 |
| or Log In |
Case Number 1: What is Wrong With Me?
Case Number 2: Fred's Story
Case Number 3: Using The JPEA™ To Make Informed Career Choices
Case Number 4: Where do I Fit?
Case Number 5: Howard Finds a "Good Fit"
Case Number 6: What's Wrong with Me #2?
Case Number 7: Look Before You Leap into College or a Career
Case Number 1: What is Wrong with Me?
As a career management consultant, I normally work with executives who are unemployed as a result of downsizing. Occasionally I do get to work with one who is discharged "for cause." About two years ago, I was assigned a client who had been let go by his company from his position as Vice President of Marketing for "non-performance." In his late 30's, he had been recruited by the company only 18 months previously because of his outstanding record. While his relations with his boss had grown somewhat strained, the separation came as a surprise.
After spending some time talking with the individual and learning of past accomplishments, it became apparent that he was extremely bright and seemingly competent. It was also apparent that his self-confidence and self-esteem had been dealt a substantial blow. In discussing his relationships during his tenure with his most recent employer, I began to suspect a mismatch between his style and his boss'.
To verify my suspicions, I asked him to complete the JOB Assessment on his most recent position and then to complete the PERSON Assessment. We spent substantial time verifying the results of the JOB to be certain that it adequately reflected the requirements of the job. We moved on to the PERSON and repeated the process.
The final step was to share with him the results of the Job-Person Match. It revealed six areas of significant difference and three others that were borderline. After I explained the significance of the results, we re-visited his recent job experiences. With his new insight, he was able to look back and understand when and why the relationship had gone awry. It allowed him to put the situation in proper perspective. With the knowledge that the problem lay in lack of fit and not lack of ability, he was able to focus on his job search with renewed confidence and energy.
Back to Top
Case Number 2: Fred's Story
Fred was Director of Human Resources; 47 years old; and very committed to his wife and children. Then he was told that he would no longer have a job.
The loss of a job, the ensuing emotional challenges and the effort of a job search were difficult enough. To Fred, there was the additional struggle with an old but recently diagnosed enemy - Attention Deficit Disorder (A.D.D.).
Last year, Fred had been diagnosed with A.D.D. Common characteristics of this neurological disorder are restlessness, being easily distracted, difficulty sustaining attention and concentrating, difficulty following instructions, impulsiveness and impatience, disorganization and difficulty in planning ahead. A.D.D., which until recently was believed to disappear in adolescence, has been found to continue for 30-70% of individuals into adulthood.
When we interpreted the Person Assessment, there were four Key Relationships. These were:
Information Processing-Low; Performance Feedback (Subjective) -High
Control/Influence (Things)-Low; Task Involvement (Multiple)-High
Performance Feedback (Subjective)-High; Service to Others-High People Involvement (One-on One)-High
Task Involvement (Variety)-High; Specialist Orientation-Low
Individually and collectively, these four Key Relationships comprised a profile which could make one trained in evaluating Attention Deficit Disorder pause. Catching their attention could be phrases like "...letting things fall through the cracks", ...'likely to have time problems", "...may find saying 'No' to others difficult", "...may likely be easily bored with 'routine' tasks, requiring you to use only a 'narrow' range of your knowledge and skills".
As we discussed the Person Assessment and other events in Fred's career history, he shared that this was not the first time he had lost his job. There were two other times he had been dismissed. In all three cases, he worked for a Tell-Directing Manager who did not value Fred's facilitative style.
Fred and I have discussed what makes him effective and in what environment he works best. We have included these in his resume, and he has evaluated potential environments with those factors in mind. When he is valued for improving the existing, for his informative and sensitive presentations, for playing a critical role in a team, and for his coaching capabilities, he will be where he should be.
Medication, having an administrative staff person with strong organizing capabilities, and managing his time and commitments so his plate doesn't become too full have been valuable to Fred as he has confronted A.D.D. through the years. Knowing what the enemy is has been a significant factor in recent years, to utilize the correct resources and minimize its impact.
Incidentally, Fred has had two separate consulting assignments during his nine-month job search and is negotiating a full-time opportunity that he has carefully evaluated in terms of the fit.
