Blog Articles And Comments

Year after year we statistically validate that applicant pools shrink during summer and holiday seasons. Working candidates find these times the least attractive for job change. As a direct result, the best times to gain recruitment attention are September, January and Springtime (with the exclusion of Spring break).
 
The factors that will affect this phenomenon related to any individual employer include geographical seasonality, workplace demographics, employee retention and labor market pressures.
 
Working candidates under normal circumstances do not wish to give up paid time off accruals during typical vacation and holiday times. Back to school, summer plans and holiday pressures can also overburden the personal tasks in a working family, deferring job change to a time where appropriate time and attention can be devoted.
 
Although even in recessionary times certain market sectors continue to experience talent shortage, extreme recessions outplace otherwise employable candidates. When these fine people are seeking work during these less popular times, we can expect the existence of an above average work desire. Keeping in mind that desire for work does not necessarily translate into better work habits, the desire is still considered a positive attribute.
 
Under typical conditions, please expect longer talent acquisition lead times during summer and holiday seasons. Given that each employer is subject to unique talent needs, offerings and market conditions, please consider all applicable variables when planning. HRS is enthusiastically available to provide further insight, custom design and/or implementation assistance.

With a wealth of employee assessments emerging, the right assessment can seem as elusive as the proverbial “needle in a haystack,” yet absolutely worth the diligent hunt. Best practices deployment in this specific arena increases human capital ROI by tenfold plus. The bottom line results of assessments gone right is not contested, and we stand firm that every candidate hired, trained or promoted without this proper intelligence is a profit opportunity missed. And coming from staunch advocates of progressive technology… computers are no replacement for hand scoring. A five criteria process, the following roadmap guarantees ROI and avoids common pitfalls. 
 

1. Tailoring instrument selection to specific job requirements.

Ensure the assessment criteria are documented in the job description itself. Consider both the immediate position and requirements along the progressive career path. Separate the two, and consider realistic expectations for advancement. Creating a business model where every team member is worthy of quick advancement can be risky and inappropriate unless your business can keep each of them advancing swiftly. Most organizations are pyramid shaped where not everyone can move up… accordingly, too many advancement worthy candidates creates damaging turnover. Additionally to ensure legal compliance, give greater weight to characteristics validated BFOQ’s (bona fide occupational qualifications) to the immediate job, without disparity. To safeguard meaningful interpretation and to prevent legal challenge, strictly avoid personality profiles and psychological profiles. Steer clear of interest-based surveys, as results are tainted by the human flaw of erroneous self-perception. We recommend job-related in-baskets and business simulations which specifically showcase and predict results-oriented business behaviors.  

2. Controlling environmental variables for meaningful consistency and reliability.

Deliver assessment in an environment which corresponds to assessment norms as well as the actual job environment. For example, online delivery is best when measuring computer-based job performance. Online delivery falls short of measuring in person performance. Online and written instruments presuppose communication skills using those media. Multiple choice vs. essay, written vs. verbal, time limits, noise factors, environmental conditions, fatigue, comfort, and stress levels are all further examples of variables which affect assessment performance. Allow the assessment organization to create and/or control the assessment environment and its variables. A distinguished partner will have this automatically safeguarded, but please inquire. 

3. Ensuring validity.

Gain confidence in the business results and overall organizational development success of your assessment team and assessment developer. Validating scores against existing organizational top performers is not enough. One of the most common pitfalls, this says absolutely nothing in validation of the elimination rate. Many instruments are currently circulating at which your top performers will always perform well. Be certain those you eliminate have been eliminated for good reason. Creative thinking and unconventional ideas are the cornerstone to progress and competitive edge. Do not keep these attributes excluded from your organization.  

4. Hand scoring and personal feedback are still preferred.

Again addressing the need to engage progress, invention and creative problem solving… computer and/or empirical scoring just does not cut it. Exploring rationale and allowing interpretation are critical to meaningful methodology. Simply stated, there is nothing less common than sense. Valuable creative thinking is often specifically excluded from organizational entry unless expert multi-rater hand scoring is involved. Hand scoring and personal feedback each explore rationale and trainability, while exiting the candidate with a blueprint for advancement and improvement. Personal feedback is best delivered by an external assessor expert.   

