1. As a job candidate, would you prefer your CV be reviewed by a machine or a human? Why?

2. As a job candidate, would you prefer to be interviewed by a robot or a human? Why?

I received a total of 20 responses.

And here are the results:

About half (50%) of the respondents preferred HUMANS for both questions.

 

About 25% preferred Machines to review their CVs but Humans to interview them.

 

5% preferred Machines for both.

 

The rest (20%) seemed non-committal (or their answers were not quite intelligible).

From the results of this straw poll, it seems most people still prefer to deal with Humans and not Robots.

I was actually hoping for more HR Professionals to respond and give their views, however only 3 out of the 20 who responded were from HR / Recruitment.

And the reason why I was hoping for more responses from the HR community is to understand what they themselves would prefer as candidates – by virtue of the fact that they are employees means they would be candidates too.

So I wanted to get a feel of what their own preferences were as candidates when they are looking for a job – would they want their own CVs to be reviewed and filtered by Robots or would they prefer Humans to review their CVs.

But what is clear from this Straw Poll is that most of us still want to deal and interact with real people.
And this is not at all surprising to me because we humans are basically social creatures.

We were built this way.

We need and sometimes crave social interactions – simply because we as homo-sapiens require that basic emotional connection with the parties we come into contact with.

Some of the respondents commented that they preferred Robots to review their CVs so as to eliminate bias.

But here’s my question:

How can you be sure Robots are not biased?

Robots run on algorithms.
Algorithms are programmed by people.
And you can be sure those programmers / algorithm developers have their own unconscious biases too.

And here’s the danger:

Most of us using these systems (aka Applicant Tracking Systems or ATS) do not question the validity of these algorithms. We take them as Gospel truths. We assume the algorithms and the filters these Robots apply in sieving out the CVs are not flawed and that they are correct.

So how sure are you the Robots are not biased?

(just think about the frequency and the number of patches and updates are required just for your PC to stay updated. If these systems are flawless, then they don’t need to be patched and/or updated at all)

Now don’t get me wrong.
I’m not against technology.
I’m all for it.

What I’m trying to point out here is that we need to be more discerning and more circumspect when we decide to rely wholly on technology to perform tasks where the algorithms have not yet been perfected – such as reviewing CVs and conducting job interviews.

Because if the algorithm is not perfect, and we automate it, all it means is that we commit to making the mistakes faster!

What do you think?
What’s your take on this?

About the Author

Steven Lock is the Founder of FutureTHINK! Training & Consultancy LLP. He is an Author, Facilitator, Consultant and a Coach. Steven brings with him 20 years of corporate experience.

Steven is passionate about helping organisations transform their teams into high performing teams. He does that by first helping organisations identify and hire the right people, and then training their leaders and managers on how to manage and lead their people to achieve peak performance consistently.

Steven is the developer of The CAAP® High Performance Model. The model focuses on Culture (cultural fit), Attitude, Aptitude and Personality dimensions of their employees and job candidates. It is a highly practical, effective and proven approach.

Steven believes that for organizations to be truly successful and perform at their highest levels, they need to shift their mind-sets to having the RIGHT people on-board – and not necessarily the best or the brightest.

Steven is the author of two books:

• “Hiring for Performance: The CAAP® Model to Hiring and Building High-Performance Teams.”
• “The Right Talent: The Agility-Focused Interviewing Approach to Hiring the Right Candidate Every Time.”

He is the developer of The Leadership STYLE Report that is based on Dr. Daniel Goleman’s research on leadership styles.

Steven has been interviewed twice on MediaCorp’s live radio show The Breakfast Club on 938FM, and has contributed numerous articles to Singapore Business Review, ST Recruit, SHRI Human Capital, LinkedIn and other publications.

His comment on Team Collaboration has been quoted in the Harvard Business Review OnPoint Magazine.

Steven is certified in MBTI® (Step I & II) & DiSC® Personality instruments.

Culture is also one of the things I always talk about in my workshops and talks.

The fact is, I too, sometimes struggle to fully explain what Culture really means.

Is it the collective behaviour of the people within the organisation?
Is it the values espoused by the people within?
Is it the artifacts you find in the organisation?

Recently I came across an article by Dr. Cameron Sepah, titled “Your Company’s Culture is Who You Hire, Fire, & Promote”.

