational make-up, both in his quantitative assessment and in my qualitative assessment of our discussion.”

Across the board he had rated highly the following motivational patterns which indicated a strong preference for speed and action:- Focus on Activity; Initiation; Use (i.e. Jumping into Action); Convinced Automatically; Convinced by Doing (as opposed to Reading; Seeing or Listening); Difference (i.e. a preference for Rapid and Discontinuous change) and Goal Orientation.

Once I had shared my assessment with my client, it quickly became obvious to them why the manager who had employed the candidate in a Project Oversight role rated his performance so poorly and why the manager who had employed him in a Business Development role would hire him again tomorrow if the opportunity presented itself.

Both were telling the truth in the context of the role the candidate had performed for them previously, just as much as two people looking at a car accident from different perspectives and vantage points will describe the same scene differently, even though the reality of the crash was identical.

So the decision that was presented to my client quickly became a no-brainer as a result. The only question that needed to be addressed was whether the role for which they were hiring him was more of a Project Oversight role or a Business Development role, even though the candidate was equally skilled for both.

Given that the role at the resource company was a closer motivational fit to the one the candidate had reportedly underperformed in, the observation was made that this candidate might not be the right person for that role. Another more suitable candidate was subsequently chosen. This was not only the right decision for the employer but also in the best interests of the candidate regardless of his personal wishes.

Placing a ‘square peg in a round hole’ is not only a potential risk for the employer but also potentially highly stressful for the employee involved. As employees we should always aim to work towards our preferences and strengths that we develop as a result of those preferences, otherwise we will only invite feelings of boredom or inadequacy within ourselves.

Here is the challenge for employers however:–

All too often I observe that organisations only select or promote based on very limited criteria….

1. Competency – can they do the job?
2. Previous Experience – has someone else said they can do the job?
3. Gut Feeling – do we think they can do the job?
4. Rapport – do we like them enough to want them to do the job?
5. Performance over Time – after 3-6 months of trial and error, will we discover if they can do the job?

The missing ingredients in all of this which are crucial to the final decision are the Attitudes and Motivations of the Individual. i.e. Are they the right fit/best fit for the role? These measures are the most important and effective predictors of job performance, and employers ignore this fact at their peril.

As a result of ground-breaking research and development in psychometric testing over the past ten years, it is now possible to predict with a certain degree of confidence, how an executive will be most likely motivated to perform, behave and communicate in his/her specific work environment. This means that you can now unlock the motivational code for improving engagement, effectiveness and performance in the workforce from the highest to the most basic levels of employment. Not only can we now measure what motivates someone at work, but also to what degree and by how much these drivers motivate them, compared to the rest of the standard population.

The knowledge that a company gleans from these insights is a proven recipe for more incisive and effective candidate selection or promotion, and for more targeted information into successful ‘on-boarding’ or personal career development. This assists immeasurably in ensuring that an organisation’s external candidate/ internal succession selection processes are conducted at world’s best practice levels.

What are your thoughts on this? I’d love to read them.

Drop me an email to brian@precisionprofiling.com.au if you would like to discuss further how to select the right people for your roles and how to leverage that knowledge for the benefit of them and your organisation.

Until then… Let’s seek to understand more and judge less. Have a great week – Brian

Precision Profiling – What Makes You Tick? Through ‘Motivational Fingerprinting’ we uncover what you do, how you do it and why you do it, and most importantly, the hidden patterns that lead to your success, and that of your team.

So at last the election is over and we can get on with our lives. We have a new conservative government  and a new Prime Minister, Mr Tony Abbott. Once again I would like to draw your attention to the language used by our outgoing Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd, as he delivered his 30 minute concession speech. From what the pundits are saying, it seems I may not be the only one who wondered whether he had achieved a marvellous victory, rather than a resounding defeat. It seems to me that Mr Rudd was attempting to “reframe” the loss as a victory of sorts, but in my opinion it falls short for a number of reasons.

To begin with I would like to explain what is meant by a ‘reframe’ in the context of communication. It is often used by counsellors, trainers or personal coaches to assist their clients to see their current situation in a different light, so that what they might perceive to be a limiting belief becomes a more positive or empowering belief if viewed in a different context or if  ‘framed differently.’ An apt description might be… “To look at, present, or think of (beliefs, ideas, relationships, etc.) in a new or different way. To change the perspective for the person or people listening.”

So how, in my opinion, did our outgoing Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd get it wrong in his concession speech?

1.    He was speaking in his official capacity as the outgoing Prime Minister to the Australian population at large, not as the Parliamentary Labour Party Leader. But all we heard was the wonderful success that he and his party had achieved in saving some of their Members of Parliament from defeat. Not once during his speech did we hear about the honour it had been for him to serve as his country’s ‘first amongst equals.’ (He even commented that “in a couple more days we might have got there.” Hardly likely given the significant number of seats lost by his outgoing government.)

2.    Once again his language gave away his self-focus. I counted twice the number of personal pronouns used by Mr Rudd (“I, me, and my”) than those used by the incoming Prime Minister, Mr Abbott in his victory speech. Mr Abbott’s speech was focused on the people of Australia and what they deserved from their government in response to the trust they had placed in it through the decisive election result. His was a speech of grace, dignity and humility with a strong reminder of the awesome responsibility that his party had been handed to live up to its promises of good government. By contrast, Mr Rudd’s speech was filled with pride for the campaign accomplishments he had achieved in defeat. (I counted his direct use of the words “I’m proud” on at least five occasions plus numerous other times when his pride was implied due to him proving the pundits wrong, in his opinion. It is interesting to note that when Kevin Rudd was replaced as PM by his own parliamentary party the first time around some three years ago, his resignation speech on the steps of parliament house back then was also filled with all of the achievements he was personally proud of, as if he was keen to remind people of the legacy of his leadership, lest they forget.)

3.    Mr Rudd’s undisguised excitement in being personally re-elected to his own seat, sounded more like the enthusiastic declarations of a first time candidate, than the sober assessment of an outgoing Prime Minister, who had just seen a major clean-out of many valued members of his own parliamentary party. To compound  the self indulgent nature of his ‘personal victory’ Mr Rudd went on to say of his Liberal opponent in his own electorate… “Bill Glasson, eat your heart out.” Hardly what one would call being gracious in victory, and certainly not Prime Ministerial.