5. Using organization-wide assessments in consideration of unique independent job descriptions.

Selection by assimilation is rarely the goal. A glut of like-minded people does not typically foster progress or invention. Embrace differences and deploy them to the correct opportunities. There are a few assessments, the SR2 for example, which can be gainfully implemented organization-wide; however, we recommend weighting mechanisms and scoring norms to consider job relatedness. Validation to both external and internal norms is to be ensured.

In the quest for cost containment and convenience typically achieved through progressive technology, one can be quick to overlook the occasional “old school” best practices. The cost of employee time and the likely payoff of increased productivity with waste avoidance need be factored into assessment ROI. Look to the substantive results and know-how, not glitzy sales, of assessment experts. Pursue experts offering a healthy catalog of instruments tailored to unique job descriptions and criteria, and you shall find experts committed to valuable guidance in pinpointed assessment selection. The sustainable success of any talent-based organization relies upon correct, comprehensive and consistent deployment of employee assessment as decision tools.

Auditory or speech-based learning is validated as both the least effective and least preferred training method, yet we overuse.  Adults cannot absorb more than 2.5 hours new information at a time, yet we pay for full-day seminars.  Keep seminars as networking events and perks for team members who need an outing… but do not expect substantial knowledge transfer.  When learning is critical, remember that 92% of individuals required a three-fold approach to learning… and the most effective three are visual demonstration, participative discussion, and hands on learning.  As it takes 3 instances of learning to create long term knowledge – and long term is only 20 minutes or more – ”trilogy” training is essential. Employers of choice recognize success relies upon the right people doing the right things.  This rests heavily upon training effectiveness and cost efficiencies.  The old days of the “talking head” at the podium are phased out.

In a recent survey of more than 3000, 60% of respondents tell us “Kinesthetic” (hands on) is their preferred learning style and auditory learning is by far the least preferred, coming in at only 8%.  Visual training is more than twice as effective as auditory. Learning professionals suggests a blend of participative workshop and video training. 

Video training is best used in the procedural “how to” instructions which can be represented visually. As trainers find burnout, distraction and inconsistency in the act of training, a standardized video allows us to ensure every trainee receives the complete message and the same information. Think about how many times you left for work wondering if you locked the door, turned off an appliance, or could not specifically remember performing some other routine auto-pilot task.  Invariably, trainers miss opportunities to deliver consistent messages from one training group to the next.  Without knowledge that each employee received the same completeness and quality of training, we have no reliable basis of evaluation or comparison.  Video training is the demonstration that sets up kinesthetic learning.  We see how to do it, and then we try it ourselves.  The margin of error in video training is negligible because the message is consistent. Video does not have a bad day.  Video does not argue with a spouse or significant other.  Video doesn’t miss its morning coffee.  Video’s transportation does not fail, and video does not get the flu.  Video is reliable, convenient and completely consistent.  Done well, the return on investment is quick and strong.

Participative Workshops are necessary in all training regimens, at a minimum, as the checkpoint and validation of learning with long term sustainability.  As a component to trilogy training, these kinesthetic participative workshops are to be inserted where problem solving, judgment and deep topic understanding are essential to goal attainment.  While it is far more common to find a speaker with podium skills and a well-rehearsed presentation, audience adaptation and the ability to provide meaningful answers to spontaneous questions is more effective to this exercise.  Top universities inject kinesthetic learning into the classroom and assignment activities.  Participative discussion is where transformation happens and learning is validated.  This is also where we increase employee engagement, morale and motivation. 

Workshops delivered by internal personnel can be inserted as a component, but due to fear of reprisal and perception of company bias, third party professional trainers can accomplish training and secure employee buy-in otherwise impossible for the internal key team.  By experiencing it go right as validated by outside experts, trainees also feel more relaxed… and a relaxed mind enjoys a much greater potential for learning than a panicked mind.  