And I was completely blown away by his article.

I couldn’t have described Culture better than he did in his article.

Here’s an extract of what he said in his article:

“Your company’s employees practice the behaviors that are valued, not the values you believe.”

Dr Sepah also sets out to talk about the “No Assholes” rule.

Read about what he has to say about these people in your company.
I’m confident you will find his article very enlightening.

Happy reading.

Click here for article

For the uninitiated, all able-bodied males in Singapore have to serve in the armed forces (The Army, Navy or the Police) for at least 2 years usually before they head-off to college or university.

As a senior instructor in the Army, I had the privilege of picking my co-trainers.

So I decided to approach one of the junior instructors to ask if he will join my team.

His answer was a firm “NO! You always pull rank!”

I was shocked.
I was hurt.
And I was confused.

What was wrong with using my rank to get things done?

But that was the TURNING POINT in my life.

After I joined the Corporate world, I set out to change my leadership style.

I read voraciously on leadership and motivation.

Bit by bit I put into practice what I learned on leadership and motivation.

One day I was asked to build up a regional team in Asia Pacific.

I switched from being COERCIVE and COMMANDING, to being AFFILIATIVE and DEMOCRATIC.

Eventually I built a regional team so cohesive that we achieved 0% attrition rate; hit almost 100% of all KPIs; and almost 100% engagement rate.

Over 10 straight years!

I don’t remember his name. But I still remember how he looks like.
And if I see him one day, I will thank him for making me who I am today.

So what kind of leader are you?

If you would like to find out how you can be a better leader, check this out: Leadership Styles Questionnaire

Some say you should include your photo in your Resume; but some say don’t.
Some say you should include your Race / Religion; but some say never.
Some say to include your age and date-of-birth; but some never ever do that.

Yes, it can get quite confusing reading all of the different advice from different people all over the world. All you need to do is Google on what you should include in your Resume and you get an endless list of references and advice from so-called consultants and Resume gurus.

So what should you really do?
Should you include your age, gender, race and/or photo?

Here’s the answer: It Depends.

It depends on where you are located.
It depends on the prevailing economic conditions in which you are sending out your Resume.
It depends on which organisation you’re applying to.

Inlcuding a photo of yourself in your Resume is not encouraged in the western countries such as the US or some parts of Europe – as they say that a photo encourages bias.

Age, race and religion are no-nos in most western countries and Europe.

However most of these practices are not frowned upon here in many parts of Asia.
Here in Asia, Resume are sent out complete with photos, age, race and religion. (Some of you readers from the western countries would probably cringe in horror reading this).

It also depends on the circumstances you find yourself in sending out your Resume.
How so, you may ask? Let me explain.

Although it is said that you should not include your age in your Resume, the current economic circumstances may just require you to do so. If you are a worker who has just been retrenched, and you are already in your forties, it would make sense to include your age when submitting your Resumes to prospective employers.

And here’s the reason why:

You’d rather state your age up-front and get rejected by age-sensitive / age-biased employers at the Resume stage, rather than having to go through an interview with them and then get rejected because of your age. You would have wasted all your effort and the trip down to the prospective employer’s office. And worst still, you get your hopes up and then you get cold water thrown in your face – all just because they don’t want to hire a more mature worker like you.

I would rather you include your age – and all related details – down on your Resume, and present all of these details to the prospective employer upfront. So if the prospective employer is not ready to hire a more mature worker, you save yourself a wasted trip.

Whether you like it or not, and whether you admit it or not, ageism still exists. Excluding your age in your Resume does not mean you’re immune to ageism. The same goes for race and religion.

So do you need to include your photo, age, race and religion in your Resume when you’re applying for a new job?

It depends.

Ask employees what they want improved.
Ask what excites them.
Ask how you can help them do better.

These are all great ways to motivate employees, help improve employee retention and get employees happy about working in your organisation.

These are also great questions if you want to come across as a caring boss and enlightened manager.

I’ve been seeing articles after articles advising managers to conduct “Stay Interviews” and change the way they do employee performance appraisals by asking questions.

These are not bad approaches I must say. It is always good to approach employee performance appraisals by asking more questions and listening to what the employees themselves have to say.

Stay Interviews are also a great approach to employee retention and motivation.