4.    Mr Rudd’s list of personal “thank you’s” almost became an extended version of a self indulgent Oscar winning speech (26 and counting). I was beginning to wonder if his local butcher, baker  and candlestick maker were also going to get a mention in the course of his delivery, such was the length of the list of names he had lined up for us to hear about. There is a point beyond which personal acknowledgement of others when in the spotlight  becomes the self indulgent meanderings of someone wishing to milk the moment for all it is worth.

If you think that in writing this post my political bias might be showing, I would like to point out that the Prime Minister who Kevin Rudd replaced from within his own party just a few weeks prior to the election campaign, Ms Julia Gillard, has kept a respectful silence in my opinion, and has shown much dignity in the two comments she has made to her defeated parliamentary colleagues and their successful opponent Mr Abbott and his team (via Twitter) since the election result was handed down. My comments here are based purely on my observations of Mr Rudd’s and Mr Abbott’s respective election night speeches and the indications that show the make-up of each individual from the style and content of their respective communications.

If you would like to form your own judgments on the respective speeches and what they tell us, I recommend that you Google “Mr Kevin Rudd’s concession speech” and “Mr Tony Abbott’s victory speech” for your own perception of the merits and personal focus of each.

And now back to the point of my blog today – the ‘do’s and don’ts’ of a well-formed “reframe.”

I think the above points give a fairly accurate picture of what not to do if you are attempting to ‘reframe’ your audience’s perception of a significant event. Get it wrong, and they not only won’t accept the premise that you are asserting but worse still you may create the opposite effect to what you intend. You certainly won’t be able to effectively re-write history in the eyes of others through the poor use of reframing in your concession speech once the election result has been handed down.

So what are some of the keys to effective ‘reframing?’

1.    Always remember the context in which you find yourself, when you attempt to reframe the significant event, situation or strongly held belief. If you are speaking in the context of a resounding election defeat, it is important to use that context as the foundation for your reframe. To deny it or to refer to it in no more than passing terms, runs the risk of creating a disconnect between what is so, and what you wish others to perceive it to be. Do that and the credibility of your argument is lost on those for whom it is meant.

2.    Always remain acutely aware of the audience for whom your reframed message is meant. It is important to pace the experience of the audience from their point of view in order to gain rapport and therefore their willingness to accept the new ‘frame’ or point of view that you are leading them to consider and accept. For example, if you are speaking to the Australian public at large, then only appealing to the perceptions of a small proportion of that constituency puts you at risk of seriously alienating the rest.

I would love to read your thoughts and comments here now that our election race has been run and the dust is settling.

Drop me an email to brian@precisionprofiling.com.au if you would like to discuss further how to understand the people who work for you and how to leverage that knowledge for the benefit of them and your organisation.

Until then… Let’s seek to understand more and judge less. Have a great week – Brian

Precision Profiling – What Makes You Tick? Through ‘Motivational Fingerprinting’ we uncover what you do, how you do it and why you do it, and most importantly, the hidden patterns that lead to your success, and that of your team.

Many commentators are now talking about the negative shift in advertising by the incumbent Labor Government towards a fear-mongering campaign. This comes as Mr Rudd departs from his pledge for kinder politics and launches into a negative advertising campaign attacking the opposition leader. There is no coincidence that this shift in campaign focus follows the latest opinion polls indicating that Labor’s primary vote is falling away dramatically. However I want to draw your attention to another far more subtle indication that the personal focus of our Prime Minister has shifted considerably in the past 48 hours.

As I have said previously on many occasions, we are all a walking, talking signpost of clues about our state of mind at any given time while we are engaged in our work, and our Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is no different. The language we use is such a powerful indicator of how we are thinking and perceiving our world, and even though the political minders would like to think they are able to control what is said and when and how it is said so that their political masters stay ‘on message’ in an electoral campaign, occasionally a tell-tale sign slips in to give another more subtle indication of the real state of play.

One thing that seems apparent with the language that Kevin Rudd uses is that his main mental filter is to “Sort by Self.” People who ‘Sort by Self’ tend to view the world in a far more insular way than those at the opposite end of the spectrum, which is ‘Sort by Others.’ If you combine this with an equally strong Internal Frame of Reference (as opposed to an External Frame of Reference), you will notice tell-tale language indicators in the form of how Mr Rudd refers to himself with regard to most topics of conversation.

The most obvious example to observe is how he speaks from a ‘first person,’ self-focused point of view versus a ‘team’ focus. In Kevin Rudd’s case you will not be surprised to hear that the words “I,” “mine,” “my team,” and the “Government that I lead” have been front and centre of just about all of his communication. I have listened carefully to his speeches and announcements over the past decade and invariably this is the way he describes his ‘model of the world’ regardless of whether he is speaking as Leader of the Opposition; deposed Prime Minister, Foreign Minister or a humble back-bencher in parliament.

Very rarely on balance will you hear the words “we” or “our” or other inclusive language as part of Kevin Rudd’s everyday vernacular. This is neither good nor bad, it’s just the way it happens to be for him, and depending on the circumstances, voters will either be dismayed by this seeming lack of ‘team’ focus and become increasingly wary of what appears to be a ‘one man band’ approach to policy making (social media ‘selfies’ notwithstanding), or they will be impressed by the indicators of strong leadership that it may imply to them, and the fact that the speaker is talking directly to them on a ‘one-to-one level.’

No doubt during the early days of the election campaign, this style of language resonated with many voters who may have been sitting on the fence, or even die-hard Labor voters who were re-considering their support for a Labor Government that seemed to have lost its way. They just wanted to see a strong leader who came in and led from the front, making decisions in an assertive, focused way and then moving on to the next issue. Kevin Rudd’s style of communication reassured many of those voters that maybe, just maybe, he was the strong leader they were craving – ‘Mr Fixit ’ even.

There was a telling sign late last week that all may not be well with the rest of Mr Rudd’s team, when at the end of the week whilst campaigning in Darwin he announced ‘out of the blue’ that he had plans for a special business tax haven in the Northern Territory. The fact that he did not have any further information to support his announcement may or may not be an indicator of making policy on the run. I am sure he is not the first campaigner on either side of the political fence to make sweeping statements that sound good to those for whom it is meant, but are very short on detail. But surprisingly, when one of his Cabinet Ministers whose portfolio that announcement would impact upon, was asked the same day what he knew about this latest policy, his answer was that, “He had just heard about it that morning when it was announced.” Very strange! Now let’s move on to Kevin Rudd’s most recent communications.