Memory is largely a component of attention and interest.  Seminar learning depends entirely upon a highly memorable performer using highly visual speaking tactics as “grabbers.”  Humor is participative, so that works… to a point.  The best podium performers, however, are not cost effective for everyday organizational learning, and most are rarely effective in transferring memorable content other than jokes and antics.  Pure entertainment only goes so far in expediting and safeguarding learning. Entertainment can be a tactic but should not overpower the presentation.  An outside trainer expert with audience adaptation, learning assessment and train the trainer technique is the company’s best cost-efficient and reliable methodology. Surveys repeatedly reveal that lack of confidence in a supervisor or trainer is a primary reason for resignation.  Training flaws create unnecessary turnover and loss of training investment.  Company time is company money.

For additional details on learning survey outcomes and examples of training videos, please visit AskHRS.com/learningsurvey09

 

 

 

 

Emerging from a recession, grabbing opportunity and surviving intense global competition, we cannot be fooled by the dangerous and misleading propaganda... "Work Smarter, Not Harder!" Statements along these lines when misinterpreted can only lead to disaster. The blueprint for success requires balance. 

Agreed it can be more effective to work smart than to work hard, in most cases both are necessary. In addition, “smart” can be a matter of misinterpretation in itself. “Smart” can only truly be judged by one who is “smart” in the capacity and criteria to be evaluated. “Smart” can be ill defined.  Nonetheless, "Work Smarter" should remain our dedicated target, we just need to lose the "Not Harder" component.

Through study of human work ethic, it is undeniable that many top performers equate “working hard” with “doing your best.” Anything short of doing one’s best is less than adequate. Therefore, working “hard” is always one of the goals. Where and how we channel our energies and how we balance and care for ourselves is a matter of personal choice and commitment.

Nations rich in socialism and suppressed middle class existence present global competition of both working hard and working smart in tandem. Those who wish to compete must rise to the occasion or lose the opportunity to fight another day. While the U.S. is not easily adaptable by history and infrastructure to the socialist principles which have been embraced by other nations, Americans must not think they can exist in a vacuum, especially after centuries of global involvement.

Those proven to offer judgment, accomplishment and commitment to excellence effectively draw upon the “Work Smarter, Not Harder” mantra with astute understanding that successful results require efficiency and sound judgment. These toolsets can lead to quicker, easier and more accurate positive outcomes, freeing our resources to accomplish more in the end.  The mantra works best for those already working hard. Those, however, lacking necessary work commitment are adversely impacted and misled by this mantra, using it as an excuse to retract effort.

This is an essential organizational development topic to be safeguarded by employee education, policies, practices and daily performance management. The ambiguity of related remarks is polluting team members’ understanding of workplace expectations and the blueprint to security and advancement. Consider this both a “call to action” and an opportunity of betterment for organizational leaders at all levels.

Until we learn otherwise, we tend to believe others think and behave as we do. Sometimes that learning comes with a thunderbolt and leaves us with our “jaw on the ground.” Pillared on more than 30 years experience in leadership coaching to a wealth of Fortune-rated and emerging employers alike, this evidence does not falter. Consequently, it is easy to conclude that common sense does not actually exist. Coaching requires understanding motivation, capability and learning style. Without these, the ability to transform is challenged.

If you ask a self-starter why he or she is a self-starter, you shall often encounter uncertainty. According to Bob Galvin, retired Motorola chairman, self-starters and leaders can be spotted by age 14. Being a self-starter derives from intrinsic motivation (coming from within), not nearly as easily influenced as extrinsic motivation (impacted by external variables). Self-starters rarely understand those who are not self-starters, and most individuals are not self-starters. This lack of understanding creates a barrier to audience adaptation and coaching effectiveness.

