Bully screening?

HC Magazine recently posted about a new trial screening scheme for employers called BullyCheck. Basically young applicants aged between 17-22 consent to a character reference check from their current or former high school.

It would be great if this helps solve the ongoing issue of high school bullying but it could have interesting ramifications if it becomes mainstream practice. The article mentions "If a student voluntarily raises their bullying history and demonstrates remorse and a high level of community service then their application for a job may be considered on its merits" However I find it hard to see how a confessed bully would pass a typical comapany's culture fit test, remorseful or not..

Update:

Some comments are pouring in on the article and so far they're all negative. I've posted some below:


Bree Vreedenburgh

No, no, no. This is an awful idea. You marginalise these kids for their behaviour, without giving them (a) opportunity to demonstrate they have changed and (b) assistance to overcome their bullying...??? What if the kid is a bully because his dad is an idiot? Shouldn't that kid be educated and nurtured instead of marginalised?? Do you really think bullies are going to stop bullying if you refuse them the advantage of stepping into a workplace where they are required to behave like an adult?
Also, why would jobseekers not be told why their application was refused?? Doesn't it defeat the purpose of the exercise - being to make bullies understand that their actions have consequences - if you don't tell them that their bullying led to them being excluded from consideration for a particular job???
I am thoroughly confused by this scheme. 

Deborah

And what happens to these jobseekers if they get refused a job? They go on the dole? That's NOT an acceptable solution. Bullying should be addressed at the coalface - not x number of years later when applying for a position.

Dean Turner

A truly terrifying move!


Natural justice takes a back seat, conspiracy and deception now stand tall front and centre. Having children at school I am aware of this issue, it is now being highlighted ad nauseum to everyone. The issue is this, do school properly investigate an allegation, I know for a fact that 2 or more years ago these issues were being swept under the rug. How does the accused defend themselves? Where are the processes? Under 18 and you criminal record is sealed, yet for this we will happily tell any employer who comes along.

It may be 2011, but it feels much more like "1984"!

Reference checks are an important part of the recruitment process and for many young professionals entering the workforce, a reference from high school might be all they have. Treating this like a Criminal Check is probably the wrong way to go however especially if they can demonstrate solid character references from employment post high school. I guess we will just have to see how the trial plays out and what the results are.

The Talent Pipeline - Engaging High Potentials

I came across an interesting whitepaper titled "Is Your Talent Pipeline at Risk? Engaging High Potentials"

For those of you already familiar with career development and organisational engagement, the information in this paper may not come as much of a surprise to you. However the paper does make some important distinctions on terms and discusses common pitfalls that managers can make when planning to engage high potentials.

I'll post some of the more interesting observations I gained below:

Firstly, there is a big difference between performance and potential. It makes a lot of sense once you think of it but before I saw this table I would have often placed them in the same 'mental pool' of thought. It is entirely possible for someone to a high performer with low potential, visa-versa and everything in between.

One quote I particularly like from the paper, probably because it sounds like it was pulled from an episode of Yes Prime Minister, was from one of the contributors, Abgeka Scapello “If you have aspiration without ability, then you are an incompetent dreamer.”

As a follow on from this chart (however in the actual document the chart is at the end) the paper outlines three key pitfalls or traps to avoid. The paper already does quite a good job of summarising end expanding on these points so I'll quote them below.

1.     Don’t assume high potentials are engaged. It is vital that employers understand what drives engagement for this key group. High potentials generally have higher expectations for how they should be treated – starting with simply being identified as a high potential. Senior leaders should double or triple their efforts in keeping young stars engaged by:

·         Recognizing them early and often

·         Linking individual goals to corporate goals

·         Giving them opportunities to help solve the company’s biggest problems

·         Regularly taking the pulse of valued employees

While it’s important to acknowledge high potentials, you must be cautious not to disenfranchise the rest of your organisation. Consider how you recognise and reward other members of your workforce, including offering career development opportunities to other key segments of your employee population.

2.     Don’t confuse high performance with future potential. More than 70% of today’s top performers lack critical attributes essential to their success in future roles. The bulk of talent investments are being wasted on individuals whose potential may not be that high.

There are three attributes that best define stars: Ability + Engagement + Aspiration.

·         Ability:

Intellectual, technical and emotional skills to handle increasingly complex challenges

·         Engagement:

Level of personal connection and commitment the employee feels toward his or her role and to the firm and its mission

·         Aspiration:

Desire for recognition, advancement and future rewards

3.     Avoid delegating down management of top talent. Top talent is everyone’s responsibility. It is a long-term company asset. Responsibility for high potentials’ development must be shared by general managers. There is often an assumption that line managers know their people best, but they should not have the sole responsibility of managing top talent. What happens when management of top talent is not shared?

·         Candidates are selected solely on the basis of recent performance.

·         Candidates are offered narrow development opportunities limited to their own business units. Managers focus mostly on skills required now rather than tomorrow.

·         Employees are hoarded by line managers and not shared throughout the organisation.

Pivot Tables don't need to be intimidating

Ever wanted to learn the basics about pivot tables without someone drowning you in technical jargon or throwing a book at you?