What change in language have I noticed in Mr Rudd’s communication style that indicates to me that he has had a major shift in perception, self-belief even, that the campaign may be slipping away from him personally? Undoubtedly when Kevin Rudd rested back the office of PM from his predecessor Julia Gillard, the Labor Government was trailing significantly in the polls and was headed for a complete rout according to all of the pundits. The ascension of Mr Rudd to the top job arrested that serious decline and when the election date was finally announced and the formal campaign commenced in earnest, he had almost pulled his Labor Government back from the brink to an even-money race with the Opposition.

A lot of that dramatic change in fortune came from Kevin Rudd’s popularity with the public as preferred Prime Minister combined with the fact that there was the inevitable ‘honeymoon’ period with the new, re-cycled ‘broom’ sweeping back into power, and the chance to finish what he had started before he was so unceremoniously dumped by his colleagues years earlier. I am sure that the Australian deeply-held sense of ‘fair play’ had some part to play in that reversal of fortune in the polls.

But just today there has been one strong indicator of this change in Kevin Rudd’s own highly tuned level of self belief that he and he alone can lead the Labor Party out of the wilderness and onward to victory. This unshakeable level of self belief has been one of Kevin Rudd’s strongest weapons within his armoury as a politician, and one which finally convinced his political colleagues to shift their allegiances back to him when defeat in Government was fast looming, despite any personal misgivings they may have had.

Something in the language of Kevin Rudd has now changed, and even though he says he continues to believe that this election is winnable and he argues publicly that he shouldn’t be written off in this election despite another poor showing in the polls, today a tell-tale sign has emerged to say otherwise. It is just the tiniest of details, but it is there nonetheless.

For the first time in this campaign that I can recall, Kevin Rudd has shifted focus from the first person (i.e. “I, me, mine” etc) in his communication to the third person in describing the situation he now faces. i.e. He has now been heard saying…. “Kevin Rudd doesn’t…..”

If you think this is just an inconsequential slip of the tongue that doesn’t count for much, my ‘take’ on it is that halfway through the campaign trail for re-election, our PM has unconsciously begun to disassociate himself personally from the pain of losing. He may not be consciously aware of it yet, but his language is there for you to hear, if you listen for the clues.

From this point on, you may begin to notice other shifts in language – some subtle, some not-so-subtle. Undoubtedly you will also witness the government’s message moving away from what “I, Kevin Rudd as your PM will do if re-elected” towards what “They, the Opposition will do/not do” and “He, Tony Abbott will do/not do if elected,” and this is to be expected as a conscious decision by the campaign managers being made in light of the deteriorating opinion poll situation.

But I for one, will be watching for the hidden tell-tale signs that slip out from Kevin Rudd’s mouth as the political landscape changes around him. It will be fascinating to watch. For those of you who may well be asking, “What about Tony Abbott? Isn’t his language worth dissecting too?” my response is a resounding ‘yes.’

But for now, he is not the PM, and besides, his political journey in the public arena hasn’t been such a topsy-turvy, roller coaster ride to follow, where the personal trials and tribulations and character traits have been laid quite so bare for all to see. Kevin Rudd and all of his character strengths and flaws have always been in full view over his journey so that is why as a profiler, I will continue to watch for the signs while the opportunity is in front of me.

I would love to read your thoughts and comments here as we enter the final stages of the election race.

Drop me an email to brian@precisionprofiling.com.au if you would like to discuss further how to understand the people who work for you and how to leverage that knowledge for the benefit of them and your organisation.

Until then… Let’s seek to understand more and judge less. Have a great week – Brian

Precision Profiling – What Makes You Tick? Through ‘Motivational Fingerprinting’ we uncover what you do, how you do it and why you do it, and most importantly, the hidden patterns that lead to your success, and that of your team.

Actually it was neither. This may be the judgment that others might have formed about Bill, but if they were to judge him in this way they would have been mistaken. The following information is what we shared with his boss, the CFO, in order to give him deeper insight into Bill and how best to lead him.

When we profiled Bill as part of a company-wide assessment into the underlying culture that was driving the business at the senior executive level, we discovered a couple of very interesting patterns that were prevailing as motivational drivers for him. Right off the scale as a strong driving pattern in terms of unconscious drivers for Bill, was a pattern called “External Reference.” This means that a person is likely to seek out the advice and opinions of others before making decisions. It also means they may want to use data or other external measures for input. People with a very high external frame of reference are motivated by positive feedback; they happily involve others when making decisions; and they use objective data to evaluate their personal performance.

As far as the use of external data and input was concerned, this style of approach is one of the unconscious drivers that made Bill so accomplished in his work, among other patterns of thinking he had…. such as being strongly focused on detail (crossing t’s and dotting i’s); being likely to see potential problems before most others would with any given project or operation; and always wanting to make sure his work was totally correct by double checking everything he did. ‘So what was the downside?’ you may well ask.

Well not only was Bill off the scale on the high side in terms of needing external input and data to support his risk assessments, his lowest pattern of decision making by a country mile at the other end of the scale was a pattern called “Individual Motives,” or having an internal frame of reference when making decisions, which is the direct opposite pattern to having an external frame of reference. (Someone who has a high Internal Frame of Reference is far less likely to be influenced by the input and opinions of others, because they are more comfortable in deciding for themselves, and confidently following their own criteria when making a decision. Bill was the total opposite to this.)

In fact the gap between the two patterns for Bill was even greater than you would normally see in someone because in his model of the world, both were polar opposites on the scale, with 46 other patterns of motivation separating them. I and my colleague had never seen such a huge gap between the two forms of decision-making before in one person, so we were very keen to spend some time with Bill and find out more about how he operated.

There were no surprises here either, because after every answer Bill gave to any question of ours about how he worked and what made him so effective in his role of risk management, he followed his answers up with these same type of responses… “How did I go?”…. “Is that the answer you were looking for?”…or… “Is this what you were wanting from me?” To the profiler, these are fairly strong indications that the results we had received from Bill’s quantitative testing, were being actively reinforced qualitatively by the manner in which Bill was responding ‘live’ in his discussions with us.

When we debriefed Bill’s boss with our assessment of Bill’s patterns of motivation we were able to reassure him that all of the unconscious drivers that one would hope to see in a person whose role was high level, company-wide risk management, were there to support Bill and his effectiveness. Even the high External Frame of Reference was useful, it was just that it was also being displayed in the form of him constantly checking his decisions and actions against external criteria such as ‘running things by the boss.’