Employers tend to promote top performers, usually self-starters, to leadership roles. These promotions often occur for the wrong reasons. A self-starter with the right leadership training can lead by example and deploy certain tactics, yet he or she can be challenged in ability to understand and coach those without intrinsic motivation. Leadership is a lifelong learning commitment. Without learning and adaptation to new audiences, we stunt company growth and can only hire a small percentage of the available applicant pool.

Those who study leadership recognize leadership is not a natural progression, but rather a distinctive and precise skillset. Many self-starters are completely disinterested in coaching; however, they accept the role as a title award and advancement strategy. Self-starters are often admittedly more interested in managing processes than people. Employers who create advancement ladders not necessarily tied to supervision are able to truly gauge commitment to coaching and creating transformation. Self-starters often view themselves as self-transformed and therefore may not be inclined to transform others. A supervisor, trainer or coach who fails to create transformation also fails to provide betterment to employee productivity. If the employees are not better for the supervisor’s impact, why is the supervisor retained? Assuming the talent acquisition process is doing its job, successful coaching creates transformation and improves workplace productivity through improved employee performance.

By its very definition, extrinsic motivation is volatile, affected by the employer. Motivation is, in its simplest terms, a reason. Understanding what transformed you to improved performance is a valuable toolset to transforming others. This means looking beyond intrinsic motivation. Those who were “transformed” can be highly influential and motivational success stories for others.

HRS deploys these validated studies in globally recognized assessment and kinesthetic coaching programs, serving employers in more than 100 countries plus world respected academic and certification institutions. Programs are augmented through learning style surveys having earned more than 3000 global responses to date. Typical program methodology includes leadership assessment to pinpoint coaching style, transactional/transformational effectivess and learning opportunities. This analysis is most frequently followed by audience adaptive kinesthetic workshops proven highly successful in transforming leaders, entry through CEO and BOD, into transformational coaches. Please visit AskHRS.com for more information regarding learning survey findings, validation studies, leadership assessment and kinesthetic workshop offerings.

Amidst organizational change employers deploy a wealth of employee assessments in a scheme of cost-benefit analysis. Some overspend the outcomes and then don’t even understand the data. Some sales-based assessment organizations inundate prospective clients with “high brow” tricks while brow-beating them into pretending they understand. What’s just as important as data integrity is simplified and universal buy-in… and the ability to attach meaningful cost saving action. Crazy labels and “smoke and mirrors” are not the keys to predicting success. If you don’t understand, your employees won’t either!

Employee assessment, training needs analysis, legal compliance and leadership development remain at the forefront of today's critical employer issues. Employees and leaders at all levels must be ready to adapt quickly and assume responsibilities, potentially for the first time with limited up front training. Employers can manage 5-7 figure risk with a 2-3 figure implementation before the change. This awareness continues to expand, and the demand for the right employee assessments explodes!

As a follow up to our research essay published by SHRM in 1999 and countless essays since including a Forbes interview a few years back, let’s review the changed environment. A wealth of assessment exercises is now available on the open market, and we endorse some but certainly not all of them. While HRS proprietary instruments are clearly our favorites (shameless plug), we have welcomed the most valid, reliable and meaningful instruments of other vendors into our catalog. Those we exclude and caution against are the many, many instruments that fall short of data integrity, legal compliance and assessor/assessee buy-in. For instance, validity does not exist if you cannot prove test performance directly correlates, within acceptable statistical margin of error, to workplace performance. This includes both positive and negative performance. A common pitfall here is to sample assess your top performers against the instrument and be fooled that good performance on both test and appraisal constitutes validity. That’s only part of the argument. Before assuming complete validation, test your poor performers and potentially those who weren’t selected for hire. 
 

Why Assess?

