The Ultimate Union Buster: A Personality Test?

Dr. Lewis Hollweg, head of the respected firm Batrus Hollweg International which does management behavior consulting and pre-hire testing in the hospitality industry, was recently interviewed in Nation’s Restaurant News by its editor for human resources, Dina Berta.  In the brief article, Root Out Pro-Union Staff With Smart Hiring Process[1],Hollweg references pre-hire personality profiles as a tool to predict future employee behavior.  Such tests have been in place for decades and used with increasing sophistication, mostly to keep the societal-maladjusted among us -- petty thieves, sexual deviants and harassers, egoists, tyrants and Oedipuses, representing the “cream of the crop” in organizational misfits --  from infecting an otherwise well-run company.

Citing a “wonderful” study conducted on a company in the United Kingdom Hollweg notes cheerily that after the dissected organization became unionized, there was nevertheless a happy ending of sorts, owing chiefly to the fact that the company “happened to have” on hand results of personality testing it had conducted sometime earlier.  Following the union election the company used the test results to learn “who had voted for the union and who didn’t.”  How?  Though he doesn’t say exactly Hollweg references “common denominators” that apparently paint a virtual red arm band on union supporters; they are, he says, “more likely to be unengaged, pessimistic, negative, fault finding and attribute control to other people.”  And, he adds, “they also tend to be more extroverted.” 

What’s missing from the NRN article?  For one, the tests are not foolproof.    As an HR practitioner I remember being told that test results can vary based on a variety of factors, even the test taker’s mood; is this true?   Employers should also be told of other potentially negative consequences to the use of personality profiles (e.g., if hiring rates of women and/or minorities drop once tests are administered, is that a problem?).   Also, what might result if an employer subject to the National Labor Relations Act finds itself in possession of information concerning ‘who voted for the union and who didn’t?’”  A future article might feature an employment lawyer qualified to answer these questions.   In the meantime, I confess a curiosity to know how the UK company cited by Dr. Hollweg, despite having tested its employees, was nevertheless unionized?  How did all those “negative” and “pessimistic” people get hired in the first place?    

While pre-hire testing can and should be considered for some jobs, I’m old fashioned, I guess, believing instead that a competent interviewer, whether from operations or HR, can conduct even the briefest of interviews, scan an employment application, spot missing information and other problem areas, and predict with regularity the stuff of which most applicants are made.  In this case, test results could confirm otherwise good hires, for me a better measure of their worth. 

Of course, even reasonably written, balanced and fairly scored tests come to naught if the people who lead the enterprise are not tuned in to the pulse of their workforce.  As well, accepting test results as valid without corroborating evidence such as interview results and reference checks is unwise. 

Whether it’s a union vote gone bad or a sexual harassment case we wish we’d averted, where companies continue to struggle is learning too late of an employee’s propensity to mistreat coworkers or subordinates.  Never fear, however; those drawers full of psychological profiles still have one final use -- serving as litigation exhibits to help prove what miserable people we tend to hire. 

 Be honest and be well.

Copyright 2009 by Charles A. Conine and Hospitality HR Solutions
Visit us on the Web at www.hospitalityhrsolutions.com

 

---

[1] Nation’s Restaurant News, March 16, 2009, p. 18

Common Sense: What's That?

Thirty years ago, my first corporate HR assignment was in foodservice labor relations, answering “what if?” employee relations inquiries from around our branches around the nation. On one occasion, after information I’d sought in our employee handbook eluded me I complained of the book’s inadequacy to my boss, a tough and highly talented labor negotiator with a knack for getting right to the point.

“Do we need to tell employees everything?” he asked, annoyed. Who would ever require something more than a general guide to conduct? Instead of asking me these questions, he added, use your common sense. Figure it out.

One’s intuition, our so-called “gut feeling” about situations and people is really the sum of our ever-growing appreciation of what we have observed in life. Our virtual file cabinet contains a massive list of variations on how choices affected outcomes. This nifty compendium, honed over time by our triumphs, flubs and mishaps requires for maintenance an only average intellect. Perhaps that’s why our acquired knowledge of how to make our way in the world is known as our “common” sense whereas our study of, say, how to erect a 110-story office tower, requires more specialized knowledge.