There is a big difference between data and information. Anyone can produce data, but its information that allow Managers to make the informed decisions they need to drive business objectives with confidence. Pivot Tables are simply another tool in the HR Practitioner's box to provide just that - information.

In this excellent four part series on YouTube, SimonSezIT provides and easy to understand and well paced introduction to Pivot Tables. If you've thought about using Pivot Tables but didn't know where to start, or are already using them but not sure if you're getting the most out of it then I highly recommend you check out these videos below.

Can 360-degree feedback run the risk of being divisive and disengaging?

I've always quite liked the concept of 360 degree feedback however having yet to coordinate my own 360-degree survey I will reserve professional judgement. On a personal note, the idea of feedback being a multidimensional process is appealing to me and I believe it can be used as a catalyst for moving people from positions of ignorance to power in regards of self-assessment - Something along the lines of the Johari Window is what I have in mind. (The Johari Window model itself can be a discussion for another day!)

Lanning Bennet the founder and CEO of COI group appears to hold a differing opinion however in this article on HR Daily. He raises a number of points about the potential disadvantages of using 360 surveys and claims they can easily create more problems than they solve. Some of his key points are below:

• Many staff are reluctant to be totally honest and open with their assessment of a colleague. Responses are likely to be softer than what reality would tell you.
• Issues of what staff think of each other personally can colour feedback on how they actually perform the job. 
• Responses can be awfully confrontational and demotivating for leaders especially if it is from colleagues they have worked with for a long period. Leaders may take it on board and address issues, they may go into denial or even worse disengage with the organisation. 
• As a sub point to this Bennett notes that careful, sensitive and often expensive debriefing needs to occur with a 360. (I would be interested to know how many organisations properly invest in a 360's back end to address this.)
• A 360-degree survey tends to focus on negativity, not because it is an inherently negative process but that because "human nature being what it is, we easily dismiss the positives and things we're good at and we fixate on the things that people say we're not so good at." Bennett admits 360's does achieve both positive and negative feedback but the negatives do damage.

In my opinion, while Bennett makes some valid points he seems to be giving 360-degree surveys a bit of a bad wrap. Also his opinions seem to flow from an assumption that the responses are not confidential, something which in my experience should be the case. I've heard arguments that 360-degree surveys often simply confirm what many organisations already know. Consequently, if a leader in your organisation gets bombarded with negative feedback with on a 360, the 360 itself is probably the least of your problems. Although to be fair, part of Bennett's argument is the way in which a 360-degree survey can deliver this feedback does in itself has the potential to be damaging. 

To keep things interesting a discussion had taken place in the comments section of the article where Tim Baker challenged Bennett's advice: 

Bennett makes some false and inaccurate claims about 360 degree feedback. Firstly, it is not an assessment; it is supposed to be a developmental tool. Although based on perceptions, people's perceptions are reality in their eyes. Bennett states that "it creates more problems than it solves" which from my experience is untrue. My experience is that if people's feeback is confidential, which it should be, then people largely treat the exercise with respect and give accurate observations. It is the case that managers are often pleasantly surprised by the feedback in areas they least expect. I argue with the claim that feedback needs to be presented "carefully and sensitively". Most good managers go not believe they are "considered a real star". Another false claim is the assumption that feedback is often consistent from all three sources. It is not always the case. For instance, some team members may have conflicting perspectives about the manager. I think the article demonstrates a profound lack of understanding about management and the 360 degree process and outcomes. After all, the 360 report is simply a convenient way to communicate what people surrounding the leader are thinking. Surely that is useful data to build upon.

Lanning Bennett responded to Tim:

Hi Tim,
Thank you for your feedback.
There is plenty of evidence that 360's require careful and often professional feedback - half the coaching profession make their living out of doing just that.
I don't know any 360 tools that have any other components to them other than assessment. Where are the development tools that are provided with them? Development is left to either to coaches or the manager. This is a major problem with 360 tools. All they do is assess and leave the manager to deal with the development side or to get professional support. Finally lets look at alignment. What the leader needs to know is how can I best spend my time and use my skills to help my team perform at its best yet 360 tools never ask this simple but critical question.
That is all the leader needs to know and you don't need a 360 for that.

Bennett does offer an alternative to 360-degree surveys in the article however to be honest, I'm not exactly sure what he is referring to. He describes assessing leaders on outcomes rather than doing a personal assessment. Essentially he seems to shift the focus from an individual to a group KPI. A list of Bennett's example questions are below:

• How clear is the strategy of your team?
• Does the team have the resources it needs to do its job to the best of its ability?
• How well are values and behaviours of the team enacted in the workplace?
• How well trained and empowered is the team?
• How effective are its systems and processes, and the software and hardware that we use?

If you have a better idea of the process Bennett is describing please elaborate in the comments below. Being the first genuinely negative opinion of 360-degree surveys I've come across, I find Bennett's arguments interesting however I wouldn't say I'm convinced, particularly given the amount positive information I've seen regarding the surveys when done properly.

I look forward to conducting my own 360-degree survey in the future so I can come back to this subject with more personal experience to draw on.