Mike Lehr's Blog

Anytime we describe or comment on someone’s personality, we are doing an assessment. Yes, it might not qualify as a formal psychological assessment, but it can still help us. More than likely, we are interpreting people’s responses to certain events to arrive at this assessment. This is very similar to projective personality assessments (also known as “free response” assessments). The most famous one is the Rorschach (inkblots).

In reality, people’s actions, decisions and words tell us something about them. For instance, the music, movies, books, clothes, cars and food they like give us insights. The challenge is figuring out what they tell us. Moreover, just because two people like the same book doesn’t mean they have similar personalities. The key question is, “Why do they like it?” Their answers are the clues.

When they answer, we listen by pretending they are now describing themselves. Many times the attributes we like, we will tend to like in other people and things. Conversely, the ones we don’t like, we will tend to not like.

For example, someone who says she liked the book because it was well organized is very likely to like organization in people and other facets of her world. If another says he liked the book because it made him think differently, he is very likely to like thought-provoking people and ideas. Usually, people’s first response is the most telling.

It’s important though that we continue to question and listen to see if we get other responses that tend to support our initial observation. Maybe something else besides personality drove the response such as education, upbringing or rules. That’s why I like doing this with everyday discussions because they tend to be less encumbered by other factors.

Other links:

Projective Test Definition (About.com)

Projective Personality Test (PsychCentral)

Projective Versus Objective Personality Tests (Yahoo! Contributor Network)

Psychological Testing (Wikipedia)

Many things are obvious to us consciously but our actions often betray us. Initiating change among employees is one of those things. We might consciously know that people aren’t light switches but we often expect change as though they were. How often do we say to our bosses, “Yes, I told them about the new way,” in response to pressure as to why employees didn’t adopt a change? Such a response indicates we are expecting people to be light switches.

Switch (FIG #1)

Tomato Plants (FIG #2)

—–

Look at Figures 1 and 2. Which is more analogous to employees, the light switch or the tomato plants? If we select the plants, can we fully expect them to grow with only one watering or feeding? If we view them as light switches, then yes, we could. Flipping them to “on” has them adopt the changes we want and flip them to “off” has them stop the old habits.

As you can see, my wife is growing these tomato plants by having them grow within a circular, vertical wire frame. This allows them to grow taller so more vines can bear tomatoes. Yes, sometimes the vines extend out of the frame, so she works them back in to encourage them upward. She just didn’t plop down the frame and then expect them to follow it.

The same holds true for people. They require follow up and regularly observation. It usually takes at least five enforcements of the change over a couple months before the change becomes the new habit. Even then, depending upon the change, a periodic refreshing of it is needed. That is why as managers our follow up is more important than what we’ve said.

A CEO of a 150-employee services company made this astute observation: processes reduce the need for top talent, and thus, reduce labor costs. This company requires highly talented professionals to deliver its services. Historically, management allowed them to work without defined processes because the employees knew what to do. However, as the company grew, finding such talent became harder and more expensive.

Processes become the path to training and developing in-house talent. They are analogous to painting by numbers or following recipes in cooking; they improve the output produced by individuals who don’t have a grasp on the entire work. However, just as we wouldn’t confuse painting by numbers with being an artist and following a recipe with being a chef, we shouldn’t confuse executing the steps of a process with being talented. Processes allow the breakdown of a task without necessarily needing to understand the task itself. It’s like following a series of directions; you don’t need to know your destination.

Since an employee doesn’t need to understand the whole task to follow a process, he does not need the talent that that understanding requires. Essentially, the process is making the decisions for him as embodied by its rules and procedures. As a result, the company does not have to pay a premium for that talent.