According to recent survey (to which 3000+ responded), advancement is the primary employee magnet and motivator, yet nearly half of incumbent managers miss at least 45% of the opportunities to be successfully transactional or transformational in leadership tactics. Self starters are proven not naturally inclined to transform others, and are therefore challenged as leaders. Incumbent call center employees are proven to miss more than half of follow through opportunities when presented with task to resolve rather than route. Nearly half of those excelling in external customer service roles underperform with internal customers, creating disharmonious team environments and unnecessary efficiency waste. In the HRSAC SR2 simulation, analytical adaptability consistently reveals itself as the most challenging criteria when employees are asked to assume a changed job condition. In short, job knowledge can hide logic, problem solving and trainability. Change for some can create disaster. Assessment results should pinpoint the “why” and the learning goals behind the performance ratings, present and future. When top performers are competing for promotion, 3rd party objectivity and buy-in are essential to ensure every top performer walks away feeling valued and empowered with tools to win that promotion next time. 
 

What Can Be Assessed?

Leadership Styles/Tactics, Customer Service, Critical Thinking, Analytical Adaptability, Multi-Tasking, Attention to Detail, Problem Solving, Group Presentation Dynamics, Teamplayer Orientation, Time Management, Workflow Planning, Conflict Resolution, Change Advocacy, Negotiation, Persuasion, Natural Abilities and Natural Roadblocks can be measured at a minimum, and are certainly among the most popular. Some erroneously call these the “soft skills.” While there’s nothing less common than sense, I attest these are the “hard skills.” Crafted reliably, in-baskets can predict job success according to any identified job description. Skills tests are available with endless functionality. 
 

Selecting the Right Assessment Instrument(s)

Examining validity and reliability is not as complex as it sounds. The assessment administrator who has an instrument of meaningful integrity will proudly take you through this explanation and may demo the instrument for you. Ask the following questions when choosing the instrument…
1. Inquire regarding validity and reliability studies. This includes pass-fail and/or both positive and negative ratings.
2. Investigate margin of error and resolution thereof.
3. Be convinced the instrument and its scoring report will be meaningful and gain buy-in from all parties. Be convinced the outcomes point to meaningful action.
4. Ensure the instrument’s content, delivery method and criteria support the job description for both meaningful information and legal defensibility. 
 

Delivery Method

On-line assessment grows in popularity due to convenience and has its important place, but for those not required to deliver such communications on the job via Internet, validity and data integrity are compromised. The testing environment should relate to the work environment. For those allowed to deliver key communications on-the-job in discussion, why force only Q&A or multiple choice based tests? Allow essay and/or conversational feedback modules. Such modules should not be computer scored. In short, the testing method and environment must be consistent with the job conditions.
 
In labor intensive or talent based organizations, success is largely impacted by human accuracy or error. Advancement is a key motivator, and a blueprint is essential. With the appropriate tools, employers can maneuver the right people doing the right things. Employers still promote great implementors into leadership, assuming this is the natural progression. Management is not natural progression but rather its own professional skillset and a lifelong learning commitment. The same is true for project management. For those who already buy in to the assessment center method, it remains challenging to differentiate between assessment instruments.

Having endured great cost in creating and validating precisely job specific instruments so obviously on the mark and easily understood that even assessees immediately buy-in, it’s difficult to watch others throw some meaningless crapshoot of a “smoke and mirrors” tool onto a website and pummel advertising at the public held hostage.

The best assessments gain buy-in upon inspection and discussion of scoring outcomes. The HRSAC has validated our proprietary assessments over 26 years working with hundreds of organizations from 10 to 100,000+ employees including global operations. Baselines have been established over these years for job-related criteria across countless demographics and fields. The scored analysis of the job-specific instrument reveals more precisely how behavioral traits would actually manifest themselves in a specific job setting. Probabilities for successful corporate training efforts coincide with these baselines. As interest surveys, personality profiles and integrity questionnaires continue to move out of utilization, job-predictive assessments continue to move in. Reputable assessment instruments come with validity and reliability studies, so don’t hesitate to ask! Sample reports should be proudly presented. Both employer and employee should be convinced. The key to success will be actionable findings, easy to understand with trust that ratings are accurate, job-related and meaningful in career-oriented decisions without bias. If your assessment doesn’t meet all the goals described herein, you haven’t found the right tools. Contact HRS… we’ve got them!

