Bryan, interesting comment. My experiences have taught me that most of the time the person exhibiting the negative behaviors, knows they are but does not know how to change or have the committment to change. If they did they would have already done it. It is easy for us to say they have to change.

I can’t tell you how many profiles and personality assessments that I have reviewed (after the fact), that all said person XYZ has a certain problem that they need to fix.

NONE of these assessments gave person XYZ the insight to make a difference in their lives. So who are we kidding? Most of the assessment tools typically just confirm what we already know about ourselves, but leave it up to us to fix ourselves. Again, if we knew how to fix ourselves we would have already done it.

It is much more difficult, but greatly rewarding, to develop someone that is committed to the point of making a change in behavior.

I just met a person this morning that is a very intelligent, young and passionate person, but is so strong in their presence and their introduction that they just turn you off. This person knows this about themself and is driven to change their behavior. This person is committed to making a change for their personal and professional success.

If an individual is committed to changing, then they can decide to change within the company they are in or to find a different culture where they will be understood and more of a fit.

If the company is using the assessment tool for individual growth then the company also has to support the individuals behavior change.

If the company is using the assessment tool to hire and fire, then someone they believe is mis-placed needs to be given support to find themself a new home.

Paulj.

Bryan, You raise an important point. It is important to offer feedback to people who are behaving in self-sabotaging ways. My experience in this area has been spotty. Some quickly realize the negative impact and make important changes – adding to the potential for both themselves and the team. Others steadfastly refuse to change. An important consideration is how much effort a company can afford to put out – how much expense and collateral damage it is willing to absorb. I think that most senior executives work on a two strike rule – two discussions on the topic and, if there is no significant improvement, the person is shown the door.

Dr. Smith

Certainly an interesting read and I can sympathize with the items on that list. In one of my former positions, I managed new recruits. I spent time with a lot of them telling them about the impact their behaviors had on others, particularly tardiness or unpreparedness. Most were unaware how their actions affected others’ opinions of them. By making direct statements to the person in question in a neutral environment and giving them a gentle nudge about how they would like to be perceived and/or respected, most changed these behaviors. The results of the behaviors and habits seem obvious in retrospect and if the person thought about them, he/she’d figure it out, but often the person may be so wrapped up in his/her tasks or minutae of his/her life that it went unexplored.

I certainly like to give people a chance by telling them if something bothers me before writing them off.

Dr. Smith,

I watched a video last night that has some interesting relationships to your paper.

Tribal Leaders by David Logan.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/david_logan_on_tribal_leadership.html

David’s basic premis is that humans groups operate at one of 5 ‘Tribal’ levels and that its a leaders objective to help these groups to climb this lader of tribal evolution.

Rather then groups passing from one level to the next, I think that a group exihibits all five levels in verying degrees. And even though the are at level 4, there is still level 1 behavior. In fact, the levels are built on top of each other, like the layers of an onion, so level 1 is always present, even at level 5.

I guess I call it part of the ‘Corporate Darwinism’ Syndrome
Perhaps there are some dots here to connect.
Vicious corporate Darwinism is taking over workplaces as recession pressure sets in, experts say, with people eviscerating each other over everything from missed deadlines to messy office kitchens.

Stress over impending or imagined layoffs, “survivor’s guilt” for those who dodge the axe and a panicked need to appear indispensable is mounting, they say, creating dysfunction in all sectors and levels of the corporate hierarchy.

“When times get tough, people get tougher on one another. They start acting more as individuals looking out for their own skins,” says Heather MacKenzie, a lawyer and president of The Integrity Group, a Vancouver consulting firm specializing in workplace conflict.

“I use the analogy of Survivor all the time: it’s outwit, outplay, outlast.”
GO TEAM!

So, how much fun is all of this?

Interesting Article. I classify these individuals as disengaged. All companies have some form of the disengaged workers. Some just stay below the radar as they have a paycheck and don’t care about anything else. Others don’t know where the company/boss is going, don’t like the company/boss or don’t agree with where the company/boss are taking the company.

These people are frustrated personally and professionally. These people, more often than not, have the talents and skills, but their subconscious decisions lead to their demise.

My experiences have shown that with disengaged workers/individuals, that it does not matter how good the plans , or processes are; if the 3 three key elements are not aligned, especially the people, the successes will be mediocore at best.

The 3 key elements are “Plans”, “Processes” and “People”. There must be alignment with all 3, to achieve successes that you never thought were possible.

Paulj.

Interesting article and comments on your site. I tried to respond but my browser kept getting stuck on this CAPTCHA Code.

I concur with John Glass on the style, but won’t argue with the content. For me personally these are all things that my parent taught me growing up and maybe parents reading this should take note.

Over the last twenty years I have lived on three continents and have worked in many countries (50+) across the globe. There certainly is a cultural aspect to this and there are countries where this list would be shorter and certainly places where it would be longer. This has to do with our differences in norms and values. For example people showing up late in countries like Spain is a given, while in Germany it would be a capital sin. Guess my point is that the article is a good trigger to think about those we interact with but that I would recommend to develop your own list as required by your environment.

Dr Smith,

Excellent knowledge once again.
Yet we may find around us several persons with given bearings deemed successful, thanks to how society assesses the success, in short or long term.
It appears “all is well that ends well” or somehow reaching the goal is more important, than scrutiny of means followed, and is considered a better policy.
Else truth, honesty, dedication, straightforwardness should not be at such a premium to practice.

Thanks again