Perhaps JPEA™ users can help others identify similar potential enemies that cause us to be less than we can be. Fred had been working for over 20 years before he found out about A.D.D.
There are certainly others in the work place who have similar disorders who could be saved from career anguish because of someone reviewing a JPEA™ and wondering about the results. Further exploration may lead to a career-saving intervention.
Back to Top
Case Number 3: Using The JPEA™ To Make Informed Career Choices
It is becoming increasingly clear that if we want to have power over our own careers, we must reclaim it from our employers and make choices for ourselves. Many people feel out of control of their career progression for many good reasons. However, being out of control does not necessarily mean being powerless. Others may control circumstances surrounding our employment (e.g., performance standards, rewards, opportunities for advancement, etc.), but we retain the power to respond to those circumstances in ways that we believe to be the most beneficial to us. The notion that our employers will take "care" of our career development died along with the concept that "up" was the only "honorable" direction for career movement. We can use the JPEA™ results to help us reclaim our power and accept responsibility for the outcomes. Following are two examples where individuals, armed with the results of the JPEA™ made career-changing choices:
Ted: Using his perception of the behavioral demands of his job, Ted was feeling energized by both his "role" and a supportive environment. However, what emerged from the Job Consensus discussion was a job that was significantly different from his perception. He acknowledged the "legitimacy" of the manager's expectations by agreeing that to perform successfully, he needed to behave as the Job Consensus indicated. After the session and a re-computation of the Energy Map™, it became apparent that Ted would use considerable energy performing his duties in accordance with the newly-defined behavioral requirements. He then had two choices: (1) "Play the role," probably tiring of it after a while and expending considerable energy; or (2) take personal responsibility for seeking other opportunities that were more to his liking behaviorally. He chose the latter, seeking those opportunities with the knowledge and full support of his manager. He landed in a more comfortable role with another organization. As a result, he, his manager, and both organizations were "winners".
Art: Unlike Ted, Art was feeling de-energized by his perception of his job's requirements and the environment's lack of support. In this case, the Job Consensus session confirmed the accuracy of his perceptions. Also, his manager acknowledged that there was little likelihood there would be changes in some of the areas of the environment that were most important to Art, yet least supportive. These results made it clear to Art that this job situation would not likely allow him to be comfortable and perform successfully at the same time. Because he valued Art's talents, the manager completed The Job Assessment for two other jobs for which he believed Art to be qualified. I re-computed Art's Energy Map™ for these jobs and advised him to try the more comfortable one, at least for the amount of time necessary for him to explore other options. After thinking about it and talking with his family over a weekend, he decided to refuse both job offers and continue doing the job in ways that were most comfortable for him. He knew that the consequences of this choice would be a performance problem that would eventually force the manager to initiate an adverse personnel action. Approximately three (3) months later, Art was terminated for cause.
You can see that Ted and Art made very different choices about their careers, and you may even argue the wisdom of Art's choices. Nevertheless, both used the intelligence from the JPEA™ to make career-changing choices with full knowledge of the reasons for them and their likely consequences. They did not believe they were able to control their circumstances, but after completing the JPEA™ process, they knew they were able to control their responses to them. Instead of choosing to be victimized by circumstances that they believed to be out of their control, they chose to use the JPEA™ to help them take important steps in the direction of reclaiming their power and accepting responsibility for the outcomes.
Back to Top
Case Number 4: Where do I Fit?
The Overview:
Ben Thomas left his position as Assistant General Counsel at a large regional bank and was searching for a deeper understanding of an unsatisfactory job fit. As he networked with other lawyers, he felt the need for a rational explanation as to why he was attracted to (and wanted to be considered for) legal positions in the non-profit sector. My challenge was to develop helpful and logical criteria for the assessment and networking phases of career transition as he sought a job shift.
The Administration and Interpretation of the JPEA™:
An initial meeting was held where Ben was invited to participate in an instrument that could help him achieve a better fit with his prospective career choice universe. A brief explanation of the instrument was provided as well as a framework for answering the questions on both the "job" and "person" aspects of the JPEA™.