In fact, in our organisations today, managers don’t ask their staff enough questions. Questions when asked in the right way and at the right time could bring about tremendous benefits to both the staff and the manager. The right questions can also spark creativity and innovation, and also help the manager keep their feel on the pulse of the organisation at large.

In our organisations today, managers don’t ask their staff enough questions

But here’s one huge downside to asking questions that most people don’t realise.

If you’re not ready to take action on the feedback, comments and suggestions you receive from your staff and employees, and you are just asking questions for the sake of asking questions, then don’t even start!

If you’re just asking questions because the consultants and coaches say so, then don’t be surprised if the entire approach backfires on you.

The fastest way to breed cynicism and demotivate your employees is to ask them for their opinions, comments and feedback just to brush them aside and do nothing.

The fastest way to destroy credibility and trust is to ask your employees for their inputs and then sit on them and/or ignore them.

The fastest way to breed cynicism and demotivate your employees is to ask them for their opinions, comments and feedback just to brush them aside and do nothing.

The fastest way to destroy credibility and trust is to ask your employees for their inputs and then sit on them.

So if you decide to take the new approach of asking your employees more questions, then be prepared to take action to address their concerns and implement their suggestions.

Otherwise if you’re not even sincere about taking action, then don’t even start.

About Steven Lock

Steven Lock is the Founder of FutureTHINK! Training & Consultancy LLP. He is a Facilitator, Trainer, Author and a Leadership Coach. Steven brings with him 20 years of corporate experience.

Steven is passionate about helping organisations transform their teams into high performing teams. He does that by first helping organisations identify and hire the right people, and then training their leaders and managers on how to manage and lead their people to achieve peak performance consistently.

Steven is the developer of The CAAP® High Performance Model. The model focuses on Culture (cultural fit), Attitude, Aptitude and Personality dimensions of their employees and job candidates. It is a highly practical, effective and proven approach.

Steven believes that for organizations to be truly successful and perform at their highest levels, they need to shift their mind-sets to having the RIGHT people on-board – and not necessarily the best or the brightest.

Steven is the author of two books:

• “Hiring for Performance: The CAAP® Model to Hiring and Building High-Performance Teams.”
• “The Right Talent: The Agility-Focused Interviewing Approach to Hiring the Right Candidate Every Time.”

He is the developer of The Leadership STYLE Report that is based on Dr. Daniel Goleman’s research on leadership styles.

Steven has been interviewed twice on MediaCorp’s live radio show The Breakfast Club on 938FM, and has contributed numerous articles to Singapore Business Review, ST Recruit, SHRI Human Capital, LinkedIn and other publications.

His comment on Team Collaboration has been quoted in the Harvard Business Review OnPoint Magazine.

Steven is certified in MBTI® (Step I & II) & DiSC® Personality instruments.

If you are, then you know you have to really stretch your hiring dollar and ensure you hire the right people for your organisation. It’s clearly a buyer’s market these days.

As a hiring manager, there is a whole host of confusing advice out there about who you should be hiring and what you should not be hiring for.

there is a whole host of confusing advice out there about who you should be hiring and what you should not be hiring for

I’m sure you have heard some consultants and professional recruiters say that you should hire for Culture Fit. I’m sure you have also heard of calls to hire for Attitude (in fact there is an entire book written on why you should hire for attitude). Some have even said that you should just hire for Personality.

More recently some consulting professionals have come out to preach that you should look for people with potential. In other words, hire people with the Growth Mindset.

So who is right and who is wrong?

So who is right and who is wrong?

What exactly should you be hiring for?

Should you hire for Culture Fit? Or should you hire for Attitude?

What about hiring for Potential or Growth Mindset?

And why would you not hire for Personality?

What Would You Consider When Buying a New Home?

I’d like you to imagine with me for a moment.

You are contemplating buying a new home. What would you look for in your new home? What would you consider before putting down the deposit for your new home?

Would you consider the location?
What about the environment?
Accessibility to and from public transport?
Your new neighbours?
What about carpark facilities?
Would you also consider the growth potential of this new asset you’re about to purchase?
How about the built-in floor area and space?
The internal layout and built quality?

I bet that as a potential home buyer, you would probably consider most, if not all of the above! (and perhaps even more!)

Would you make your purchase decision simply based on just one of the above criteria – say, carpark facilities?

