Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Human Resources: Self Awareness in Analysis

                     
                         Agenda and Emotional Intelligence

Those who have an agenda, or narrative, often not only have this agenda trump other priorities in life, but it often trumps common sense and can even be self destructive.  There is an easy way to spot the agenda driven, even before the actual agenda is stated, as agenda driven people are prone to a need for moral superiority over others.  It is this need, itself, that betrays them, and reveals the void within them that is sometimes filled at the expense of others.  

If you do not agree with their agenda, you are full of immorality (hatred) and are illogical (irrational fear), and if you speak up, there will be consequences, rather than freedom of speech.  These consequences may be severe, and more than a company may wish to take on.  

In business training where analysis is used not only in screening applicants, but in sales, companies should expect an increase in sales, year after year.  

This should coincide with an increase in morale, lesser unemployment costs, and reduced theft, including theft by illicit filing of suits and complaints.

Recent reports from human resource professionals as well as supervisors, managers, etc is fascinating with a universal theme emerging.  

In listening to managers a common complaint arose:  the "millennial worker", where each described the same type of employee:

One who is young, either in college or fresh out of college, who needs constant affirmation, refuses to work hard, and who is entitled.  

This was a consistent report from throughout the US as well as the UK and Canada.    

I remind those who hire or supervise that when the company has employed Statement Analysis in the hiring process, to remember: 

As difficult as the employees may be, these are the ones who were not screened out in analysis!  It would be far more difficult should those who's statements concluded that no interview should be granted, were hired.    Those who were screened out of the employment process that they did not meet; those who's answers in the questionnaire revealed the "delicate snowflake"; extremely emotional fragility coupled with an aversion to work.  

Several have commented that "just five ago, it was not like this", in some form or another.  

Some redacted questionnaire responses  show what I want the HR interviewers to see:  those they struggled with were far better than those who were screened out in the questionnaire.  

Emotional Intelligence, or self awareness was another key topic for discussion. 

Some present written applications with :) or "lol" while others think this is some form of a "written selfie" with, "I like to dance, and write poetry while sunbathing with my boyfriend..." as reasons to hire them.  

Some show contempt for the application and screening process.  

Others will give the names of their pets and all the things they do together, but finally adding, "I do like working with people" which matters less for a CPA than it does in consumer sales. 

I showed that those who have an agenda, often lack the self-awareness and discussed the origin of this:

"Self delusional moral superiority"; that is, the person with the agenda thinks he or she is so far superior, morally, to all others, actually lacks the self awareness to consider:

Someone may not agree with you.  

when this is combined with a desperation for relevancy, it is the perfect storm for an employer.  

Recently, I received a phone call from an attorney of whom I had given some assistance in communications with his difficult client.

He had objected to their desire to homeschool and I was about to agree with his assertion as it would not be in the best interest of the child when he interrupted me and said,

"Listen, homeschooling instead of government publicly funded schooling is, in the best homes and in the best situations, extreme child abuse."

How's that for an intolerant bigot with little emotional intelligence? 

He showed one of the two elements of the agenda driven:

They believe themselves morally superior to all others, and will, given enough time, find an event of which to highlight this superiority.  

In this case, this attorney also volunteers as a Guardian Ad Litem, meaning that any parent who homeschool, is under his condemnation, without consideration to talent, skill, work level, capability, circumstances, and so on.  He would not grasp the recent article on bias in analysis.  

He reminded me of a woman I interviewed for an investigator position years ago who was asked about prior work experience to which she proudly proclaimed that she used to work at Walmart where she took all the hunting magazines off the shelf, and buried them away in the back stock rooms, without any consideration if I, or the other interviewer, was a hunter or gun owner.  

Like the attorney, she "knew" her morally superior position was something no sane nor rational person could possibly not agree with.  She talked herself right out of a job with lots of excellent training and was 'proud' of her 'martyr' status.  Imagine her investigating a claim or allegation against someone who is a gun owner?  When the viewpoint is so extreme that there is no filter, it is an "agenda" and not simply a view point.  

We see this same tyrannical view that belies the bigotry, and given authority, damage comes.  

We seek to avoid hiring anyone with an agenda, religious, political, social, etc, and the HR interviewers are especially challenged to consider this when the "social justice warrior" touches upon something the interviewer, personally, agrees with.  Bringing agenda driven employees is to invite trouble, discord, and eventually a law suit, whether or not we care for their agenda, or if we disagree with them. 