Over 165 years ago the poet and philosopher Henry David Thoreau observed rather wryly that, “There is no such thing as common sense; it is common nonsense.” More recently, in The Death of Common Sense: How the Law is Suffocating America, attorney Philip Howard says that our overregulated society and bloated bureaucracies are the cause of the cobwebs in our otherwise logical minds. Surely the wizards of the Internet are at fault as well; having crafted indispensible tools such as Google® they failed to realize that many would accept blindly whatever material they located there. Even when the answers prove wildly illogical their mere existence is proof of their validity. For example, did you know that Martians really did visit New Jersey in War of the Worlds, and that Orson Welles, the radio script narrator, died during the invasion?

In the hospitality industry we have sometimes lost our way where common sense is a factor. Have you witnessed any of the training programs that have been deconstructed to the point of, well, nonsense? Methinks the hand of a defense attorney is at work here: “First, shut off the coffee spigot. Then place the lid on the coffee cup, pressing hard to ensure a good seal.” Following a celebrated case where Starbucks was sued by a customer burned by its coffee, the company headed off the common sense cliff by adding a printed warning to its cups: “Caution; this beverage is very hot.” Many good attorneys I know argue convincingly that such “dumbing down” is, while unfortunate, a necessary protection given the lack of common sense their clients’ employees exhibit.

While attorneys are understandably doing their part to protect clients, shouldn’t we shoulder more of the burden? Some employers get it, and see to it that their employees are assigned a mentoring co-worker from day one, someone who shadows the newbie and will listen for clues on any understanding the new employee lacks. Think common sense cannot be taught? My old boss had it right: “With practice,” he said,”most people will figure out how things work.” If we reward common sense thinking, that is, and don’t add to the problem with training that assumes most employees are idiots.

Clearly there are those who will not benefit from a common sense primer. Some people refuse to see the oncoming locomotive until it has run them down. A friend relayed to me a follow-up story about that Burger King employee who recently and infamously climbed naked into his restaurant’s potsink to take a bath; soon thereafter video evidence of his lark appeared on YouTube®. By the time he and his videographer were fired his prank’s audience had gone “viral”, registering over 170,000 views in a matter of days. The kicker? When the store manager called to say “bye bye” the gangly bather is said to have good-naturedly inquired whether he might receive a second chance.

Be honest and be well.


Copyright 2009 by Charles A. Conine and Hospitality HR Solutions

Visit us on the World Wide Web at http://www.hospitalityhrsolutions.com/

Fighting a Two-Headed Monster

As another month of lousy economic news pushes its ugly maw deeper into the hospitality industry HR’s been continuing to partner with other senior management, crafting strategies to minimize further staff cuts. While roundly unpleasant, this task of figuring out who stays and who goes, which programs die and which are merely placed on life support, those of us wearing the HR badge have likely learned more about adaptation and innovation in the preceding 3-6 months than we’d known in our entire careers. Don’t put away those skills just yet. In case you’ve not noticed, the monster — what this very challenging period for HR has come to represent — has grown another head.

While we’ve been working overtime to keep employees focused as more of their friends and co-workers seek employment elsewhere our government has been busy passing laws that will bite us hard if we don’t pay attention.

The 2009 amendments to the 1992 Americans With Disabilities Act expand the definition of which employees are disabled, and what they can do if you don’t treat them as disabled. Changes to the Family & Medical Leave Act also demand attention. The newly minted Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, rolled out with great fanfare but lacking specificity, promises a torrent of litigation, in many cases for decisions made years ago. And then there’s the specter of the Employee Free Choice Act, its principal objective being to clear the path to unionization by minimizing the need for secret ballot elections; in a matter of months it could be the law of the land.

Had we only been fighting the wrenching pain of layoffs and downsizing it would still require the very best efforts HR could muster; this year, however, we have begun to witness what is predicted to be one of the most active employee-friendly legislative seasons in a very long time. Fighting this two-headed monster requires not only the summoning of Herculean fortitude; it probably means that HR will once again resort to a time-honored strategy for managing multiple problems: divide and conquer.

Be honest and be well.