Hiring is like buying a new home

Hiring is just like buying a new home – an asset with the potential of future growth and appreciation in value. It is not a trivial matter that you base your decision to hire on just one criterion. For instance, you cannot simply base your hiring decision just on attitude alone. Similarly, you cannot base your hiring decision just on growth mindset alone.

Hiring is just like buying a new home – an asset with the potential of future growth and appreciation in value

In order to minimise your chances of hiring the wrong person, you will need to consider a combination of factors.

So what is the correct combination that will maximise your chances of hiring the right person for the job?

Here are four areas that I always consider when I hire someone.

This approach has worked wonders for me. It has helped me hire a regional team that achieved 0% attrition and almost 100% KPIs for 10 years straight.

This approach has worked wonders for me. It has helped me hire a regional team that achieved 0% attrition and almost 100% KPIs for 10 years straight

The secret to my success: The CAAP® Model

Culture
Culture refers to Cultural Fit. It is important to select a candidate who is able to fit in with the prevailing culture of the organization or team. Selecting a candidate with the incorrect cultural fit could potentially spell trouble for both the candidate and the organization or team.

Take for instance, the corporate culture at General Electric Co. (GE). GE is well-known for its intensely competitive culture. When Jack Welch was the CEO, he was known to have categorized the employees into three categories: the top 20%, the middle 70% and the bottom 10%. The bottom 10% is the result of a process known as “Forced Ranking”. The top 20% will be showered with praises and financial rewards. The middle 70% would be managed differently and given stretch goals. The bottom 10% will be purged from the organization. As a result of this practice of “bottom slicing”, it created an intensely competitive environment within GE.

Therefore for a new hire to be successful in this case, the candidate needs to be able to fit in and adapt to the highly competitive GE environment.

Attitude
In today’s highly competitive business landscape, candidates with the right cultural fit are no longer sufficient. The candidates should also possess the right work attitudes. For instance, a candidate with a positive attitude will not give up easily when faced with a challenge or a seemingly daunting task. Some examples of positive attitude include:

– Willingness to take on new challenges
– Willingness to take responsibility for things that go wrong
– Willingness to admit mistakes and learn from the mistakes
– Find ways to overcome obstacles

In contrast, bad attitude may include:

– Blaming others when things go wrong
– Criticising others behind their backs
– Self-centred
– Arrogant

Aptitude
Aptitude is the ability and capacity to learn. The aptitude to learn should not be confined to just learning new skills or knowledge. It includes the ability to connect with people; to establish strong relationships with co-workers and peers; and the ability to learn and function as a team.

People who possess the aptitude to learn are continually in a learning mode. They usually possess a high level of personal mastery. They are inquisitive and feel they are part of the team or organization.

Personality
Personality is important because it governs how a person behaves towards others and how the person reacts to others. It governs how a person works within a team, how he/she communicates with others, and how that person makes decisions and manages change.

Conclusion

So what am I saying? Am I saying that my approach is the right one for you?

If you thought so that way, you could not have been more wrong.

What I’m saying here is this: this CAAP(R) hiring approach has worked wonders for me. But it may not be suitable for you – because it all depends on your situation and your current organisational context. However you will not know if it will work for you until you give it a try.

If it works for you, great and continue using this approach for your hiring!
And I would love to hear from you why and how it has worked for you.

If it doesn’t work for you, then it simply means you have to continue looking for a formula that works for you – perhaps even tweaking the CAAP(R) model to suit your environment and context.

Whatever the outcome, the bottom-line is that in this age and time when the economy is so uncertain and the business landscape changing at break-neck speed; and when automation and robotics threaten to take away our jobs, you can’t afford to hire the wrong people for your organisation.

Finally, none of these will work for you if you’re not even clear about what you are looking for in your new hire in the first place.

If you would like to find out how you can apply the CAAP® hiring approach in your organisation to maximise your chances of hiring the right people, check out my book:

The Right Talent – The Agility-Focused Interviewing Approach to Hiring the Right Candidate Every Time.

Get your copy here: https://www.futurethink.com.sg/the-right-talent-book/

Or if you prefer the e-version, it is now available on Amazon Kindle and Kobo.

About the Author

Steven Lock is the Founder of FutureTHINK! Training & Consultancy LLP. He is a Trainer, Author and a Leadership Coach. Steven brings with him 20 years of corporate experience.