Where the CFO was previously concerned that Bill was not confident enough in his role and was therefore unable to adequately cope with its scope and level of responsibility, we were able to show him that this was part of Bill’s way of working. As a result, consideration was given to assisting Bill in two ways. One was to ensure that his support team had complementary motivational preferences to Bill, so that their department had a more balanced approach to decision making taking into account the strengths of both ways of thinking and working. The second suggestion was that Bill might be well served by some external executive coaching around these two specific patterns to help him also achieve a more balanced approach to decision-making personally, and his apparent need for constant external checks when it was not necessary.

You may be interested to know that the CFO appreciated these insights he had discovered about Bill, especially given he had been his leader for a long period of time and couldn’t quite understand up to this point why Bill, who was so accomplished in his eyes, still felt the need to ‘check in with him’ on a regular basis.

Being the type of boss that most of us would love to have due to his keenness to understand and draw out the best in his people, the CFO then went on to say… “Well in a few days I will sit down with Bill, and ask him where he would like to focus his energies in the future and how I can support him in that.”

To which I and my colleague immediately responded with smiles on our faces… “That’s the one approach that may be less likely to work for Bill, than just about anyone else in your team. Remember, Bill prefers to receive input and direction first and foremost, so he can then get on with the job of compliance and risk management. Asking his opinion will probably boomerang straight back to you in the form of him needing to base his decisions on where you think he is best placed for the good of the company. If you don’t want to go around in circles with Bill, just set out your clear intentions for him so that he knows what’s on your mind, before seeking some input from him.”

It’s the same with my two young children in their approach to study. One always likes to check in with me or his mother first regarding any decision he makes or activity he embarks upon, while the other one will tell us exactly what she intends to do regardless of our input or suggestions. And it is not a male vs female thing going on either! (Special note to all of the males out there who might be saying… “Typical!”) As you can imagine, it makes for some very interesting discussions in our household balancing the needs of both children at different times.

People are such a kaleidoscope of nuances and motivations, that even the smallest of things like just two motivational patterns can tell us a lot about how to support them to be the best they can be at work.

Drop me an email to brian@precisionprofiling.com.au if you would like to know more about how to gain a deeper understanding of your key people in order to leverage their motivational make-up.  You’ll be surprised how quickly you can start to unlock the secrets to their success, with direct benefits for your business.

Note: For further information on these two opposing patterns of unconscious motivation you will find they were covered in a previous blog of mine a few weeks ago. http://precisionprofiling.com.au/more-hidden-secrets-to-the-world-of-unconscious-influence

Until next time… Let’s seek to understand more and judge less.  Have a great week – Brian

Precision Profiling – What Makes You Tick?  Through ‘Motivational Fingerprinting’ we uncover what you do, how you do it and why you do it, and most importantly, the hidden patterns that lead to your success, and that of your staff.

Not only are you a walking, talking signpost, so are your staff and colleagues which is great news for you if you know what to look for. Here is a great example of exactly what I mean by that comment, and it is one which every one of you will relate to, regardless of your level of training or understanding in the world of the profiler.

Some years ago I was leading a debriefing session for the sales team of a luxury vehicle importer. As you can imagine, being commission based sales executives, they were all highly focused on hitting their targets each month, though some more than others of course, because no one is identical in their level and application of motivation. The reason why I was called in by the sales manager was due to the lack of understanding that bubbled up at times between the team members and the conflicts that often arose as a result, especially in such a high pressured environment as commission based sales of high end consumer goods.

We were going along fine in the session, talking about the unconscious patterns that are always at play beneath the surface and how everyone is unconsciously driven by these patterns, without actually realising it.  Much like a puppet on the end of a string, we all think we are in control of our patterns of thinking and behaviour, but that’s just the conscious stuff we are aware of. “What about the ‘other stuff’ that’s going on in the background?” I asked them. “Were you also aware that whatever is driving you to think and act in a certain way is unique to you, but it may not be the way it is for your customers, or your colleagues?”

We continued to discuss this and they began to realise that not only their ‘model of the world’ was unique to them, but it also probably explained why they seemed to have instant rapport and influence with a certain number of their customers, and with others they just ‘missed the boat.’ Even more telling was the fact that these same ‘filters’ invariably got in the way of greater team harmony due to each person assuming that the rest of the world (i.e. ‘their team mates’) interpreted things in the same way as them. It brought up the whole notion of being able to ‘read’ the people who are in front of you more effectively and respond flexibly to them in a way that is more in tune for them though it may be foreign in part to you.

In a way it’s like a dance between two partners – each wanting to lead at different times according to their own patterns of thinking and working, but in order for the dancers to be in synch there has to be a more heightened level of awareness, understanding and responsiveness between them.

Okay Brian, you may be thinking… “So much for the theory, but what about reality?” (The nature of reality is definitely the source for another topic and another time, so I’ll stick to the knitting here.)

At that point in our session, I decided it was time for these action-oriented, theory-adverse men and women to see it for themselves before their very eyes. I nominated two people in the room to stand up and describe their last holiday that was impactful enough for them to still remember it vividly to that day. (Because I had profiled all of the players in the room both individually and as a team unit prior to the session, I knew exactly which two people to choose for this demonstration.) One person was what we would call a big picture thinker or ‘breadth orientated’ and the other was at the far end of the scale at the detail or ‘depth orientation’ end.

First Tom got up and said… “Last year we went to Italy. It was great.” and promptly sat down. I think everyone’s brain was still trying to register what he had said and were waiting for more, before they realised that was his whole story chapter and verse.

Next it was Peter’s turn. Well he started, but he never finished before I had to politely interrupt him after 30 minutes and move the discussion on. When I say that he never finished, I actually mean that after a half an hour Peter and his family still hadn’t left the driveway of their home in his description. In between we had heard all about what time they got up, what they had for breakfast, which of the children weren’t feeling well, why they had chosen to take a National Lampoon style of car holiday, problems with the pet… you name it we heard it. I am not sure whether he actually told us what everyone was wearing that day, but I guess given enough time he would have.

Anyway you can imagine the glazed looks I saw on everyone’s faces around the room. A lot of them had tuned out after five minutes, and a few who were closer in alignment with Peter’s pattern were still hanging on until at least twenty minutes, but by then even they were done with the description. Talk about ‘signposts’. Not only were Tom and Peter walking, talking signposts for their model of the world with just these two patterns, but even the glazed eyes, and the fidgeting and the concentration levels of the rest of the people in the room were flashing neon signs for me, because you could almost track where each was on the scale of Breadth vs Depth orientation depending on where they switched off during Peter’s little conversation piece.