Copyright 2008-2009 by Charles A. Conine and Hospitality HR Solutions

Double-Edged Sword

There I was, way back in 19 — well, way back then — fresh out of college and working in my first HR job at the venerable Hotel St. Francis on Union Square in San Francisco.

It was at this beautiful hotel where I discovered an unwavering truth, one of the tenets that have steered me through the great times and the challenging periods too.

The St. Francis not only enjoyed respect from well heeled travelers around the world, it had an army of supporters quite close to home — its employees. Beginning at the front entrance on Powell St. a tall and stately Arthur Van Allen greeted each guest alighting from a taxi. Art’s tenure: 20+ years. In the lobby bell captain George Cross, a 25-year veteran ran the bell team, many of whom had been employed at least as long as George.

Upstairs in a tiny locked room Arnold Batliner toiled, washing the hotel’s quarters, nickels, dimes and pennies so that, according to a tradition begun in 1938 ladies would not soil their gloves with unclean coins. Joy Sullivan, the general cashier, and Arnold could easily count 50 years of service between them. In housekeeping probably 25 percent of the large staff had been around at least 20 years.

Working in HR meant that I’d prepare the service award lists for our general manager Mr. Wilhelm to read off at the annual employee awards banquet, a rousing affair with hundreds of employees in attendance. The printed program told the story of literally thousands of years of service to the St. Francis. The number one entry on the list for each of the three years I was privileged to work there, was that of Marshall Fogg, whose name on the program was followed by an amazing inscription: “More than 45 Years of Service.” Marshall had serviced the St. Francis’ boilers and oiled its machinery for over twice the period of my entire life. His loyalty to one of San Francisco’s grande dames, a loyalty shared by hundreds of his co-workers, cast me in awe — and still does. Mr. Fogg carried around in his toolkit something more than loyalty, however.

What Marshall and Joy, Arnold and Arthur, George and all the others taught me in my years at the St. Francis was that mutual respect can bridge very wide gaps, closing them with a simple handshake. Mutual respect by employees and management was one of the hallmarks of the hotel. It became one of mine.

True to its management philosophy Westin Hotels somehow exported this sense of joie de vie — the joy for life — to virtually of its properties worldwide. To this day the Westin Alumni Association, a unique organization in itself, carries on its active rolls hundreds of members of its original hotel management teams (pre-Starwood), many of whom I interacted with at the three Westin properties where I worked in the 1970s, and all of whom have pledged to stay in touch. Several subscribe to our “HR Update” and many others have remained lifelong friends.

Sadly employee loyalty has been proven time and again to be a double-edged sword. It can save businesses and when cast aside, sink them. Not unsurprisingly there are very few St. Francis Hotel-like workplaces left for us to show off as models of hospitality built upon mutual respect. Those that have thrived and still maintain great employee/employer relationships are prevailing even in these tough times. In his commentary in this month’s “Hospitality Educator” column Cornell professor Bruce Tracey mentions one, Four Seasons Hotels. There are others, of course, those with often iconic leaders whose belief in mutual respect is matched only by their own joie de vie, an undeniably infectious zest for lives well lived. Bill Marriott, whom I consider one of the finest hoteliers ever, is such a person. Ruth Fertel, the deceased matriarch of Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse, was another.

If there was ever a time when employers should rethink their loyalty to their employees, we’re living it. The glitter has gone out of many so-called preferred employers, their catchy recruiting brochures giving way to the reality that, as my grandfather often said, a house built on a poor foundation stands only so long before collapsing. With layoffs and downsizing affecting nearly every hospitality organization the industry's honorable employees need reassurance that their loyalty has not been misplaced.

Be honest and be well.

Copyright 2008-2009 Charles A. Conine & Hospitality HR Solutions

Channeling Obama: Harnessing the Power of Passion

This post is reprinted from our newsletter "HR Update" which is available by complimentary subscription. Send an e-mail with your name, title and company to info@hospitalityhrsolutions.com


Though the history-making presidential election is, well, history, lessons remain about who voted for Barack Obama — and why.

Hospitality industry employees were a friendly constituency, it turns out. In fact the people who make up a huge portion of our industry — minorities, women, people under 30 — voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Impressive statistics, these: Young voters favored Obama by a margin of 68% to McCain’s 30%. Latinos, 67%. Women, 55%. African-Americans, 96%.