Steven is passionate about helping organisations transform their teams into high performing teams. He does that by first helping organisations identify and hire the right people, and then training their leaders and managers on how to manage and lead their people to achieve peak performance consistently.

Steven is the developer of The CAAP® High Performance Model. The model focuses on Culture (cultural fit), Attitude, Aptitude and Personality dimensions of their employees and job candidates. It is a highly practical, effective and proven approach.

Steven believes that for organizations to be truly successful and perform at their highest levels, they need to shift their mind-sets to having the RIGHT people on-board – and not necessarily the best or the brightest.

Steven is the author of two books:

• “Hiring for Performance: The CAAP® Model to Hiring and Building High-Performance Teams.”
• “The Right Talent: The Agility-Focused Interviewing Approach to Hiring the Right Candidate Every Time.”

He is the developer of The Leadership STYLE Report that is based on Dr. Daniel Goleman’s research on leadership styles.

Steven has been interviewed twice on MediaCorp’s live radio show The Breakfast Club on 938FM, and has contributed numerous articles to Singapore Business Review, ST Recruit, SHRI Human Capital, LinkedIn and other publications.

His comment on Team Collaboration has been quoted in the Harvard Business Review OnPoint Magazine.

Steven is certified in MBTI® (Step I & II) & DiSC® Personality instruments.

Over the last decade, this company has grown by leaps and bounds and have established bases as far as the United States of America. Its entity here in Singapore is a small but rapidly growing one, and it has plans to grow and expand here in South East Asia over the next several months.

As part of its aggressive plans for expansion here in S.E.A, the Managing Director of the Singapore office realised that it was important for them to build and establish a strong culture here in Singapore and within the South East Asian region, that includes offices in Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia.

When I met with the M.D. to discuss the details of the workshop, he made it clear that he wanted to the leaders in this region to be effective leaders leading the growth of the organisation over the next several months.

Different Strokes for Different Folks

So based on the information gathered from the M.D. during the meeting, I decided to discuss Leadership Styles with the leadership team for the workshop. As this is a growing team, the leaders needed to understand how their leadership styles would affect the organisation at different stages of organisational growth and maturity.

We all know that we can’t use the same leadership style for all people in different circumstances. But the challenge is that most of us are not aware of which styles we use most often and how to switch between styles in different situations and when dealing with different people.

The Power of the Team View

So the workshop focused on the six leadership styles by Dr. Daniel Goleman but we discussed only the Consolidated Group Style Report as shown in the picture above.

From this report, it is very obvious which style the leadership team tend to gravitate towards. For those who are familiar with the six leadership styles, the Democratic Style has a strong correlation to positive performance. However, we all know that too much of a good thing can be bad. And it is no difference in this case.

A leadership team that is too democratic tends to breed mediocrity in the long-term. The team will most likely end up in endless meetings and discussions. Coming to concrete decisions may be an extremely long drawn-out process.

And herein lies the power of the consolidated leadership styles report.

The report avoids highlighting the individual styles of each individual, but instead highlights the leadership style of the entire leadership team.

I have conducted this same exercise for different leadership teams and the conclusion is always the same – the leadership team knew exactly why they have been ineffective just by looking at this chart, and instantly knew what they needed to do in order to be more effective going forward.

What about YOUR leadership team?

Do you feel that your leadership team is ineffective in leading your organisation, but don’t know exactly where the problem is?

Do you feel that your leadership team can do better leading your organisation, but don’t know how to go about improving?

If the above questions resonate with you, then the Leadership Style Questionnaire is just the tool for you. It will show you exactly why your team is ineffective and what you should do to improve.

Discover your own Leadership Styles here

Author Bio

Steven Lock is the Founder of FutureTHINK! Training & Consultancy LLP. He is a Trainer, Author and a Leadership Coach. Steven brings with him 20 years of corporate experience.

Steven is passionate about helping organisations transform their teams into high performing teams. He does that by first helping organisations identify and hire the right people, and then training their leaders and managers on how to manage and lead their people to achieve peak performance consistently.

Steven is the developer of The CAAP® High Performance Model. The model focuses on Culture (cultural fit), Attitude, Aptitude and Personality dimensions of their employees and job candidates. It is a highly practical, effective and proven approach.