Needless to say, after that demonstration by Tom and Peter, everyone else in the team ‘got the theory’ loud and clear and from that point on there was lively discussion about the potential of knowing about this information and the impact it could have on their sales effectiveness as well as their team harmony. Everyone laughed when I painted the image of Tom and Peter trying to have a ‘deep and meaningful’ conversation when they were so far apart in their level of scope with their descriptions.

This story drives home the power of knowing and appreciating just how much each person’s unconscious ways of thinking and behaving in the workplace could be different to your own. And this example only touches on two of the driving patterns. There are another forty six to add to the mix when you bake the cake of each person. When you know this, there is so much more you can do to leverage the best out of yourself and your people.

The nice thing today is that based on the cognitive research and its application that has been developed since the dawn of this new millennium, we can help you find each person’s recipe and show you how to turn that recipe into something that you (and they) will appreciate and savour in your workplace.

Next time I will share with you how a senior executive was being judged as totally lacking in confidence for their role, when in fact it only came down to knowing about the one key pattern that was driving them under the surface, to turn it all around. And by the way, knowing about this also helped me to understand my own children better around home so that I can help each to develop unique study habits that will work for best for them in the future when the pressure is really on during their final years. Now that’s a bonus.

What are your thoughts on this topic? I’d love to hear from you and your own experiences. Drop me an email to brian@precisionprofiling.com.au if you would like to know more about how to create greater harmony with your team or teams.  

A complimentary discovery session with me will definitely get you thinking about how much more you could do in this area of people and business development, for the benefit of them and especially your business.

Until then… Let’s seek to understand more and judge less.  Have a great week – Brian

Precision Profiling – What Makes You Tick?  Through ‘Motivational Fingerprinting’ we uncover what you do, how you do it and why you do it, and most importantly, the hidden patterns that lead to your success, and that of your staff.

She looked good. She sounded good. She had all the right connections. It seemed she knew everyone, such was the quality of her network. And if she didn’t know them, and wanted to, then she was quick to rock up and start a conversation. CEOs, General Managers, key decision makers – no one was out of bounds for her. She had a way of getting in touch and keeping the connection. The dream B2B sales exec you might think. Or was she?

It was one of those times when a client of long standing asked a favour of me. Would I please have a quick chat with this ‘gun’ Business Development Manager of his who had been employed for roughly six months? When I say ‘gun’ that was his description not mine, and the reason for his confidence was because there had been six months of solid prospecting, networking, prospective client meetings, many proposals submitted and interest being shown, and it seemed that everything was humming along just fine. In other words all the activity was there and all the initiative to get out into the market place, knock on doors and ‘get a foot in’ was being demonstrated. So why did he want me to have a quick, informal chat I asked of him? (i.e. “Nothing too formal in case I ‘scared the horses,’ ” he said).

Well even though it seemed that everything was just humming along fine, and according to Peg the ‘gun’ BDM, she was certain of landing a ‘big fish’ any day now, as yet none had been netted. For some unknown reason they had been getting off the hook or they weren’t taking the bait. This didn’t phase Peg in the slightest, but my client was beginning to have some nagging doubts in the back of his mind. (He had decided to go on a small fishing expedition of his own with me casting the line.)

So as a favour, (remember this was a long standing, and much respected client of mine) I left my ‘formal executive profiler’s’ hat off, and organised to have a friendly, ‘how are you settling in?– how’s it all been going?’ chat with Peg and my client at the local café. Sure enough, Peg was chatty, effusive, confident and filled with stories about who she knew and how she knew them, and why they were keen to sign on to one of my client’s programmes any day now. In fact she was too damn chatty for my liking, but maybe that was just my own filters getting in the way!

As it transpired, I must have piqued enough of Peg’s interest during some lull in her conversation when I shared a little bit about how I help people (and their bosses) to get below the surface of what drives them so that they can make the most of their unique talents and motivations at work. She commented that she might be interested in knowing more about ‘what made her tick’ to me and her boss, so we arranged for me to put on my formal profiling hat when I got back to my office and send her the necessary material to start the process. (And because I had originally agreed to help my client out as a favour I left this now formal engagement as an informal follow up at bare minimum costs. I tell you this now because there is a valuable lesson, second to the main one, to be gained from this story and I will share it with you later).

When I finally received all of Peg’s material, there was no doubting that all of the expected motivational patterns were there as far as prospecting, networking and initiating contact were concerned. They were all clustered right around the top of her chart. Actually she was ‘off the chart’ on immersing herself in loads of activity day in day out – being idle was not for her (tick). She was also very charged up with the desire to get out there and initiate action (tick); talk with people, listen carefully to them and canvass their input (tick, tick). In actual fact, if there was a choice between thinking and planning versus jumping into action, Peg would choose action over deliberation any day (another tick). And did I say she was also comfortable with keeping to a schedule in the pursuit of a goal, working a system and keeping accurate records (tick, tick, tick, tick)? I think you get the picture.

“So what or where were the missing links?” I hear you asking me. Before I let you in on the secret, you will find it interesting to know that even though I chased Peg up on more than a few occasions, I never did get the opportunity to personally debrief her. There always seemed to be some reason why she missed my calls, misplaced my emails or was ‘too busy to get back to me this week’ (there’s a clue here). Anyway, because it was that ‘small fee – big favour’ kind of exercise, I decided not to chase around the block with Peg any longer and confined my time just to debriefing my client.

Here’s what I told him. “Yes, there is no doubt that Peg is a ‘gun’ prospector and networker as you say. She will get you in the door of many of the right type of clients and she has a level of activity and initiation combined with resilience, to keep it up long after others may have drifted off into the land of ‘call reluctance.’  So you should value that part of her motivation and desire, and leverage it to maximum effect…

…But there are just a couple of patterns that are very low down on Peg’s motivational radar that I feel are holding her back and if they aren’t addressed or if she is not able to acknowledge them and work towards changing or developing them further, then you may continue to hear and see evidence of great fishing and wonderful persistence ‘playing the line,’ but eventually the fish will get away after all those hours out there on the ocean. Those critical missing motivational patterns are the ‘Desire to Achieve,’ ‘Digging up and Solving Problems,’ and her effectiveness at ‘Reading People’ so she knows when to reel in that big fish and reach for the net.”

My client thanked me for my insights, and said that he would give them some further thought and see what he could do to address this seemingly small gap (but crucial in my opinion) in Peg’s otherwise impressive BDM make-up. Just before we ended our conversation, he added that because they were so close to landing a couple of those big fish that had been on Peg’s line for some time now, he would give it a couple more months before considering more drastic action, if need be. It occurred to me as I walked away from that debriefing, that now my client was the one who was ‘hooked’ because he was so enmeshed in Peg’s activity and story of ‘it’s all going to land any day now’ he didn’t want to rock that boat they were both so firmly ensconced in.

