Is Your Best Performer Pathological or "Driven"?

High performers are welcome in any business and people who consistently meet their performance objectives are likely to be promoted over those who don’t. Some employees are so "driven" they spend every waking moment accomplishing their career goals and soon become budding stars. Is your best performer "driven" or is there something else going on?

Driven people are highly motivated and focused on their goals. They make compromises in their life to reach those goals. There are times when they make mistakes and make a wrong choice, but ultimately they continue on the right path. They believe that through persistence and hard work they can obtain what is important to them.

Pathological workers may also show high drive toward their goals and similarly make mistakes. However, they also carry with them other traits such as hostility, risk-taking, deceitfulness, callousness, grandiosity, irresponsibility, impulsivity and manipulativeness (De Caluwei, Decuyper & De Clercq, 2013). The value of the goal succeeds other considerations in much the same was as a gambling addict can't stop gambling.

Employees who are goal driven are an asset to any organization and create high expectations for others to achieve. They raise company performance and are a positive contributor to workplace culture. They do not neglect their needs, and they concern themselves with how they achieve those goals. High ethical standards and performance can work hand-in-hand.

Workers who show pathological behavior are outside the normal and seem to put an inappropriate weight on the achievement of a particular goal. Its obtainment appears to be more of an extension of the self, and its importance is artificially raised until few things else seem to matter. People become a nuisance in the process and their input can be discarded.

“Win at all costs” pathological behavior should be discouraged in the workplace. I have seen organizations where individuals achieve their goals at the expense of the entire company. Pathological employees get promoted because they create results but also damage their teams and departments in the process. They are the chaos creators that lower departmental performance, develop toxic work environments, and increase turnover rates

Well rounded employees can put their goals in perspective of the rest of their lives and the needs of others. They understand that while their objectives are essential they must also raise the status of the group and fulfill the needs of the company. Pathological employees are incapable of such reasoning and are only loyal to themselves. Higher human performance comes with focus and drive. To those with a conscious the ends is not the only justification of the means.

De Caluwe, E. Decuyper, M. & De Clercq, B. (2013). The child behavior checklist dysregulation profile predicts adolescent DSM-% pathological personality traits in 4 years. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 22 (7).

Including Emotional Intelligence In the Real Estate Profession

Emotional intelligence may be the primary difference between those that are successful and those that are not. High emotional intelligence has been touted as an important predictor of a person's ability to master their environment from an emotional standpoint and continue to work on their goals through effectively engage those around them. The higher the emotional intelligence the capable the person is at understanding themselves and others.

The following presentation offers insight from Dr (s) Swanson, Hamilton and Zobisch into the very real benefits of developing higher emotional intelligence among real estate professionals:

Establishing Best Practices for including Emotional Intelligence in the Real Estate Professionals from AC Swanson Group

Are Satisfied Employees Less Willing to Help Others?

Organizations can be regarded as a system of relationships between individuals. Social exchange theory (e.g. Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) provides a general framework to understand these relationships, arguing that positive interactions are likely to increase cooperation among individuals in organizations. While there is much information about how cooperative relationships evolve, far less is known about how these relationships affect each other. Now, taking into account that employees have multiple relationships as they are dealing with coworkers and with supervisors, the question is whether cooperation in one direction may affect cooperation in the other. 

From an organizational perspective, career systems may be viewed as a means to create cooperative relationships with employees. At the same time, however, they can reduce cooperation among coworkers as they will compete for higher positions. This mechanism was found in a study among Dutch organizations: the more satisfied employees were with their career opportunities, the less willing they were to help their colleagues (Koster, 2014). This suggests that the motivational effect of career systems may be at odds with the conditions that are needed to create positive work relations among employees. Organizations that are based around teamwork should be aware of this potential trade-off of between career incentives and cooperation among employees.

 References

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874-900.

Koster, F. (2014). “When two worlds collide”. Career satisfaction and altruistic organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, 9(1), 1-12.