After receiving the scored materials from Human Productivity Systems, the results were analyzed and prepared for the interpretation. The session was about two hours in duration and held in the context of a career counseling session. After explaining the scope of the findings (preference not ability, motivation not personality theory - a factor since Ben had recently undergone a Myers-Briggs evaluation), there was careful review of the Person Profile. Attention was given to the explanation of the definitions for each category, followed by the questions, "Is this true for you/Can you show me how this fits into your actual work experiences?" This process was also used for the Job-Person Match.
The Results:
The most significant finding to Ben was within the Service to Others category. One of the rogue elements in Ben's former employment was a lack of access to work that was "helping other people." Ben was so starved for this that he spent roughly 500 hours a year outside his busy job and large family, helping others through his church. Finding affirmation for this preference lent credence to his desire to shift to the nonprofit sector. Demonstrably, this was now a rational move on his part. He was also advised to seek positions in the new sector where he could receive more subjective feedback, another JPEA™ category. Both of these were significant differences in his Job-Person match with his previous position as a legal lending specialist at the bank.
In short, a lawyer candidate who initially found the career counseling process a bit fuzzy and short on transition logic, found a rational framework for his career shift in the ordered, more logical aspects of the JPEA™.
Back to Top
Case Number 5: Howard Finds a "Good Fit"
I recently provided one-on-one career counseling for Howard, who had been asked to take an early retirement package from a major New Jersey bank, which had recently been involved in several mergers and acquisitions. This man had 30+ years in the public relations field. Howard is a very creative individual, who had designed many events, awards, etc., for the bank. Although he received a generous package, both by financial need (children in college) and temperament (a very active man), he needed to continue working.
Howard was very unfocused regarding his career path. Although he enjoyed public relations, he did not like the bureaucracy of large corporations. He also had so many areas of interest that he didn't know which ones to pursue. He is very active in his community, is on the boards of numerous not-for-profit organizations, hosts a radio talk show, is an expert on the life and music of Frank Sinatra, and occasionally teaches courses at a local college.
Howard's first and perhaps most important expectation from career counseling was to help him narrow in on potential careers that he would enjoy and that would provide a decent compensation rate. I took a four-pronged approach to help him sort through his options. I had him complete four assessment surveys and identify his top five skills from a fairly long listing of power verbs. The assessment forms were 1. Myers-Briggs; 2. Campbell Skills and Interest; and, 3. The JOB and PERSON portions of the JPEA™. I used these assessments because each one presents a certain view of the individual, and when taken together, I find they point out very useful areas of convergence and trends. It provides a fairly comprehensive assessment of the individual.
The process was extremely successful. Howard's Myers-Briggs type is ENFP. He is dynamic, enthusiastic, and highly-skilled with people. The PERSON Assessment indicated several strong motivators including very high interest in service to others, high people involvement (both one-one-one and group), and high control/influence over people. He was low in the area of decision making/information processing and low for specialist orientation. The autonomy level was moderate, which for him seemed to indicate a preference for broad guidelines within which he had a fairly high level of freedom. I had Howard fill out the JOB Assessment, using his job at the bank, and it confirmed for him that he preferred to be in a position with more authority and less bureaucracy and task-orientation. He wanted to provide meaningful service to others. The most logical path that we discussed was for him to pursue a director position at a medium-sized not-for-profit organization. A small one would require too much day-to-day responsibility for tasks and a large one would have too many levels of bureaucracy.
He had a well-established network in the not-for-profit arena due both to his personal and professional involvement. In a very short period of time, he had interviews at several foundations that seemed well-suited to his skills, interests and temperament.
Howard was very happy with the entire assessment process and said it exceeded his expectations.
Back to Top
Case Number 6: What's Wrong with Me #2?
Dave was let go because of his blunt mannerisms and autocratic style, which angered his employees. At our initial meeting, I introduced him to the JPEA™. He did not understand why he was let go and hoped to gain some understanding from the instrument.
He had been the head of a department in a large organization. He had to manage a large staff and had leadership and supervisory responsibilities. Unfortunately, he had a habit of dealing with his employees in a very directive, authoritarian way and never seemed to find time for one-on-one supervisory feedback meetings. Dave's subordinates did not have an opportunity to discuss issues and concerns in individual supervisory meetings, and his employees complained to his supervisor. Morale was low because he controlled using a directive/tell approach. This eventually led to Dave's dismissal from the company.
When apprised of this information during the interpretation of his JPEA™ results, he expressed surprise. He thought that his approach was supportive, thinking he performed his job well by training and directing his staff. He believed individual meetings were simply hand-holding and an unnecessary waste of his time, his employees' time, and company resources.
The JPEA™ indicated that Dave's job required him to spend time with subordinates and share ideas using a participatory and consensus-building approach. He needed to coach his subordinates and meet with them regularly on a one-on-one basis. His enthusiasm for meeting his subordinates one-on-one was very low. He preferred not to do it, and this became a significant stressor for him at work. The reluctance of a consensus and participatory approach eventually was a contributing factor in his separation from the company. If, early in his tenure, he could have had this information, he might have been able to adjust his behavioral style to the organization's needs and might have saved his job.
It is important to look at the comparison between the participant's perception of the behavioral requirements of the job and the preferred behavioral patterns. If there are numerous differences, we know that it is a bad fit and we can have a dialog about it. In the field of outplacement, it is also important to identify how much stress and difficulties these elements have really caused the participant and develop a plan of action how he can avoid those stressors in the next job.
Many issues can result if style differences and related stressors are ignored. I think the JPEA™ can be very useful after the individual has been offered a position. By introducing a job description and matching behavior patterns to the job holder, we can look for shortcomings and elements which might be stressors. This could eliminate potential problems and prevent setting up the participant for failure. Since we would know about potential stressors and problems, it may be advisable for the participant to reconsider accepting a position if they cannot be modified or mitigated.
Back to Top
Case Number 7: Look Before You Leap into College or a Career
How did you find your job? Did you have a divine calling? Did you choose your career because that's what one of your parents did? Did you pick it because you thought that's where the money would be? Or, are you still looking for the right niche?
Aside from the "divine calling" scenario, too many people pick a career for the wrong reasons. Those mistakes can be costly, both in terms of money wasted on the wrong college major, time wasted changing careers, or putting off other life experiences like marriage or parenthood.
I began my own career as a teacher in Hungary and then moved to the United States 30 years ago. I went back to school and changed careers, and have worked specifically in career counseling with young people and adults for the past 20 years, 12 years in my own private practice. My decision to become a career counselor was driven by seeing people who had degrees from wonderful schools but were very unhappy and unfulfilled in their jobs. My heart broke for them, because they went through all those years of training and spent thousands and thousands of dollars on their education. After all that, they were questioning why they were doing what they were doing. I then realized that there is a tremendous need for students to get good career counseling at a young age, and I don't think that middle school is too early to start.
The statistics support that theory. Fifty percent of students drop out of college and many take 10 years to finish their education. Many people end up changing careers seven-to-nine times in their lifetime.
While many schools have excellent guidance departments, more often than not, guidance counselors do not have the time nor financial resources to provide the kind of one-on-one help that many students need to choose the right career path. Even guidance counselors in private schools are often overburdened or don't have the proper background.
What is the cost of this type of service, when privately sought? In general, it is less than the cost of an SAT prep course. While SAT courses have become accepted practice, early career counseling is even more important. Sending a child to college can be a $50,000 to $150,000 investment. That's a lot of money to spend on someone who is not sure of what college to attend, what major to seek as a course of study, and what career to pursue. And college may not be the right choice for everyone. About 80 percent of jobs don't require a four-year degree, although they do require some specialized post-secondary training. I help students make that decision and then guide them to the right type of school. I advise students to DO what they ARE. See what's out there and find the job that fits them. Since most jobs in the 21st century will require a high degree of technical expertise and training, it is vital to ensure that time and funds are judiciously spent. The SAT is only one day out of a student's life, while his or her whole life could be ruined by ignoring the need for career counseling.