Those ‘couple more months’ stretched out to a further twelve or more at a substantial cost to my client’s business, and not one fish – not even a tiddler – was landed before he and Peg, the ‘gun’ BDM, finally parted company. The moral of this story, and one worth committing deeply to memory for all of you who are business owners and managers, is that if someone is not a good fit for a role in even one or two crucial elements of motivation, no matter what other wonderful talents they bring to the table, then wishing and hoping things will change without intervention of some kind or another (whether that be through coaching, correcting, changing their role or moving them on), is not healthy for you, nor for them and certainly not healthy for your business.

In other words, ‘if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, but for some strange reason does NOT quack like a duck,’ then chances are it is still most probably not a duck but some other bird with webbed feet, and it needs to be moved from the duck pond to another environment more suited to its appetite. Or as the old saying goes – “Don’t put a square ‘Peg’ in a round hole.”

Oh and before I forget. What was the secondary lesson that you can take away from this story?

Because I wanted to ‘help out a longstanding client of mine with a quick informal favour,’ I lost sight of when the quick informal favour morphed into a more formal and substantive engagement. I should have then made arrangements with my client to change the nature of this engagement to one which was properly deserving of the appropriate investment for my time and expertise. If that had been the case, then he may have been motivated to listen more carefully and respond more decisively to my findings and recommendations about Peg, (i.e. if his investment for my advice was commensurate with its true worth.)

Not only that, I too would have had a more vested interest in making him sit up and take notice if I had known that I was being professionally engaged to investigate an issue and recommend an appropriate course of action and was not just ‘doing him a quick favour.’ In the final analysis neither he nor I were doing him a favour when the cost of an extra twelve months of salary at zero return was ripped from his bottom line. My professional fee for my insights and intervention on his behalf on this one ‘sticky issue’ paled by comparison to the money it cost him over that period of time, let alone the massive lost opportunity cost.

By the way, we are still in a long and mutually beneficial supplier-client relationship together to this date, so we live and learn to enjoy each other’s company and respective input another day.

The big moral for me (and I hope for you) in this story is that the outcome should always be more important than the investment, and that the investment you make should never be seen as a cost if the outcome you are striving for is achieved. When cost gets in the way of the outcome to such a degree that reducing it, avoiding it or saving it becomes the main focus, then that’s when you can potentially kiss the outcome goodbye.

Drop me an email to brian@precisionprofiling.com.au if you would like to know more about how I can help you find the missing link to your key people in roles that can make or break your company… or with the assessment of internal or external candidates for key positions.  

A complimentary discovery session with me will help you get crystal clear on what you need to be doing in these areas. Don’t make the mistake that my client did above and just hope that your people issues will fix themselves without the proper insights or interventions.

Until then… Let’s seek to understand more and judge less.  Have a great week – Brian

Precision Profiling – What Makes You Tick?  Through ‘Motivational Fingerprinting’ we uncover what you do, how you do it and why you do it, and most importantly, the hidden patterns that lead to your success, and that of your staff.

You may have heard the story about how one major airline assesses its job applicants prior to offering them any position which involves direct customer contact. The story and its message is a valuable reminder to us all.

In the group employment interviews the company representatives ask prospective employees why they want to work for the airline. Most of those being assessed make the assumption that the quality of their answer will determine whether they progress to the next stage in the hiring process or not, when in actual fact the assessors are more interested in observing how each member of the group of applicants is paying attention to the person who is speaking when they are in ‘listening mode.’ They look for tell-tale cues like eye contact, and other non verbal encouragement being given to the speaker by those who are still waiting for their turn to speak. It is a fairly impressive assessment process, and one which I have discussed first hand with the company during my benchmarking study visits some years ago.

Those applicants who were too distracted or self absorbed in mentally preparing themselves for their turn to speak while others were talking, were assessed as not having the appropriate customer focus to progress. Although this was not the only criteria by which the company made its assessments, it certainly had a significant impact on the overall assessment being made of each individual in the context of this particular role, given that success in this role depended on how customer-centric the person representing the airline was.

The distinction for listening here is, “wanting to hear” vs “waiting to speak.”

In profiling, we have a couple of patterns for human interaction which describe the two opposing motivational drivers (aka ‘metaprograms’) being assessed in this airline scenario and they are called “Sorting by Others” vs “Sorting by Self.” Neither pattern is good nor bad, right nor wrong, because it depends entirely upon the context of the role for which the employee is being assessed, however if the role you are selecting for involves a high degree of customer interaction and empathy, chances are you will want to select those people who unconsciously “Sort by Others,” and not “Sort by Self.” Hire those people who Sort by Self for roles that require a far more insular approach such as a sole nightwatchman on a security patrol, or a quality control type function.

A person can have the required experience and training and intellectual capability to perform the customer-facing role you are selecting them for, but if you haven’t assessed what motivates him or her unconsciously, then you run the risk of hiring a square peg for a round hole.

The nice thing is that we can now test for crucial elements such as these, so your selection process doesn’t always need to involve such a huge investment in resources to run group interviews supported by specialist observers watching the ‘players’ in the room, as this major airline did. Of course undertaking both the formal testing and the observational testing in a combined process has the added bonus of producing a quantitative and qualitative assessment for even greater precision. Either way, the objective is to avoid the huge financial cost of employing the wrong fit for the role from the beginning.

All too often the cost of poor selection and the consequences of inducting and training the wrong people only to see them being moved on within three months (or worse still, remaining in a position for which they are not a good fit), is never measured on the balance sheet as an avoidable and significant expense, but it should be. When the numbers are added up it may change some of the prevailing points of view about skimping on the investment of making better informed assessments during the initial stages, especially in small to medium sized businesses.

Drop me an email to brian@precisionprofiling.com.au if you would like to know more about selecting for success.

Until then… Let’s seek to understand more and judge less.  Have a great week – Brian

Precision Profiling – What Makes You Tick?  Through ‘Motivational Fingerprinting’ we uncover what you do, how you do it and why you do it, and most importantly, the hidden patterns that lead to your success, and that of your staff.

Following on from my previous post, world renowned master of modelling excellence, Anthony (Tony) Robbins shares more of his wisdom with us. This time, Tony shares with us the distinctions between having an Internal or an External Frame of Reference.

But for now, it’s time to sit back and discover what he has to say about the distinctions between having an Internal Frame of Reference or an External Frame of Reference, and how knowing this about someone can lead you to deeper levels of influence with them.