Steven believes that for organizations to be truly successful and perform at their highest levels, they need to shift their mind-sets to having the RIGHT people on-board – and not necessarily the best or the brightest.

Steven is the author of two books:

• “Hiring for Performance: The CAAP® Model to Hiring and Building High-Performance Teams.”
• “The Right Talent: The Agility-Focused Interviewing Approach to Hiring the Right Candidate Every Time.”

He is the developer of The Leadership STYLE Report that is based on Dr. Daniel Goleman’s research on leadership styles.

Steven has been interviewed twice on MediaCorp’s live radio show The Breakfast Club on 938FM, and has contributed numerous articles to Singapore Business Review, ST Recruit, SHRI Human Capital, LinkedIn and other publications.

His comment on Team Collaboration has been quoted in the Harvard Business Review OnPoint Magazine.

Steven is certified in MBTI® (Step I & II) & DiSC® Personality instruments.

As this was my first time to Vietnam, I was initially a little apprehensive about how things would turn out. But to my pleasant surprise, the entire event went extremely well. It was very well planned and organised. The entire event, including the various break-out sessions were all very well executed. It was a grand event.

My session on The CAAP® Model to Hiring and Building High Performance Teams was the second last session of the day, and I was concerned that by the time it got to my speaking slot, the audience would have been zonked out after hearing so many speakers speak before me.

But I was wrong.

The audience remained ever-attentive. And they were so eager to hear what I had to say.

After the entire event was over, I realised the real learners weren’t the audience that day — I was. And here are 3 things I learnt at the HR Summit in Ho Chi Minh City that day:

After the entire event was over, I realised the real learners weren’t the audience that day — I was

1. They are very well-read.

As a guest speaker for the event, I had the privilege to join in their break-out sessions. These break-out sessions were led by many established and senior executives from various organisations in Vietnam.

The moderators and presenters were from MNCs such as HSBC Bank, AkzolNobel, Uber and Intel. One of the presenters focused on advanced management concepts particularly from Stephen Covey – the author of The 7 Habits of Effective People.

I was totally amazed at the depth of knowledge of some of these presenters. The depth of knowledge and understanding of the various management models truly surprised me. They were clearly very well-read and they understood many of the management concepts that would put many of us to shame.

I was totally amazed at the depth of knowledge of some of these presenters.

2. They are hungry for new knowledge and skills.

Even though the average Singaporean worker is 15 times more productive than an average Vietnamese worker, I could sense that they are on an accelerated trajectory. These people were HUNGRY for new knowledge and skills. These people, given sufficient time, will catch-up with Singapore and other nations here in ASEAN. And with the TPP in place, Vietnam’s overall economic outlook is set for an explosive growth.

These people were HUNGRY for new knowledge and skills. These people, given sufficient time, will catch-up with Singapore and the other nations here in ASEAN.

3. It is a matter of time before they catch-up with us.

With Vietnam on an accelerated economic trajectory, it is only a matter of time before the typical Vietnamese worker catches up with the Singaporean worker.

I worry that Singaporeans have become very much complacent. Many I have encountered seem to have an arrogant streak in them. Many think they are very well educated and therefore already know whatever there is to know.

The bad news is, arrogance and complacency, will only lead to stagnation. And while Singaporeans stagnate, the other nations and economies around us continue to surge forward. The closing of the gap may not be obvious at this time because Singapore is still very much ahead in terms of growth and productivity. However given sufficient time, this gap will close.

As the saying goes, “Time and tide waits for no man”. And it is a matter of time before their economic trajectory intersects with ours and we’ll find ourselves on an even keel with these fast growing economies.

arrogance and complacency, will only lead to stagnation… it is a matter of time before their economic trajectory intersects with ours…

Author Bio
Steven Lock is the Founder of FutureTHINK! Training & Consultancy LLP. He is a Trainer, Author and a Leadership Coach. Steven brings with him 20 years of corporate experience.

Steven is passionate about helping organisations transform their teams into high performing teams. He does that by first helping organisations identify and hire the right people, and then training their leaders and managers on how to manage and lead their people to achieve peak performance consistently.

Steven is the developer of The CAAP® High Performance Model. The model focuses on Culture (cultural fit), Attitude, Aptitude and Personality dimensions of their employees and job candidates. It is a highly practical, effective and proven approach.

