[IPAC-List] Getting people into jobs they're gonna love
Jeff Feuquay
jfeuquay at gmail.com
Tue Jun 7 09:22:48 EDT 2011
Makes me crazy when a sentence or a thought sticks with me, but the source
escapes recollection. Seems to me, though, that it was Bob Hogan at the
combined IPMA-HR/IPAC conference who said, "If you put someone in a job
that's not right for them, you're stealing their life." The context, as I
recall, was very much what Mark alludes to.
Methinks, "enjoys the job and doesn't constantly whine about it, thereby
being a boon rather than an irritant to all around" is a reasonable KSAP.
Jeff
-----------------------------------------
Dr. Jeffrey P Feuquay, I/O Psychologist & Attorney
Managing Consultant, Psychology-Law Center, LLC
108 W. Walnut, Nevada, Mo 64772
ofc: 417-667-5076 cell: 417-549-0997
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Pritchard, Ken <Ken.Pritchard at mwaa.com>wrote:
> 1. There is a danger here due to Title VII and other employment laws, and
> the danger may trump everything else. What employer wants to determine that
> someone is well-qualified for a job, but not well-suited by his/her deeper
> needs, and thereby "help" the candidate "decline" the job only to get sued
> (and lose) later on by the candidate?
> 2. There are systems that assess job content and what an individual's work
> "preferences" are USING THE SAME (behavioral) CRITERIA so that one can
> determine the degree of match as well as gaps. I think the best use of such
> systems with the least danger to the employer are in the domains of employee
> and organization development (including leadership development), job design,
> talent "redeployment" for any number of reasons (including RIF) and such FOR
> current employees (not candidates for a vacancy and surely not for external
> candidates for a vacancy).
>
> - Ken Pritchard
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org [mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org]
> On Behalf Of Mark Hammer
> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 2:33 PM
> To: ipac-list at ipacweb.org
> Subject: [IPAC-List] Getting people into jobs they're gonna love
>
>
> This past week, I was attending the Canadian Psychological
> Association's annual convention, and stopping by the various sessions
> put on by the Industrial/Organizational section. One of the themes at
> this year's convention was "positive psychology", and in keeping with
> that there were some nice papers on "psychological capital", loving
> one's job, and harmonious vs obsessive passion regarding work.
> It occurred to me that, in the world of staffing, we have these two
> separate universes of what we call vocational guidance, and selection
> and assessment. The former tries to identify what general kind of work
> would make an individual happy and be aptly suited for them, but is not
> specific to any particular position. The latter attempts to identify
> who would be competent and qualified for a specific position, but makes
> no attempt to determine if they would be happy in it, and love it.
> So the challenge arises: how do we reshape assessment and selection
> systems, procedures, and tools, such that the result is the placement of
> people into jobs that not only deliver for the organization, but ALSO
> deliver for the person in the job. How do we begin the re-engineering
> of selection systems with the goal of allowing people to be happy and
> fulfilled in their work?
> Of course, part and parcel of this is figuring out how the heck we'd
> tell someone "Look, you are VERY qualified for this work, in terms of
> skills, but all indices point to you being unlikely to be happy in it,
> over the long haul". I think some of that heavy lifting can certainly
> be done by job ads and RJPs that let people know more about the job and
> what a typical day/week/year would be like, so they can self-screen.
> But you can't rely on that exclusively. Even very clever people can
> still make bad judgment calls about what is really right for them;
> particularly if distracted by the increment to income, or some aspect of
> a job's status. Does it become the employer's perogative to make
> assumptions about the candidate's future happiness, and turn them away
> on the basis of signs and omens? Do we try, and then say "You pays your
> money and you takes your chances" if they want to take the chance?
> I'd like to think that selection is essentially match-making in its
> purest form - a "shidduch" for those of you better-versed in the Yiddish
> idiom - and that it is almost a basic human right to be happy in one's
> work, and be directed to work that makes you happy. "Happy" doesn't
> necessarily mean you stay in the job forever. You can think of some
> jobs as "the soup" that precedes the main course; satisfying in its own
> way, but merely a way-station, and presented as such. But soup doesn't
> have to be something you bite your lip to get through. It CAN be
> enjoyable.
> Do any of you already factor this in to how you conduct staffing, or
> view assessment? In some respects, I suppose it IS factored in, when
> people are selected for whether they will fit into a particular work
> team. Although I imagine the emphasis there is not on the happiness of
> the new team member, but the aggregate productivity of the team.
> Am I dreaming in technicolor or is this a realistic objective?
> Mark Hammer
> Ottawa
>
>
> >
> This e-mail message is intended for the named recipient(s) and may
> contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from
> disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or
> re-transmission is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient or not
> authorized by the named recipient(s), or if you have received this
> e-mail in error, then please notify the sender immediately and delete
> the message and any copies.
> >
> Ce courriel est destiné exclusivement au destinataire mentionné en titre
> et peut contenir de l'information privilégiée, confidentielle ou
> soustraite à la communication aux termes des lois applicables. Toute
> divulgation non autorisée, toute reproduction ou réacheminement est
> interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire de ce courriel, ou n'êtes
> pas autorisé par le destinataire visé, ou encore, si vous l'avez reçu
> par erreur, veuillez le mentionner immédiatement à l'expéditeur et
> supprimer le courriel et les copies.
>
> _______________________________________________________
> IPAC-List
> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
> http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list
> _______________________________________________________
> IPAC-List
> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
> http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list
>
More information about the IPAC-List
mailing list