….”Ask someone how he or she knows when he/she has done a good job. For some people the proof comes from outside of them via external feedback or data. For example… the boss pats you on the back and says that your work was great… or, you get a raise… or, you win a major award… or, your work is noticed and applauded by your peers. When you receive that sort of external approval, you know you did a good job. These are examples of having External Frames of Reference.

For other people, the proof comes from inside of them. They just ‘know inside’ when they’ve done well and they don’t feel the need for any external reference to confirm that.

If you have an Internal Frame of Reference, you can design a building that wins all sorts of architectural awards, but if you personally do not feel that your work was special, then no amount of outside approval will convince you that it was. Or you might do a job that gets lukewarm reception from your boss or peers, but if you feel in your own heart that it’s good work, then you’ll trust your own instincts rather than theirs. Both are examples of Internal Frames of Reference.

Let’s say you are trying to convince someone to attend a seminar. You might say to them… ‘You’ve got to attend this seminar. It’s great. I’ve gone and all of my friends have gone, and they’ve all had a terrific time and raved about it for days. They all said that it changed their lives for the better.’ If the person you are talking to has an External Frame of Reference, chances are that you will convince him or her. If all of those people say that it’s true, then he or she will most probably assume that it is true.

But what if the person you are talking to has an Internal Frame of Reference? You will have a difficult time convincing them by telling them what others have said. It doesn’t mean anything to them. It doesn’t compute. You can only convince such people by appealing to things that they know for themselves. What if you told them… ‘Remember the series of lectures you went to last year? Remember how you said it was the most insightful experience you have had in years? Well, I know that this seminar I am recommending to you is possibly something like that. I think if you check it out, you may find you’ll have the same kind of experience. What do you think?’

This is likely to work, because you will be talking to this person in their kind of language.

It is important to note that all of these unconscious patterns of thinking are context and stress related. If you have done something for 10 or 15 years, you probably have a strong Internal Frame of Reference about that experience and your ability with it. If you are brand new, you may not have as strong an Internal Frame of Reference about what is right or wrong in that context. So you tend to develop preferences and patterns over time. But even if you are right handed, you will still use your left hand in various situations where it is useful or appropriate to do so. The same is true of this. You are not uniquely ‘wired’ one way. You can vary. You can change.

What kind of Frame of Reference do most leaders have – Internal or External? A truly effective leader has to have a strong Internal Frame. They wouldn’t be much of a leader if they spent all of their time asking people what they thought of something before they took any action. However, as part of their decision making process, it is still wise for them to check in with those for whom their decision has the most impact, so that they don’t make their decisions in a complete vacuum. And so it is important that there’s an ideal balance to be struck.

Remember, few people operate strictly at one extreme or the other. A truly effective leader has to be able to take in information effectively from the outside as well. When they don’t, their leadership may become isolated and ineffective….”

Once again, the information that Tony Robbins has shared with us here about Internal and External Frames of Reference as a part of the whole gamut of unconscious influence patterns that are available to us, is exactly what we at Precision Profiling specialize in. I wrote a case study in a previous blog demonstrating how important it is to understand someone’s Frame of Reference, especially if the context of their role changes. Here is the link to that original blog post FYI. One Size Does Not Fit All

If you would like to know more about the science of Motivational Mapping of you and your people drop me an email at brian@precisionprofiling.com.au

Until next time… Let’s seek to understand more and judge less. Have a great week – Brian

Precision Profiling – What Makes You Tick? Through ‘Motivational Fingerprinting’ we uncover what you do, how you do it and why you do it, and most importantly, the hidden patterns that lead to your success, and that of your staff.

Today I would like to share with you some insights from Anthony (Tony) Robbins, a world renowned master of modelling excellence and designing strategies for success.

For over 30 years, Tony Robbins has dedicated his life to modelling the most successful people in the world. Through access to their experience, he has discovered and simplified the core distinctions and strategies that can be applied immediately to measurably improve the quality of one’s life. If you have heard of Tony Robbins or better still, had the wonderful experience of witnessing him in action first hand you will no doubt love what he has to share with us here. If you have never heard of him, I invite you to check out his blog pages www.training.tonyrobbins.com or his website www.tonyrobbins.com .

But for now, sit back and enjoy what Tony Robbins has to say about influencing with integrity at the unconscious levels…

….”The factors involved in convincing someone, has two parts to the strategy. To figure out what effectively convinces someone, you must first find out what sensory building blocks he or she needs in order to become convinced, and then you must discover how often that person has to receive these stimuli before becoming convinced.

PART ONE:

How do you know when someone else is good at a job?

• See them or watch them do it (Convinced by Seeing)
• Hear about how good they are (Convinced by Hearing)
• Do it with them (Convinced by Doing)
• Read about their ability (Convinced by Reading)

The answer may be one or a combination of these. For example, you may believe someone is good at their work when you see him or her do a good job, in combination with other people telling you he or she is good.

PART TWO:

How often does someone have to demonstrate that they are good before you are convinced?

• Immediately (Convinced Automatically)
• A Number of Times (Convinced by a Number of Examples)
• Over a Period of Time (Convinced After a Period of Time)
• Every Time (Convinced Consistently)

With some people, if you can prove your ability once, you have proved it forever. With others, you have to prove it every time.

If you are the head of an organisation, one of the most valuable states you can achieve with your key workers is trust and rapport. If they know you care about them, they’ll work harder and better for you. If they don’t trust you, then chances are they won’t deliver for you.

Part of establishing trust is being attentive to the different needs of different people. Some people will establish a relationship and maintain it. If they know that you play fair and that you care about them, you can establish a bond that will last until you do something to betray that trust.

This doesn’t work for everyone. Some employees need more than that, whether it’s a kind word (Convinced by Hearing), an approving memo (Convinced by Reading), a show of public support (Convinced by Seeing), or an important task to perform (Convinced by Doing). They may be just as loyal and just as talented, but they need more verification from you than other people do. They need more proof that the bond between them and you still holds.

Any good salesperson knows customers that he/she only had to sell to once and they were customers for life (Convinced Automatically). Other customers may have needed to see or experience the product or service two or three times before they decided to buy, or to have had two or three demonstrations before they were fully convinced (Convinced by a Number of Examples); while for others, maybe six months of trialling or checking needed to pass before they were ready to fully commit (Convinced After a Period of Time). Then there is the sales person’s ‘favourite!’ The customer who has used your product or service for years and years, and every time you re-visit them, they want to know again why they should use it. They have to be convinced every time (Convinced Consistently).