Bio

Dr. Ferry Koster is Associate Professor of Labor, Organization, and Management at the department of Sociology of Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR), the Netherlands. Besides that, he is a researcher at the Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies of the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. His empirical research includes the cross national comparison of formal policies and individual attitudes, the comparative study of organizations, and organizational behavior. A general theme across these studies is the question to what extent and how social context relates to individual outcomes.

EUR profile of Ferry Koster

 http://www.eur.nl/fsw/sociologie/profielen/profiel_mis/10538/

Conference: Legal & Effective Discipline & Documentation

In our litigious society, it has become more and more important for supervisors to know how to document and discipline employees to avoid law suits and manage employee performance effectively.
“If It Wasn’t Documented It Didn’t Happen: Legal & Effective Discipline & Documentation” on Tuesday, January 28, 2014 .

Areas covered in the topic

• Analyzing poor work performance & help employees turn it around
• Avoiding the negative consequences of inadequate documentation & discipline
• Utilizing the range of disciplinary options.
• Responding quickly and appropriately to common disciplinary infractions
• Keeping a legal Performance Log
• Distinguishing between subjective and objective documentation
• Working with employees to develop Performance Improvement Plans
• How to write a performance improvement plan
• Filling out formal HR disciplinary paperwork
• Protecting yourself and your organization from legal landmines
• And much more!! 

Exclusive Q&A session following the live event to get advice unique to your situation, directly from our expert speaker

If interested, please click the following link to register and get your early bird discount :

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Please apply discount code "E99NACK2" at checkout to get an additional $20 discount on registration.

Call 800-223-8720 for special discount on group pricing.

The Hawthorn Effect and Humanistic Performance Improvements

Focusing on the human elements can help in improving organizational performance. The Hawthorne studies have helped to understand the nature of performance improvement and social expectations within the workplace. The creation of higher effort often requires change and then solidifying that change through new social expectations.  Focusing on people encourages them to perform at higher levels. 

The Hawthorne Effect is a concept of reactivity where people improve their performance because they are being singled out and made to feel important and not as a direct result of actual experimental manipulation.  The phenomenon was first experienced at the Bell Telephone Western Electric manufacturing plant in 1924 Chicago by Henry A. Landsberger.  The plant employed over 29,000 people and developed an industrial research center to improve morale and productivity (Brannigan,  & Zwerman, 2001). 

The primary benefit of the study is that it furthered the argument that organizations are social systems and motivation is an important human element to performance. Focusing on the human aspects of the workplace is a critical avenue of improving the organization. Performance itself is seen as part of the overall improvement of the worker and their conditions. It placed an emphasis on the human element of the workplace that has impacted management strategy.

The Hawthorne Study is often referred to as the Illumination study on light and productivity. As the light changed the productivity of people increased but once the study was concluded people’s performance slumped. It was believed that the study helped to highlight that when people are receiving attention their motivation improves in an effort to increase the perception of their performance. 

Other parts of the experiment include the changing of the workplace to receive short-lived improvements in performance. Organizations that change the work environment from time to time can create performance improvements but these performance improvements will become short-lived unless they are supported by new social expectations and feedback. The studies helped highlight how group norms, behaviors, and patterns are important to sustainable performance development.

There are some criticisms of the study. The study was never formally analyzed and has had mixed results in follow-up (Levitt & List, 2011). The variables were confounded and it is possible that other factors may have influenced the results. For example, seasonal temperatures or the treatment by managers could have an impact on the performance of employees.  The original records are believed to have been destroyed. 

Human performance is essential to organizational success. Companies often focus on creating efficiencies but fail to achieve high level of gains. By not understanding the in-depth complexity of human social activity performance improvements will be limited. Focusing on the development of the individual and their social group affords a higher level of expectation and motivational effort. Avoiding complacency by adjusting the work situation and expectations may increase effort but the social system maintains it.