Why the lopsided victory? Exit polls showed that Obama prevailed not merely as a youthful, vigorous alternative to McCain. Instead it was Obama’s message — “hope”, “we can do better”, “McCain is another Bush” — that truly resonated with voters, and even inspired them.

Far from denying that possibility, many can easily recall how inspired they were by a young John F. Kennedy. In his time Franklin Roosevelt so lifted the electorate they asked him back again — and again. More recently, there was the immediate and powerful effect of President Bush’s speech atop the New York City fire truck right after 9/11.

If it’s true that Obama’s message — and not just voter dissatisfaction with President Bush —was the major factor in his victory, we ignore our employees’ passion for the new president at our own peril. On the other hand the specter of misguided legislation emerging in the next Congress — we hear a lot about the Employee Free Choice Act, for example — is a genuine cause for concern.

So, what do we do now? Stage a pre-emptive attack on Congress’s new spending initiatives? Speak with a united voice, saying our industry will not accept new or expanded entitlements or wrong-headed “free choice” legislation? It’s likely we will do a fair amount of that.

How will these attacks on President Obama’s ideas resonate with our employees? A wholesale condemnation of Obama’s thoughts about “change” could backfire, encouraging employees who believe management is tone deaf to look for work elsewhere or, worse, galvanize their co-workers to promote change. Did someone mention the EFCA?

A more moderate, no less determined approach may alienate far fewer employees and even win allies. While keeping an eye on emerging legislative proposals, employers can earn important goodwill by demonstrating to their employees that their desire for change was heard.

But where to begin? Think demographics: for example, what employer policies might we alter to appeal to the more mobile Generation Y? What benefit programs could we amend, without adding costs, to permit part-timers to have some albeit limited health coverage? How soon could we support more community involvement by everyone on the team? Could we sponsor a modest employee scholarship program?

Engaging and energizing a shrunken workforce during an economic decline unprecedented in recent history is a tall order, even for the best of companies. But if we view this challenge from a different perspective — there’s a new president with a huge cheering section, anxiously awaiting its marching orders — we could harness the power of passion, and profit from it.

Harassment Training: A Sham?

Way back in the Dark Ages when the concept of sexual harassment debuted in one after another expensive and embarassing lawsuits employers were forced to take more seriously the notion that where sex is concerned, employees can not always be trusted to do the right thing. Brought out of the shadows by diligent and ever more aggressive litigation sexual harassment not only got a name but more importantly, we learned that in many of these cases trusted managers -- alright, even executives -- were named as defendants.

In the wake of years of such cases, well more than a dozen states passed laws either requiring or encouraging employers to provide some form of anti-harassment training. California, ever the leader in employee-related regulations, adopted AB1825 in 2005, requiring employers of 50 or more to provide regularly scheduled training for newly hired supervisors and current management.

While various people have grumbled, and more than a few in our industry have wondered aloud concerning the efficacy of the training, it seems obvious that at least its key admonitions, taught bi-annually as California's law requires, are likely to be remembered, if not universally adhered to. Equally obvious: training that is regularly reinforced has to help reign in harassing conduct.

Did I say it seems obvious? Not so fast, says one California educator. Using a guest editorial in the Los Angeles Times on November 21, 2008 as his platform UC Irvine professor of molecular biology Alexander McPherson laid out his reasons for refusing the university's repeated entreaties to attend the required training. Calling the program "a disgraceful sham" McPherson, a tenured professor, said he found the training "repugnant and offensive" and added that an unnamed "vocal political/cultural interest group" was responsible "as part of a politically correct agenda that I don't particularly agree with."

As the professor's comments echoed on the West Coast, in the Midwest the echo was draped in irony. Nine days before McPherson's editorial was printed a University of Iowa college music professor, Mark Weiger, was found dead in his garage, a victim of an apparent suicide. His death came a week after a former student filed a lawsuit alleging sexual misconduct by Weiger when he was her professor. In August another University of Iowa professor, Arthur Miller, also took his own life after being charged with accepting sexual favors from students in return for favorable grades. In the wake of the Miller case the university ordered its professors to sit for training -- on how to avoid sexual harassment.