Generally, I remain silent in such, noting the lack of intelligence and lack of self awareness, but I had just gotten a pedantic lecture from someone running a business, publicly, on a topic that had no relation to the discourse.  He brought up the topic of abortion, almost as if he had been waiting to bring it up, while the topic at hand was limited to his business, regulations and hiring practices.  

 He condemned any restriction on abortion in an ongoing monologue, and in doing so, assumed that I and those present, would readily agree with everyone he said; without the slightest self awareness that someone  may feel differently than he did.  It was as if he was selling shares of stock in Planned Parenthood's sale of baby parts; he was enthusiastic and glad that "everyone" has a right to abortion, as I observed the descending awkward silence as no one wished to comment on something so 'out of left field' in a professional setting.  

If someone felt, for example, that abortion was a most dreadful private decision between husband, wife and doctor, where life and death decisions may be made without government interference, it would have been something beyond his scope of acceptance.  He was as bigoted as the attorney who, thankfully, lacks the talent to ever make judge. 

 This pontificating assumes that everyone feels the same way about school, guns, abortion, and so on, and that no moral person might disagree. 

Hence, the two warnings of agenda driven-employees to consider.  These are not simply important elements of life, that we all have, yet remain professional at work to keep private.  This is the consuming agenda that projects:  

1.  The ego is highlighted by the extreme lack of self awareness, or "emotional intelligence."  This does not make for good sales, employee relations, or morale.  They practice an emotional tyranny and quickly divide people who have come to work, not to be lectured on the cause de jour, but to work and earn a living.  

2.  The tyrannical (and egotistical) personality will seek justification once disagreement finally raises its head.  Many professionals will just remain quiet, not wishing to get into politics, religion, etc, at the work place, but the insecurity of the tyrant always pushes the issue.  Once disagreement is sensed, you can set your watch on the fact that the disagreement is made known, the agenda seeker will find a way to justify his or her position.  If it is racism, they will find someone to be discriminated against, to the point of "fake hate" and the subsequent stress and costs to the company.  

Consider this:  the agenda-driven employee, when met with professional silence, is likely to feel very insulted at this silence and may provoke an incident, but prior to this, the professional silence will weigh upon him or her, and even if a 'counsel' or 'counseling memo' is issued, please note:  this is the 'persecution' they seek. 

They are no different than the LGBT advocate who deliberately goes into a Christian bakery; something that is not done at Muslim bakeries.  The tyranny and fascist views will either be accepted, or their will be consequences; intolerance following the demand of tolerance.  This is why I highlight the self-destructive and illogical thought of extremist or agenda driven.  

Back to the call with the attorney: 

Interestingly enough, the blustering incessantly talking attorney who was "without a drop of doubt" dropping the clients I sought to assist, was now going to "retain them" as if he was, again, taking the moral high ground.  He had spent quite a bit of energy reminding me, "they can't afford me; they cannot afford me" not considering  that I knew that he wasn't successful as an attorney from the various interactions over the years.  

When the clients had told me that they were in a panic because he was going to abandon them midway through the case, I told them that it was unlikely, as he did not have many clients seeking his services, for even after years, he was still making no headway into the private sector.    

To his "extreme child abuse" comment, I said,

"Yeah, I homeschooled my four children early on", all of whom have college degrees and are professionals.  He could only stumble over his words and say, "well, whatever..." though when I hung up, I thought about all the parents he had dealt with given his ignorance and bigotry and wondered if he had been able to better control his bigotry in his presentations to the court as to where a child belonged.  

Supremacy Thinking Exampled  

I have included a fascinating article that shows two groups of people on opposite sides:  

both of whom consider themselves the superior to the other, and both of whom will respond in kind.  

It is here:

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7782/sweden-roma-beggars

It is a fascinating insight into the clash between two cultures; both of whom believe themselves superior to the other, while money exchanges hands.  

One feels themselves superior to the other, so out of guilt, it gives money away freely.  

The other feels themselves superior to the other, so it deliberately exploits the guilt felt by taking money. 

It is an interesting commentary on irony and just how far from reality and human nature one group has become, while showing the other group seemingly to not only grasp the pride and supremacy of the other, but exploit it, too, damaging their own selves, their dignity and work ethic.  

From the 2,000 year old admonition, "If a man will not work, neither shall he eat."

The old fish versus fishing pole argument is based upon what people think of human nature. 

What an analyst thinks of human nature will dictate his "expectation" in language.  

This article, in particular, goes into detail and is worth what it
 gives insight into human nature where the ego is in full gear. 