Steven believes that for organizations to be truly successful and perform at their highest levels, they need to shift their mind-sets to having the RIGHT people on-board – and not necessarily the best or the brightest.

Steven is the author of two books:

• “Hiring for Performance: The CAAP® Model to Hiring and Building High-Performance Teams.”
• “The Right Talent: The Agility-Focused Interviewing Approach to Hiring the Right Candidate Every Time.”

He is the developer of The Leadership STYLE Report that is based on Dr. Daniel Goleman’s research on leadership styles.

Steven has been interviewed twice on MediaCorp’s live radio show The Breakfast Club on 938FM, and has contributed numerous articles to Singapore Business Review, ST Recruit, SHRI Human Capital, LinkedIn and other publications.

His comment on Team Collaboration has been quoted in the Harvard Business Review OnPoint Magazine.

Steven is certified in MBTI® (Step I & II) & DiSC® Personality instruments.

Education and/or Experience

Diploma/ Bachelor’s degree (B.S.) from an accredited University in Computer Science, Information Technology, Networking or similar field. Minimum 4 years of related experience.

Technical Skills – Individual should have experience in/working knowledge of

• TCP/IP internetworking, general routing, layer-2 protocols, multicast and LAN architecture
• Routing protocols
• (MPLS) WAN

Job Description

• 3-15 years of experience in Networking
Responsibilities:-
• Extensive experience in MPLS WAN
• Experience in non-cisco products such as (Bluecoat, Checkpoint, F5, Fortigate, Riverbed).
• Experienced in driving a team in maintaining service levels, problem resolution and escalations.
• Reporting network operational status by gathering, prioritizing information; managing projects.
• Basic knowledge of provisioning, implementation, and documentation of complex network and platform configurations.
• Install, configure and maintain leading router and switching protocols including but not limited to SNMP, SIP, RTP, Netflow, BGP, OSPF, QoS, MPLS, HSRP and EIGRP.
Certifications like CCNA/CCNP/CCIE Preferred

Can you tell what’s wrong with this Job Description?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Here’s a hint: It’s inconsistent.

What is it you really want?

First, take a look at the number of years of experience required: 3 to 15 years of extensive experience in Networking.

I’m imagining myself as the job applicant who is interested in this position. Some of the questions that I would have running through my head are:

• Exactly what kind of network engineer are they looking for?
• Is there no difference between one who has 3 years experience and one who has 15 years experience?
• Can someone with 3 years experience be considered having extensive experience?
• If I have 15 years related working experience, why would I apply for a job that would be willing to consider a person with only 3 years experience? What gives?

As far as I know in the IT industry, there is a HUGE difference between someone with 3 years of working experience and one with 15 years extensive experience.

Second, in the education/experience section, it states “Minimum 4 years of related experience”. However in the Job description section, it asks for 3 to 15 years of experience.

So what is it they are really looking for?

Job descriptions like these are unfortunately all too common. It goes to show that the person writing this JD doesn’t quite know what they really want. It is almost like “I’ll caste the net wide and hope for the best” mentality. It also reeks of a “cut and paste” approach to writing Job Descriptions.

What You Should Do Instead

1. Be absolutely clear how many years of working experience you want. If you can’t be specific, then a narrower range would do. For instance, 3-5 years experience required; or 10-15 years experience required. You need to be focused so as to attract / invite only those who qualify to apply for the position.

2. Ensure your requirements are consistent throughout. In the JD above, 4 years of working experience and 3-15 years experience are not the same. The lack of clarity will serve to confuse job applicants.

3. Many of the requirements listed under Responsibilities can actually be consolidated under Technical Skills and Experience.

For instance, knowledge of Bluecoat, Checkpoint, F5, TCP/IP, SNMP, SIP, RTP, Netflow, BGP, OSPF, QoS, MPLS, HSRP and EIGRP, etc are all Technical Skills, knowledge and Experience. These are not responsibilities.

Responsibilities would include:

o Experienced in driving a team in maintaining service levels, problem resolution and escalations.
o Reporting network operational status by gathering, prioritizing information; managing projects.

The Lack of Clarity

The clearer you are about what is needed for that position to be successful, the more precise and concise you will be with your job description and the job advertisement.

So is it any wonder many recruiters and hiring managers lament the lack of suitable candidates?

To find out more on how you can become a more effective recruiter/hiring manager, please click here.

Our conventional wisdom about teams are about to change radically because everything we previously knew, or thought we knew, about team work have all been quite incomplete.

What would you say makes a cohesive, effective and high performing team?

I’m sure most of us would start to think about the following:

– Clearly defined goals
– Strong, charismatic leader
– Competent team members
– Personality types
– Skills
– Educational background

But are these the be-all and end-all for a high performing team?

Project Aristotle

In 2012, Google embarked on an initiative – code-named Aristotle – to study hundreds of Google’s teams and figure out why some teams stumbled while others soared.

As we all know, Google loves data. And that is exactly what they did. They combed through half a century of academic studies on how teams worked. They also studied 180 different teams within Google and collected a huge amount of data. Amongst some of the data they collected include insights into the following questions:

– Did team mates socialise outside of office hours?
– Were the best teams made up of people with the same interests?
– Did they have the same hobbies?
– Were they of similar educational backgrounds?
– Was it better for all teammates to be outgoing or for all of them to be shy?

They also wanted to know why teams stuck together and if gender balance had any influence on the success of a team.

But no matter how they arranged the data, they were not able to identify any useful patterns that would indicate why a team did really well.

However in their research, they kept coming across research by psychologists and sociologists that focused on “Group Norms”. Norms are the traditions, behavioural standards, and unwritten rules that govern how we function when we gather. One team may be comfortable with being more confrontational. While others may be comfortable with giving every team member equal airtime for them to voice their comments, concerns and feedback.

Group Norms

After studying over a 100 groups for over a year, Project Aristotle’s researchers concluded that understanding and influencing group norms were the keys to improving Google’s teams.

Group norms include unwritten rules about how each team member should behave and how each team member disagreed with one another. Some groups may be comfortable with a more confrontational style while others may thrive on a more civilised and polite way of disagreeing with another team member.

This is sometimes known as Team Culture. It is the way each member on the team interacts with each other, and how each member treats other members on the team. At this juncture, I would like to point out that there is a difference between Organisational Culture and Team Culture.

Organisational Culture refers to the over-arching culture within the organisation at large. Team Culture refers to the team norms and culture within the team (or function or department).

Psychological Safety

As the researchers continued their studies, they noticed TWO behaviours that all good teams had in common.

1. Equality in distribution of conversational turn-taking

First, is the “equality in distribution of conversational turn-taking”. This gobbledygook simply means whether each team member is given more or less equal airtime to talk and voice their opinions. They found that as long as everyone got a chance to talk, the team did well.

2. High average social sensitivity

Second, all good teams had high “average social sensitivity”. What this simply means is that team members were skilled at intuiting how others felt based on their tone of voice, their expressions and other non-verbal cues. Research shows that the more successful teams seemed to know when someone was feeling upset or left out.

Psychologists sometimes call these two behaviours “psychological safety”. Harvard Business School professor, Amy Edmondson, defines psychological safety as “shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking.”

In other words, it is a sense of confidence that the team will not embarrass, reject or punish someone for speaking up. Such a climate is underscored by a strong sense of interpersonal trust and mutual respect, and this in turn, encourages everyone on the team to be themselves.

Were there other important behaviours or norms that would encourage good teamwork? The answer is yes. Things like setting clear goals and creating a culture of dependability were important.

However Google’s study indicated that psychological safety, more than anything else, was critical to making a team work.

Workplace FEAR

Clearly, the primary reason for under-performance in teams everywhere is this thing called FEAR.

All you have to do is look around you in your office. Are people comfortable speaking up in-front of the boss? Do most people keep quiet during meetings when the big boss is present? Is the office generally very quiet all day, with very few people talking and interacting – because they are afraid of who might hear what they are saying? And when you conduct team meetings, and you invite feedback, suggestions and comments, do most of your team members say they have no comments and just keep quiet?

Well, these may be signs and symptoms that FEAR has a strangle-hold on your team.

And this directly contributes to sub-par team performance.

Conclusion

If you want your teams to reach their full potential, you need to foster a High Trust–Low Fear environment because people communicate and perform best when they feel safe and trusted around their leaders. Create a “psychologically safe” environment for everyone on the team.

It is only with a psychologically safe environment that you can foster the meeting of minds, incubate great ideas, and establish a crucible of performance excellence.