March 15, 2016
The Assessment is The Holy Grail.
If an individual has a personality profile that is aligned with the demands of the position, they will be successful in that role. (Not necessarily. This ignores one’s Job Skills & Job Knowledge. These are critical factors that many assessments do not measure.)
Assessments can’t be used in the Hiring & Selection process because they don’t hold up in court.
(Not true. The use of Personality Assessments in the hiring process was upheld by U.S. Supreme Court in Griggs versus Duke Power. This is provided that the instrument being used was professionally developed and is supported by credible taxonomy and validity studies.)
All Personality Assessments are alike.
(There are thousands of personality assessment tools on the market these days. Many of them are not founded in science, but rather were created solely on face validity. The OAD Survey was born out of unparalleled taxonomy and validity and has been continually refined over 25 years.)
It is easy to manipulate the scores.
The OAD Survey uses what is called a free-choice technique meaning a person can check a word or not, and is not forced to pick one word from a limited series or group of words. Forced-choice assessments or limiting an individual’s ability to choose can actually skew the results in a way that a free-choice format does not.
Assessments put people in a box and limit their careers.
The survey information provides a tremendous understanding of an individual’s potential for other work duties which could actually expand and enhance an individual’s career along with making them much more valuable to the organization.
How you feel (mood) can impact the assessment results.
The OAD Survey was correlated against the Cattell 16PF, a highly regarded and well researched personality inventory. A construct validity study was conducted on the OAD survey using a statistical technique called factor analysis. The OAD validity coefficients are published on our website.
Personality Assessments result in discrimination.
The OAD underwent 4 years of research prior to its introduction to the marketplace to insure there was no evidence of inherent discrimination in the instrument. Michael Gray, the creator of the OAD Instrument, went to great lengths to insure that the test groups were comprised of a representative sample of the population. Based on the data collected, there was no evidence of either racial or gender bias.
Assessments require too much time to administer.
The OAD Survey takes approximately 10 minutes to complete and is automatically scored and stored in a client web account. The open-ended, free-choice format along with the brevity of the OAD Survey contributes to its accuracy.
Assessments cannot predict job performance.
Assessments can be a huge predictor of job success but should not be the only factor considered. An individual’s personality, training and credentials coupled with a thorough interview process all contribute to predict the best results.
Experience is a better predictor of job performance than personality.
Personality determines an individual’s predisposition to act in a certain way which determines work style; how they approach, organize, and execute their work duties. In many cases this is the determining factor of success regardless of experience. Many people are hired for what they know and then are let go because of how they go about executing their duties.
Mergers & Acquisitions – The Criticality of the Human Element
The sobering fact is that the vast majority (70% by most estimates) of all business mergers and acquisitions fail. On the surface, these unions look to be so ripe with synergies that the transaction appears to be the proverbial “no-brainer”. Countless studies examining hundreds of company mergers across all industries have shown that most mergers fail to achieve their anticipated value. The bad news doesn’t stop there. A Harvard Management Update recently reported that “Most mergers fail to add shareholder value-indeed, post-merger, two-thirds of the newly formed companies perform well below the industry average.”
Why is it then that an idea that makes so much sense on the balance sheet seems to be doomed for failure? According to the experts, most mergers fail because executives place a priority on integrating the business elements, but practically ignore the human integration aspects of the merger. Stakeholders, including executives on both sides of the ledger, venture capitalists and stockholders are eager to reap the alluring financial rewards that appear to be so attainable – at least on paper. One key problem is that the drivers of the M&A initiatives are executives who have a keen understanding of the industry, strategy and financial objectives. Caught up in the frenetic, tumultuous pace of the acquisition, executives and managers overlook the critical human integration part of the equation. Financial and business issues always seem to take precedence over the integration of the human assets.
The Merged Organization – One chance to get it right
One of the primary objectives in bringing two organizations together is to leverage efficiencies by creating one synergistic organization. If done correctly, the proverbial “two plus two equals five” is accomplished. In reality, “two plus two equals three” is the more typical result. The merger and acquisition process provides a tremendous opportunity for the combined organization to optimally deploy their collective human assets. Make no mistake, on the human side, the M&A process can be both exhilarating and gut-wrenching. For the executives and managers who make the cut, greater responsibilities with higher potential rewards are within their grasp. For many, the acquisition will result in no change of responsibilities, a lateral move, or an invitation to find work elsewhere. A reduction in force (RIF) is almost always a significant piece of the anticipated cost savings. The new organization has one chance to get the personnel alignment right. A best practice to increase the likelihood of getting the best people in the right positions of the new organization is to start with a blank slate – or in this case, a blank organization chart. Even the top executive positions should not be exempt from this process. For example, the top executive of a fast-growing, acquired company may be far better suited to take the reins of the combined organization, if growth is a key initiative. This would be especially true in the event that the top executive’s strength of the acquiring company is that of a caretaker, adept at maintaining the status quo.
