Don't you wish that employees were more like....you? Of course you do. But the reality is that, as managers, we have to deal with all sorts of crazy stuff, and that includes the dumb things that employees say and do.
I'm sure we've all heard outlandish stories about the behaviors of real job applicants and real employees. Consider this one:
I was interviewing a candidate for the entry-level construction position. His application did not indicate a reason for leaving his most recent position. I asked him why. Here is the answer that I received: "Well, I was working in the ditch with another employee, and he was really getting on my nerves with his humming. I told him that if he didn't shut up, I was going to hit him over the head with the shovel and bury him. They fired me. But I think he just took it the wrong way."
Or, better yet, this one:
I was working for a restaurant chain, and received a call about a night-shift manager who had done several odd things. First, she locked the doors to the restaurant prior to closing time. Second, she sat there in the lobby while customers banged on the doors from outside. Third, she was making out with her boyfriend in the lobby while customers stood outside. Fourth, she walked around the store putting curses on the employees and telling them their eyes were going to bleed.
I traveled to the store and met with the manager to take her statement. She didn't deny anything: "Well, you see, I'm a werewolf, and it was a full moon last night. I was starting to itch, and that's why this happened."
I stepped away from the table and called our corporate attorney, who had to put the phone down to laugh out loud. The attorney confirmed that there was no legal protection for a werewolf--a witch, yes, but not a werewolf. I returned to the table and told the manager that I thought she should resign her employment, or else risk being terminated for cause. She resigned without incident.
The question is not: "Why do candidates and employees say and do such things?" Rather, the question for managers is: "How can I learn to spot the hidden signs and
red flags before we hire an employee?"
Many of us have been taught that we must carefully screen applicants' backgrounds for criminal records, substance abuse, poor attendance, substandard work performance, harassment complaints, and other potential problems in the workplace. We know that the tests for these potential performance problems must be job-related, and that the methods we use must be face-neutral, reliable, and valid. But, how can you screen for anti-social behavior or for people who think they are werewolves?
Here are some tips and suggestions that will help you spot some of these crazies:
1. Realize that job interviews are considered weak situations, so you tend to see the real person if you know what to ask and how to ask it.
Thirty years ago, psychologist Walter Mischel studied the way people decide how they should behave by describing the extent to which they pay attention to their immediate surroundings. He found that when the situation was very clear about how someone should act, the person followed the situational cues very well and acted accordingly. Mischel called this a strong situation-that is, the situation itself strongly suggests how one should behave.
However, when the situation does not send clear messages about how to behave, or sends no message at all, people tend to rely on their own personalities or innate tendencies to guide their behavior. These are what Mischel called weak situations: The situational cues are ambiguous; the behavioral options are many. In these situations people who are not sensitive to situational or social norms tend to show their true colors.
2. Do reference and background checks, but don't use the references you are given, except as referrals to another reference.
Often, references given by the candidate will not provide objective, accurate information. Additionally, some references will not give any information. Contacting the reference you were given and asking to be referred to another coworker, customer, client, supervisor, etc., will take you one level deeper in your investigation. Another strategy is to contact someone that is not listed as a reference, but who you may know is affiliated with the organization or candidate (e.g., a board member or member of a professional organization who you may know). Both of these approaches may provide more accurate information about the candidate's behavior, judgment, and skill sets.
3. Be careful in using social media for background information on a candidate.
Some employers, and perhaps you are one, have begun to use sites like LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter to assess the social appropriateness and competency of candidates. While it is not illegal to search these sites, be aware that use of the information to make a hiring decision can be a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). For example, just like using a credit report to deny employment, the FCRA requires that before denying employment based on information gleaned from these sites, employers must verify the information and provide the applicant with an opportunity to dispute the accuracy of the information presented on the social media site. Moreover, the denial of employment based on the information must still be job-related. In addition, using information gleaned online about an applicant's age, marital status, race, religion, or disability could invite a discrimination lawsuit.
4. Assess both emotional and practical intelligence.
Not all people have emotional intelligence-the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one's thinking and action. However, a lot of people don't have practical intelligence either. In other words, they may have academic intelligence (i.e., they can engage in tasks that are well-defined and that have correct answers or approaches), but not all people can solve problems that are poorly defined, for which there is incomplete information, or that have multiple solutions or methods for arriving at a solution. In some ways, this is similar to the definition of a weak situation discussed previously. Problem-solving and decision-making are a part of many jobs and, as such, require more than merely taking for granted that, because someone has a college degree or has work experience, they will be able to solve the kinds of problems your organization faces.
One thing you can do is to listen carefully for key words and phrases that demonstrate self and other emotional awareness. More references to we than to I, for example, demonstrates a collaborative nature. Asking applicants to respond to behavioral questions that require them to recall instances of practical intelligence is also a good idea. Your managers can probably generate a list of problems or issues that are routinely faced in the job or the organization, and these can be used to construct behaviorally based interview questions.
The bottom line: you can avoid hiring some employees who do not possess practical intelligence and emotional stability. However, nothing will be an infallible solution, because people will continue to say and do the dumbest things. Consider, however, that these are the people that make your job interesting, even if they are challenging.
_______________________________________________
1 Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality.
2 Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. (1990). Emotional Intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185-211.