Although this is a legal minefield, when employees know their bad or good acts won’t follow them, they become de-motivated on the job.  An employer who wants the best of employees knows this and reinforces accountability through both seeking and providing employment references.
 
Especially now where we are providing incentive for employees to be terminated in order to collect COBRA subsidies they can’t get through resignation, we need to protect both our immediate workplaces and our ability to compete globally as a nation.   If we take the approach “What happens in Vegas…” with our employees, there is too little motivation for them to give us their best. 
 
So many employers have a “right to privacy” extend to employment references, even when laws clearly protect the employer when information is factual, non-subjective, and used in no discriminatory or otherwise unlawful manner.   It is essential to work with legal counsel and/or expert third party background investigators to make the most of this initiative.  Employers need to train managers at all level in legal compliance and rely upon HR as a gateway.  Failure to do so can result in legal consequences.  When seeking references, professional third parties can be far more effective, as the employer can trust information will be used within full legal compliance.  Sure, there are questions you shouldn’t ask, but the information gained by asking the questions you can is so valuable, it’s irresponsible not to.
 
Until the over-used, and quite frankly abused, right to privacy acts among employers, employees worked with the incentive to avoid “burning bridges” and leave “on good terms” with hopefully a recommendation.  We’ve de-motivated our workforce by the wrongful thinking that references shouldn’t be given or sought.  While providing a written letter of recommendation is ill-advised for many legal and practical reasons, a legally compliant initiative of verbal communication is highly advised.  Leading a successful company offering reference checking partnership, I guarantee the effort is fruitful. 
 
Contact your attorney or expert third party provider to ensure your employees are worth your employment offer and accountable while in your employ!  HRS would love to assist!

Repeatedly validated by survey and experience, a top reason for resignation is lack of confidence in one’s supervisor.   Leaders attempt to blend “sales” with “substance” sometimes mutually exclusively.  Sales training experts suddenly become experts in leadership training and confusion begins.

Make no mistake... sales skills facilitate success everywhere!  Most certainly one can’t effectively lead unless someone is willing to follow, and that takes salesmanship.  Without substance, however, leaders may lead down a dark alley into a brick wall or down an unfortunate path.  Too often we see managers who are all sales or all substance, severely lacking in one of the two. 

It is most definitely an organizational development issue to decide your employer brand in creating the right proportionality of “sales” vs. “substance” in the leadership team.   That decision creates a blueprint for hiring, development, advancement and the entire performance management system.   Employers with strong labor intensity rely upon the right people doing the right things at all times.   In this case, substance actually becomes more important than sales.  The key word here is “right.”   Employees who have substance are likely to recognize and respect substance in leadership, and successes can be attained.  In the less labor intensive environment, (e.g. quick training, high automation, low competition and/or low impact of human error), leader salesmanship may be a higher priority.   

Too often we see managerial candidates sell themselves into positions for which they are not qualified.  The salesmanship is sometimes so intense, it conceals the absence of substance.  Credentials aren’t checked.  Pre-employment assessment isn’t administered.  Lifelong learning doesn’t always happen.  Blame-shifting can wrongfully and frequently replace engagement.  When these folks are empowered, employees of “substance” tend to leave the system. 

Be careful as to whom you’ve empowered.  The highly “sales” driven manager lacking “substance” can be quite a gatekeeper, sometimes keeping the good ones down… or out.     

The key to assessing motivation and predicting results of employees is to pinpoint information they may not even know of themselves.  How do we do this?  Carefully crafted investigations through behavior based assessment and interviewing. Why do we do this?  Work ethic is detectable, complex and begins early. While successful organizational development depends upon the creating and sustaining of extrinsic (situational) motivation, an individual’s intrinsic (from within) motivation can be very difficult to change and requires an entirely different approach. 