The process of determining who gets which position over another can be a bit unsettling, if not disturbing. In far too many instances, the acquiring organization fills many of the key positions with their own personnel; often overlooking a more talented individual from the acquired firm. To the victor go the spoils, as they say. This course of action is often rationalized by the fact the management team (typically dominated by the acquiring company) has more history with their own employees. Another key factor in determining who gets the key positions in the new organization is what can best be described as “advocacy”. Simply put, a more assertive and/or persuasive advocate for a subordinate who is vying for a position in the new company is likely to get the job through the shear strength of their advocate’s personality. Again, a more competent candidate can be overlooked for no other reason than his or her boss is more laid-back or introspective. To be certain, politics can also play a huge factor. Many organizations fall victim to having “empty suits” in key positions only because a particular individual is the CEO’s son or the VP of Sales’ hunting pal.
Best Practices to filling key positions
To heighten the chance of the merger’s success, a thorough process should be instituted whereby each key (redundant) position is reviewed and filled by the person whose skills are best aligned with the strategic goals of the organization. It is imperative to make this process as objective as possible. Listed below are some critical factors in aligning personnel in key positions.
- Communicate openly that the organization will be realigned and that positions will be filled based on merit and alignment with the strategic objectives of the organization.
- Afford each candidate the opportunity to interview for their current position, or any other position that they might be qualified.
- Place strong consideration of the candidates:
- Past job performance
- Strengths alignment with new strategic objectives
- Natural Personality Traits
- Consider endorsements / references of superiors but discount hyperbole and emotional appeals – “Jim’s a great guy; he’s been with us for twelve years!”
- Conduct Behavioral Based Interviews
- Situation or Task – Ask about or present a challenging situation or task
- Action – Listen for what specific action the candidate would take
- Result or outcome – Listen for what the ultimate outcome was
- Consider realigning personnel into key positions other than their current roles
- For example: A struggling Sales Manager might be more effective – and happier – moving into a key account sales role.
Post Merger – After the “Change of Control”
The Merger and Acquisition process is more of a journey than a destination. As challenging as preparing the “book” and conducting due diligence is, the work is not done when the change of control occurs. In fact, this is when some of the most challenging work begins. Dual systems need to be consolidated and fine-tuned. Redundant processes that have been running in tandem have to be cutover to one system. Through best laid plans, there are the inevitable “kinks” or “glitches” that no one could foresee.
And that’s just on the infrastructure side. The challenges on the personnel side can be even more daunting. The M&A process brings inevitable churn and uncertainty to many employees on both sides of the transaction. It is not uncommon for many employees to deal with the stress and uncertainty of the acquisition by looking for a new opportunity outside of the organization. Just as management thinks the dust is settling, a key employee announces his or her resignation – right after they have been awarded a highly coveted position. There is no getting around it, mergers and acquisitions, more often than not, result in a change in corporate culture. With this in mind, it is imperative for the organization to assess its corporate culture and to take the “pulse” of its key personnel, especially after the merger has been completed.
Practically speaking, many employees are embarking in new jobs, despite the fact that the company name on their paycheck remains unchanged. Job stress can be very evident and can certainly result in unwanted turnover. Some of the critical factors that can lead to post-merger turnover are as follows:
- Change in Corporate Culture
- Resentment – passed over for promotion
- Conflict with new boss
- Conflict with co-workers
- Change in responsibilities
- Change in compensation structure
- New opportunity surfaces from search activities during M&A process
Best Practices for Assessing Job Alignment / Job Stress
As important as it is to assess and align the natural strengths of key employees with their respective roles, pre-merger; it’s just as important to assess the alignment of their natural strengths with how they perceive their new position, post-merger. Just as all of the systems integration “kinks” and “glitches” are not apparent until the cutover, the same can be said with regards to the human integration. Management needs to be aware that there is often a significant disconnect between concept and practice with regards to personnel alignment. Listed below are some critical factors in career alignment and job stress.
- Confirm that the employee genuinely wants the new position and is not just taking it because they feel they have no choice.
- More frequently than might be expected, some employees prefer to stay in subordinate positions, which they perceive as being “under the radar” in lieu of taking a promotion.
- Have key employees participate in organization survey which measures both Personality Traits and Perceived Job Behaviors. New tools are available where the organization can take the “pulse” of an employee to see how they perceive their new role. These results can be compared to their natural personality traits from an assessment that they may have taken previously.
- Results may show evidence of:
- Career misalignment / Job Stress
- Under Utilization
- Over Utilization
- Stress brought on by Corporate / Department Culture
- Imminent Turnover
Mergers and Acquisitions are challenging endeavors under the best of circumstances. With proper planning and diligence failure does not have to be a Fait accompli. Organizations that beat the odds by implementing successful M&A’s, do so in large part by investing a significant amount of time and energy into critical elements that go well beyond the balance sheet. These successful organizations focus make it a priority to focus on their most critical asset – human capital. To be successful in an M&A, enlightened organizations must consider the cultures of both organizations, diligently plan the integration, communicate relentlessly, build trust, and be open to change.
- Results may show evidence of: