Finding the perfect fit

The human race has recognized the importance of a child’s first 10 years for some time. St Thomas Aquinas is said to have noted that a child exposed to the teachings of the church for the first four years of life would remain with the church forever. In more recent times, developmental psychologists have labeled that first decade of life as the ‘formative years’, speculating that humans learn as much as 90 percent of everything they will ever know during that critical period.

These years are so important because it is then that we absorb information with little or no filtering. Every parent is reminded of this fact when their little treasure suddenly blurts out a particularly embarrassing or private piece of family trivia in a highly public place. While we might be tempted to think that the child has intentionally sabotaged our family honor – or perhaps to wonder how on earth they could have overheard the information in the first place – the real insight is that the child has little grasp of what is ‘private’ and what is ‘public’ knowledge. It is the ability to filter, to distinguish between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ and what is and isn’t worth remembering, that is the critical aspect of these early learning years. Our values – our template for living life – are formulated at this time.

Not that we are aware this filter is being formed. It is a subconscious, albeit vital, process. That is why for most adults the ‘filter’ that is put in place is, for the most part, a reflection of our parents’ definitions of good and bad, desirable and abhorrent. But if it were not in place, life would literally overwhelm us, since it allows us to associate, screen and categorize all that we sense.

This filtering process, while vital, is like the formation of the filter in the first place; it exists deep within our subconscious. We are not aware that it is happening and we do not exercise any conscious control over its function. Indeed, we become uncomfortable if we are made aware that it exists – such as when our values are questioned or challenged. We interact with the world around us in what we perceive to be a sane and rational way, unaware that we are continuously editing the sensory data received in order to maintain our definition of both ‘sane’ and ‘rational’.

As human resources professionals, understanding and recognizing the importance of the formative years has historically been something of a conundrum. We have been forced to tacitly recognize that the individual walking through our doors is, for all practical purposes, a ‘finished product,’ and that the best policies and procedures, the best corporate culture, even our ‘best practices’ programs have little impact on individual employee behaviors that have been forged solidly before arriving at our corporate doors. Even those of us with extensive schooling in psychology and sociology know the futility of confronting an employee’s values. Even if we possess the therapeutic skill to address an employee whose values are incompatible, we do not have the time to do so for every employee in the organization. Instead, we note in our literature that 90 percent of the failures that occur in the workplace are not the result of an absence of skills, but rather due to an incompatibility of the employee vis a vis the corporate culture. We therefore resign ourselves to endlessly searching for that ephemeral fit of employee and corporation.

But what if we could be more proactive? What if we could determine what values are most likely to prove successful in our particular organization, and then apply these same values to individuals coming through our employment process? Could this not enable us to match employee with corporate culture and serve both employee and organization? This premise has been the impetus behind a year-long program at Missoula Developmental Service Corporation, a corporation providing support services 24/7 to adults with intense developmental disabilities.

The first step in the process was to select a tool that would allow us to deduce the values system being utilized by our employees. The instrument selected was the Values Systems Analysis designed by Dr Charles Hughes. While Hughes credits the research of others, including Dr Clare Graves, his significant breakthrough has been the application of values research to the corporate environment. His assessment tool is both simple and workplace specific, giving the participant eight theoretical statements, each with six possible answers. The participant can allocate a total of 12 points among these six answers, and how those points are allocated determines the major values orientation of the participant.

The tool offers several perceived advantages. First, it is workplace specific; it doesn’t ask the participant questions about their personal or family life, but focuses instead on expectations in the corporate environment (See figure 1). Second, it is short and easy to take, making it easy to incorporate into the general pre-employment assessment process. We find it generally takes five minutes or less to complete. Thirdly, it is easy to score, providing the human resources professional with a quick and effective assessment of the participant’s values structure.

Dependent on how the participant’s allocation of the 12 points, a profile emerges indicating six possible values types, the first of which Hughes calls the Tribalist. Tribalists prefer to work in groups, require a strong boss who is personable and communicative, seek group identity through unique clothing/body decoration (all teenagers are, by definition, Tribalists), prefer routine work, and value security above all else.

The second values axis is the Egocentric. The individual in this values group believes himself/herself more creative than others, prefers to work alone, desires a tough and older boss, prefers physical labor, does better in smaller companies, and values power above all else.

The third values axis is the Conformist. This individual works well in any environment where there is clear, definitive structure (clear and definitive policies and procedures), avoids change, prefers a boss who spells out in detail the expectations of the job, avoids competition, and values structure above all else.

The fourth values axis Hughes labels the Manipulative. This individual is good at coming up with ideas and selling them, uses financial reward as a measure of success, is inclined to bend and stretch policies in order to achieve what he/she desires, tends to see others as assets rather than individuals, and values achievement above all else.

The fifth axis is the Sociocentric. This individual is less interested in money and more focused on people, is more interested in getting along than getting ahead, is sensitive to others’ feelings toward him/her, perceives equality of treatment as more crucial to organizational success than productivity, and values people above all else.

The final axis is the Existentialist. This person is more interested in doing what he/she likes than ‘getting somewhere’, actually needs neither security nor other people so does not identify with the corporation (in fact, as Hughes points out, Existentialists are often perceived by their peers as someone who works for the company rather than a fellow employee), and values the freedom to learn and experience above all else.

It is important to note that there is no right or wrong set of values – all are equally valid templates through which one may filter his/her experiences. It is logical to assume, however, that corporations have values of their own (most corporations, for example, have clearly defined policies and procedures, which reflect Conformist values.). The intriguing postulate is whether one might be able to determine those values most likely to succeed within the corporate values structure.

Obviously few individuals fit exclusively into one values axis. What emerges is a profile for each individual, which weighs some values over others. It was precisely this profile element that attracted me to this instrument in the first place. I posed the question: If we administered this analysis to every new hire, then followed all new hires over a period of a year, would a ‘profile of success’ emerge? In other words, would we be able to see any difference between those individuals who were successful and stayed with the corporation compared to those who left? If such a profile emerged, it would enable us to more effectively screen for applicants likely to stay with the organization, thus reducing staff turnover and the concomitant loss of productivity. Equally intriguing, perhaps, would be the insight into the corporate values structure.

The study
The Values Analysis was administered to new hires for one year, at the end of which, the results were tabulated, profiled and correlated with those individuals still with the corporation and those individuals who had left. When the results were compiled, we would have a generic values profile for both groups, which could be compared for similarities and differences.

The results
Given that Missoula Developmental Service Corporation is a corporation providing support services for adults with intense developmental disabilities, it was not surprising to find that the strongest values axis for both groups was Sociocentric values, with only an eight-percent difference between those individuals still with the organization and those who had left. This was reassuring, since it is hoped that an organization such as ours would hire individuals who have a strong orientation to others’ needs, and that individuals who applied for work with the organization would know the corporation’s business well enough to be attracted to this caring side.

The second strongest axis exhibited by both groups was the Conformist axis. Again, this was reassuring, as most human resources professionals would like to think that one key to corporate success is clearly stated policies and procedures for its employees. There was only a five-percent difference between the two groups on this axis. This poses an interesting conclusion, however – that managers often believe that unsuccessful employees are those who resist the corporation’s need for structure. At least among our employees, this would be an incorrect assumption, since employees who left the corporation had as strong a need for structure as those who stayed.

So, were there any significant differences between the two group profiles? There were, indeed, two axes significantly different between the two groups. First, employees still with the organization had a 19 percent higher score on the Tribalist axis. This result has significant implications. Firstly, it means that some of the new hire traits often discouraged by organizations (such as long hair, tattoos, body piercings, etc.), all external indicators of Tribalist values, are probably positive traits for an organization. We have stopped shy of identifying and endorsing a corporate tattoo, but it is clear that the organization would be well served to promote team development and strong management skills.

Secondly, it has implications about how an effective manager in the organization should manage. The Tribalist needs frequent feedback from a strong boss. A manager who communicates once a year with an annual performance appraisal then spends his/her time in the office is not going to be an effective manager in our organization, and we have structured our management-training program accordingly.

The second significant difference between the two groups is an inverse correlation. The successful employee group scored 25 percent lower along the Existentialist value axis. This is actually a logical conclusion. If the majority of our employees are focused on people (Sociocentrics), and also seek to identify with the group (Tribalists), then the individual who needs neither is likely to feel alienated by their peers and find it difficult to do the job effectively. The result will likely be that they will self-select to move to an organization that enables them to work in isolation. Alternatively the individual will be unable to perform effectively and be identified by the manager as someone who does not perform the necessary job functions adequately.

The caveat
The Values Analysis System is not a panacea; there are, for example, distinct differences among the individual profiles of both groups profiled in our study. It would therefore be ill advised to administer the tool and to hire on the basis of the results. To do so would likely result in no improvement in recruitment and retention.

The value of the system is twofold. First, it provides another tool that can be used in the overall assessment of applicants. Along with well-structured interview questions and reference checks, it gives the human resources professional another piece of information to assess an applicant’s likelihood of success within the corporation.

Secondly, it is almost as important a tool for organizational analysis as it is for assessing individual applicants. What values are honored by your corporate culture? While the adroit human resources professional can probably speculate meaningfully about this, only an assessment can reveal what values are going to be correlated with success in your organization. Once this assessment is completed, it has significant implications not only for hiring, but also for management training and policy formulation.

We have incorporated the results of this year-long study into our hiring assessment and our management-training program. Each applicant is requested to fill-out and submit the values analysis along with his/her application and the answers to the first tier of interview questions. The profile of the individual is noted and is one additional piece of information factored into the decision to hire or not. This and similar research-based approaches have led to a 50 percent reduction in staff turnover. While reassuring, our ultimate quality objective is of course zero turnover, and by using the Values Analysis System we are moving closer towards that objective.

Figure 1: A sample question from the Values Analysis
“To me, company loyalty means..”
•Supporting the goals of the company, as long as they don’t go against one’s principles.
•Sticking with the company through good years and bad, and making sacrifices when necessary to keep the company strong.
•Giving up my freedom and being an apple-polisher.
•Being on the job as much as I can and doing what I’m told.
•Commitment to a company that is concerned with the needs of its employees.
•Supporting the organization that lets me succeed.

Which type are you? Tribalist, Conformist, Egocentric, Sociocentric, Existentialist or Manipulative?

For more information, contact the Center for Values Research, Incorporated Tel: 972-720-9100. Fax: 972-720-9101, e-mail: cvr@cvrdallas.com.