 

Work ethic is a core fundamental unique to every individual.  It is developed over our lifetime and benefits from the earliest start possible.  It begins with reaching for the infant toy rather than having that toy placed in your hand.  It stems from inspiration… inspiration through need (sometimes desperation) and requires the belief set that work will influence results.  Those too coddled fail to develop the need.  Those not exposed to role models attaining results fail to buy-in to the outcomes.  We know these fundamentals are shaped and reinforced over our lifetime.  

 

Somewhere in the early 90’s, at a CEO Summit for which he was keynote speaker, I had the good fortune to work one-to-one with Bob Galvin, former Motorola CEO and son of founder Paul Galvin.  Bob & I instantly connected on an essential finding:  future leaders can be pointed out by age 14.  A very controversial summation at that time, people have jumped on board to that thinking more and more.  While several interpretations of “leadership” exist, the leadership we speak of here is visionary leadership and invention through inspiration, creativity, problem solving and risk taking, something for which Bob has been multiply awarded, something that stems from work ethic.  

 

Why can we spot leaders in their early teens? 

 

1)      Intrinsic motivation starts in early childhood, part nature and a lot of nurture.  Messages through parenting and life’s experiences teach a child the connection between hard work, results and rewards.  It requires risk tolerance and effort. “You miss 100% of the shots you never take.” (Wayne Gretzky) 

2)      Success breeds success.  Those who get a taste of accomplishment early can acquire a hunger for it, and of course – a confidence in the ability to attain.

3)      Leadership is not the automatic progression of doing something else well.  It is a distinctive skill set, orientation and career path.  It is marked by characteristics which reveal themselves early in life and need nurturing.  Leadership is also not a degree in management without the knowledge of how to do anything else in specific at which to lead. 

4)      The leadership we speak of here requires willingness to fail and go on, problem solving and a lifelong learning commitment.  Each of these fundamentals are easiest developed at an early age.

5)      Many scientists and psychologists believe our highest level of pure intelligence is at birth and with learning peaking during our first 2 years of life.  Wisdom, education and experience fill in over time proportionate to our exposure.

 

Can this type of leadership emerge later in life?  Yes, through dedicated choice and/or circumstances of revelation impact.  

 

Work ethic can emerge from an intrinsic sense of responsibility and/or when we believe we can or are desperate enough to try to “control our own destiny.”  Leadership is both a subset of work ethic and a combination of behavioral characteristics.  We cannot lead effectively if no one is willing to follow.  We should be willing to lead by example.  Whether a leader of creation/invention or a leader of others, effective leadership relies upon creating inspirational ideas and/or directly inspiring others. 

 

Effective leadership, like any career path, requires commitment.  Commitment requires work ethic.  Parents can be most effective in developing work ethic when they lead by example, create need (inspiration) and reinforce the rewards of work.  Think about the term “street smarts” to further understand the importance of “need” in work ethic development. 

 

Whatever the choices or extenuating circumstances of one’s life, work ethic is simply “doing your best” with sincerity and willingness of sacrifice.  If education is the target, substantial learning is not reliant upon financial resources but rather the willingness to do the work to learn.  People have been self-taught with very little financial resources… Abraham Lincoln, for one.  If advanced education is the desire, college can be self-financed.   Start them young wherever you can.  Parents need to understand their role in work ethic development and they must start at infancy.  If they aren’t willing to do the work, maybe they should just provide access to a proper role model and then leave the kid alone to figure it out. 

 

Make no mistake.  We know the “leave alone” approach can be over-used and backlash with other developmental problems, which is why so many attentive and well-intending parents fear and under-use it – also affecting work ethic and leadership..  We’re looking for balance, commitment, role modeling and work ethic in our parenting.  We’re looking for parents to teach their kids to successfully “leave the nest” by providing supportive age-appropriate guidance, work skills and motivation.  The work ethic development trail can be very telling and predictive to future workplace outcomes.   It can be visible in a self-prepared resume and can be detected in a carefully crafted interview or assessment exercise.  Again, most commonly, it begins in early youth.