Whatever we take from these eerily similar tragedies Professor McPherson's insistence that mandated sexual harassment training is a "sham" is an opinion he is free to state. And he could well be right; after all, what the training seeks to impart is really all about simple respect, and common sense. Perhaps an employer's policy statement to that effect might suffice at some workplaces.

Yet somehow I can't shake the feeling that Professor McPherson, who says he's received many letters of support for his position, would set a more enduring example if he were to state publicly that despite his objections to the material being taught, he owes it to his students to do as they do: sit in the chair, listen politely, and at least look interested. Following the training, when the inevitable Q&A session arrives, the professor could articulate his views and, just as in his classroom many would be educated simply by being there to hear opposing views.

Be honest and be well.

Copyright 2008 by Charles A. Conine and Hospitality HR Solutions

The Attitude "Alarm Clock"

When I was a kid my mother used to tell me that someday I'd appreciate what having no responsibilities felt like, though at the time, watching out for our family cat, my trucks and trains and a host of Matchbox toys seemed like a big enough responsibility to me. All too soon came my first opportunity to see what being an adult was really like: I was to grow and sell vegetables to our neighborhood, an idea of an eccentric aunt whose motto was "idle hands are the devil's workshop." The money earned would be my allowance; the days of weekly quarters from mom, and advances on next week's quarter, were over.

At fifteen a girlfriend suggested, firmly, that she would no longer pay for my ticket to the local drive-in movie. Then she promptly marched me off to where she worked, the local Marriott Hot Shoppes. There a tall, imposing and stern-faced fellow, Terry Stone, offered me my first "real" job as a short-order cook in the restaurant's snack bar. More responsibility. Showing up on time. Working versus talking. But it felt good, in the way that the notion of regular exercise, once confronted and actually implemented, can change your attitude toward physical labor. It can, though it doesn't always, particularly if you think it's not worth the effort. Some people work through the pain, the inconvenience, sore muscles, reduced couch time. Some put that New Year's resolution on the pile with all the others.

The same is true of the employees we hire. Hoping that they will succeed we provide them the tools -- and we wait. We wait for the new hire's skills to sharpen, her mind to focus solely on the task at hand. Sometimes it does, and we reward the effort. When her mind wanders, we remind her that "this is work, you know; you can daydream later." Sometimes this works, and sometimes it doesn't. That's when we bring out the big guns: "Keep up like this, and you will be out of a job," we say, knowing that only some employees will hear, let alone care about this admonition. Others will not hear or not care. Some are so impertinent they simply walk off the job which may seem an attractive alternative to hearing the words "you're fired."

What separates those who do from those who do not? What single definable characteristic caused the Ritz Carlton hotel chain to win the prestigious Malcolm Baldridge quality award? How can Crystal Cruises keep up its unparalleled reputation as "best cruise line", winning the Travel & Leisure award, year after year? What inner strength led an adopted child, Dave Thomas, to found and lead Wendy's?

As my grandfather used to say, it's all about mental attitude.

When hiring, promoting, training and yes, even disciplining, watch the candidate or employee's attitude. Some, as we all know, are timid about showing they care; with encouragement, however, they blossom. Others are natural leaders and will pick up every job you throw their way, do it, then ask for the next assignment. Others seem wooden, disinterested, unfocused; this group, needless to say, may not be your best new hires. You're reaching them too late.

All great performers possess an attitude "alarm clock". They know when it's time to add effort and when to let others take the lead. They keep track of important dates and rarely, if ever, miss work. They prepare. They smile, share kudos with co-workers. They participate in performance assessments, offering occasionally overly harsh self-appraisal just to show that they're aware of their shortcomings. When an especially challenging moment arrives -- deciding whether to return lost property, telling the truth about a missed goal -- the "alarm clock" inside superstars rings. It just rings. No prompting needed.

Can we teach employees to possess an attitude "alarm clock?" The subject of much debate, this is. What is very clear, however, is that great attitudes are catchy, and where one resides, others will follow.

Be honest and be well.

Copyright 2008 by Charles A. Conine and Hospitality HR Solutions