The same process plays out with even greater intensity in personal relationships. Some people require constant conviction, while others need few reminders. The value in ‘metaprograms’ (patterns of unconscious motivation), is that they provide you with the game plan to understand each other, and in turn understand how to effectively influence or convince someone of your product/service, performance or relationship”…

The information that Tony Robbins has shared with us here about unconscious patterns of motivation, or metaprograms, is exactly what we at Precision Profiling specialise in. I wrote a case study in a previous blog demonstrating the mistakes that can be made if company leaders are ignorant of these various Convincer Strategies. Here is the link to that original blog FYI. It’s Not What You Say But How You Say It!

If you would like to know more about the science of ‘Motivational Mapping’ of you and your people (including external or internal candidates for a position), drop me an email at brian@precisionprofiling.com.au

Until then… Let’s seek to understand more and judge less. Have a great week – Brian

Precision Profiling – What Makes You Tick? Through ‘Motivational Fingerprinting’ we uncover what you do, how you do it and why you do it, and most importantly, the hidden patterns that lead to your success, and that of your staff.

If your business involves public contact at the pointy end of the transaction then the front line staff you select and train should be the key to your success. The problem is that often the front line staff are the youngest and least experienced due to their role being seen as an ‘entry level’ one and therefore not treated with the right focus and training they deserve. As an employer, this approach to hiring can potentially lead to disastrous consequences for your business. Here’s what could happen if you don’t actively select and develop the right front line staff. It happened just last week so it’s still fresh in the minds of all of those public who witnessed it, including myself.

It was a pleasant sunny Saturday of around 27 degrees, and after two days of hellishly hot 40 degree days, a trip to one of our Melbourne outdoor fun parks which had picnic facilities, children’s rides and water slides was the perfect destination for a day out with the family. Naturally this thought was shared by many hundreds of other families just like ours, so this fun park was facing a bumper day of expectant customers and ringing cash registers at the entrances. I am sure that the management and their young front line staff were very mindful of moving the long lines of families through their ticket windows as quickly as possible to keep the tills ticking over as the public streamed into the facility, eager to capture their perfect spot close to a barbecue facility or a shady picnic area.

This is one of those parks where the height of a child determines the level of entry fee that is charged and to support this policy, the entry windows have a painted ruler on the adjoining wall to help staff to determine whether a child incurs an adult fee, a child’s fee or no charge. This helps to avoid the issue of staff having to assess whether a child is actually under the cut-off age that a parent says they are, given that the criteria for the fee charged is the number of rides they are tall enough to enjoy.

This all seems fairly logical and for the most part, it’s a policy that is presumably easy for front line staff to follow and to administer, except when discretion and common sense are required. Unfortunately for young, inexperienced front line staff, discretion and common sense only come with maturity… or proper induction training by their employer from the moment they join the organisation.

So here is what happened just last Saturday. I am sure you would agree with me that it was a potential PR disaster just waiting to happen.

As I said, the lines of eager families waiting to enter the fun park just after 10 am were long. Waiting their turn among the long lines standing in the sun were a mother and father with a six year old child in a wheelchair who has cerebral palsy. This child is unable to stand unaided, only crawl. Naturally the number of rides he would be able to enjoy are limited. Still, he was excited about the big day out. His father tells me he had been waiting in anticipation for weeks, because this would be his first ever visit to a fun park.

When the family reached the entry window, the father explained to the girl there that his son would not be able to enjoy too many rides. To his complete surprise the young lady at the window looked at the boy and then asked the father to ask the boy to get out of his chair so that he could be measured. Although he was surprised at this request, the father kept his cool. Rather than judge the girl at the window as being either incompetent or unfeeling, he took the time to explain that his little boy could not stand because he had cerebral palsy.

You can imagine the father’s shock and dismay when the girl insisted that he had to do this because “that’s the policy.” So in front of the long lines of families behind them, the father had to lift up his son under his arms and hold him up against the wall like a criminal while the girl at the window checked his height. To add insult to injury, she then charged the adult fee for the six year old boy because he just happened to be a fraction over the cut-off height for children.

Can you imagine the embarrassment and humiliation that this innocent little boy and his parents faced in front of all the other families? He is starting school this year with the support of a teacher’s aid in the classroom. Unfortunately at the tender age of six, he is now old enough to endure his first experience of discrimination, at the hands of a young, inexperienced front line staff member totally ignorant of her role’s wider responsibility. The father told me he was just too flabbergasted and embarrassed to cause a stir at the time, even though in hindsight he was angry and disgusted at their treatment and the rest of their day was spoiled by this “first impression” to what is a wonderful park designed and managed for the benefit of young children and their parents.

I would have named this fun park in this blog, but to be fair to the management, when I rang them on behalf of the family they were shocked to hear what had happened, and have offered to make a personal apology to the father along with a complimentary family pass for another day at the park in the future. I do not know whether the aggrieved family will take up their offer such is their level of disillusionment with their treatment, but it begs the question about the potential PR disaster this could have created for the fun park.

First there is the spectacle being created for those families in the line witnessing this scenario first hand. Then there are all of the people who will hear about it from the aggrieved parents and their friends. Then there is the naming and shaming that could have potentially resulted on talk back radio, followed by other print and TV media outlets picking up the story. And now we have Facebook and Twitter as an ideal vehicle for this sort of negative publicity. If it was in the USA, it would probably have been all over the news followed by a law suit for damages no doubt.

Yes, I believe that this fun park management don’t know how lucky they are that none of the above negative PR has hit the airwaves, but what I do know is this. The hiring of entry level staff is a PR disaster waiting to happen if they are not properly selected, inducted and trained to be more aware and compassionate individuals in their roles, rather than mere transaction takers lacking in any common sense who hide behind ‘policy.’ Their education should start when they leave school not end! And while I think of it, there is much to be said for having an older and wiser ‘head’ around these kids while they are still learning the ropes.

We now have the tools and methodology to test for the right attitude and motivation needed for even these front line roles, if employers are willing to see entry level staffing as an investment in their business and not a cost to be reduced to the lowest common denominator.

Have you ever witnessed any similar examples of completely inappropriate behaviour by front line staff? If so I would love to hear about it from you.

Until next time… Let’s seek to understand more and judge less. Have a great week – Brian

Precision Profiling – What Makes You Tick? Through ‘Motivational Fingerprinting’ we uncover what you do, how you do it and why you do it, and most importantly, the hidden patterns that lead to your success, and that of your staff.