The Human Resource professionals today  not only must sift through a new, entitled generation, but must also internally investigate all the myriad of claims of dissatisfaction; not wishing to ever miss someone who is bullied or abused, but also not wanting to reward those who want to "game the system" in numbers unprecedented in American history. 




7 comments:

foodiefoodnerd said...

It seems every workplace has some scumbag there to game the system and suck dry every generosity the company provides, from extra paid time off, to nice snacks and beverages in the breakroom.

Then, instead of individually calling out the only jerk (or preferably get rid of the albatross), they address it generically, company-wide, and often by taking from all the privilege misused by one.

And gee, what a surprise, the Adam Henry who should never have been hired to start with, continues taking, undisrupted, while the good majority loses out again.

Peter, on overcoming our biases: would you consider a dedicated post where we can briefly list our own, and learn from others?

Hx of child abuse, recovering alcoholic, badly burned by liars, etc. Of the big ones we got wrong is there a common theme.

Peter Hyatt said...

fools,

it is epidemic.

I get statements sent to me from all over the country, the UK and Canada.

Here in the U.S. everyone now has an angle.

Human nature is no longer viewed through any form of scientific or reasonable lens.

The singular is greater than the plural.

Emotion trumps science.

Protestant Work Ethic, as it was known, is now "white privilege" but if practiced by blacks, it is "traitor"; if it is by Asians, it is "twinkles" (yellow on the outside, but white on the inside).

It is racism.

Like all racism, it is self destructive. Teams that hire players that are best compete better than teams that (once) excluded due to race.

Success is condemned while Victim status is embraced.

Food Stamps by two groups:

1. Non working, with no intention of working; (long term user)
2. Working, but low income (short term, temp. use)

examined with the third:

3. not using food stamps

have had their purchases observed. The results were predictable.

$100 spent by all three.

Group one had only 30% the amount of food than groups two and three. (group three and group two are almost identical)

those who spent their own money, closely followed by those who worked but got food stamps, purchased much more food for the $100 than did the non-worker (long term food stamp user)

Those who worked bought:

bread and sandwich meat

Those who did not work bought

ready made sandwiches that many supermarkets now offer

Those that worked bought potatoes, while long term non workers bought french fries.

Those that worked bought flour, eggs, milk, etc, for cooking; those who did not bought prepared or frozen food.

The financial difference overall meant that those who worked spent the food stamps carefully, as did those who used their own money.

When I was a teen, there were rich kids who were given new cars for their 17th birthday. It was not long until these new cars had dents and were filthy.

The poor kids also had cars; junkie cars that we worked at McDonald's to support.

They were cleaned and polished with pride.

Human nature does not change.

Peter

foodiefoodnerd said...

What's that odd bubbling sound Oh, it's my blood boiling!

My first tax-paying job was at age 13; back then (1979) it was legal in our state for very low income families.

My father never wanted my mother to work or even learn to drive a car, then bailed on the family and fled the state to avoid paying child support.

For me, getting to work, earn a living and help my mother was a no-brainer over welfare or chasing down the deadbeat. We had some tight months, but we did ok.

The innovative skills and resourcefulness that only poverty can hone and strengthen are among life's greatest blessings and important survival skills, long after and far beyond just financial challenges.

Also, with careful shopping and some (fun!) effort in the kitchen, that $100 in groceries all fixed up into meals will have comparatively even more food, more delicious treats and even more nutrients than the overpriced chemical blobs in the center aisles.

(PS: Any SA bias inferred from my random screen name is entirely in your heads! :^D)

Lemon said...

Does the attorney have issues with alcohol?

rjb said...

Over the past two days, my husband has received death threats and I was told I should "drink some bleach and wash [my] mouth out with a bullet" after commenting on a Facebook post about the current laws being passed regarding transgender persons in public restrooms. Reading the vitriol spewed at us, I immediately thought of this article. The person attacking us is so agenda-driven that it has consumed every aspect of her life, leaving her incapable of reasoned discourse with nothing at her disposal but ad hominem attacks and violent impulses.

Peter Hyatt said...

Tolerance for us, or violence to you.

Hear us, or we will shout you down and you won;t be heard.

When a man looks in the mirror and sees a woman, he needs help.

When we expect him to act and speak rationally, we need help.

Bruce Springsteen canceled his concert in NC, which did not sell out, but not in Italy?

Selective rights for a select few.

Peter Hyatt said...

Ms Lemon,


ha!


Red nose, ya mean?

Very wise.