Brannigan, A. & Zwerman, W. (2001). The real "hawthorne effect". Society, 38 (2)

Franke, R. H. & Kaul, J. D. (1978). The Hawthorne experiments: First statistical interpretation. American Sociological Review, 1978, 43, 623-643

Levitt, S. & List, J. (2011). Was there really a hawthorne effect at the hawthorne plant? an analysis of the original illumination experiments. American Economic Journal. Applied Economics, 3(1)

Using Path-Goal to Enhance Organizational Performance

Path-goal leadership is a process of helping employees find appropriate paths to meet goals that align with organizational objectives. Leaders who have the ability to inspire their employees and develop these mental connections between performance, paths, and rewards can expect to see higher levels of organizational achievement. Yet defining the right strategies without the right leadership does little if employees are not empowered to act and progress to new levels. 

Path-goal theory has two main objectives such as a) identifying roles and behaviors of effective leaders and b) exploring situational contingencies that modify those behaviors (Barling et. al, 2011). In essence, the leader’s behavior becomes a primer to the situational context in which employees exist. When the leadership behavior is effective and the situational contingencies are positive and in alignment there should be a corresponding increase in performance.  

The theory is often further defined into situational factors and employee characteristics. The situational factors are those that create the right environment for performance while employee characteristics are those qualities that are inherent within the employees themselves. The situational factors are often defined as task structure, role ambiguity, stress, need for autonomy, locus of control, need for achievement and perception of abilities while attributes can be age, gender, qualifications, rank, experience, and length of service (Malik, 2012). 

We may have the desire to discount the nature of leadership and its influence on employees. A previous study concluded that 45% to 65% of total factors that cause success or failure within a company are often directly influenced by leaders (Bass, 1990). This means that leadership has more than half of the influence in organizational productivity and growth. Without the prompting and decision making of leaders employees are left to their own devices as part of the situational contingencies in which they work. 

The management team and the leadership team have important functions within an organization. The leadership team gives direction for the organization and the management team gives direction to employees within their department. Management and leadership both influence organizational members toward goal attainment with management ensuring order and stability (Campbell, 2004). It should be stated that since management is closely associated with employees it is there that many employees take a majority of their behavioral and performance cues. 

At study conducted by Malik (2012) helps further understand how path-goal theory works in terms of how leadership impacts employee performance. A total of 200 employees from four different companies were asked about the perception of their leader’s behavior and their own job expectations. A total of 20 questions were used that measured directive, participative, supportive and achievement-oriented leadership behavior.  The research broke job expectancies into two categories which included 1.) putting forth energy to produce quality output and 2.) the company gives employees recognition for producing strong output.

Results:

-The reward system within the cellular companies gives enough power to managers to reward subordinate behavior. 

-Weak associated between leader behavior (except in the case of supportive leadership) and effort leading to quality.

-When employees perceive that there is no difference between high and low performance in terms of reward individuals stop putting forward effort.

-Subordinate characteristics such as age, gender, qualification, rank, experience, and length of service didn’t impact job expectancies of effort/quality and recognition for quality output.

-Rank and position did have an impact on recognition for quality output which indicates that employees were very aware of job expectations and what they can expect to receive.

-Situational factors such as task structure, role ambiguity, stress, need for autonomy, locus of control, needed for achievement, perceptions of abilities affect effort/quality as well as recognition of quality output.

-Management appeared to influence individual behavior and take cues from management to determine how the environment is responding to them.

Business Analysis:

The study helps shed the light on the concept of participative leadership as an important part of improving organizational performance. Management is seen as the first line where employees learn expectations and rules of behaviors. When management is poor there is also likely to be poor levels of performance. When reward systems are so restrictive and motivating higher performance employees will simply put forward less effort thereby creating equity in effort and reward. The longer employees stay within the organization the more they become engrained into the particular expectations of the position. At times it may be necessary to provide new management teams to create newer patterns of thinking and performance. Employees naturally seek to be stronger masters of their work and when trained appropriately they can increase their autonomy which enhances both performance and feelings of recognition. It is possible to use autonomy as a reward for self-management. Executive leadership influences management which influences employees.

Taking a larger view of this study it is possible to see how complacency kills within organizations. All organizations much change their management structure from time to time to ensure that employees are not moving into a path of complacency. Yet such performance is based upon cues provided by the management team and their expectations. When employees become aware of the reward system they will adjust their performance to create equity. It is necessary to develop strong structure within organizations with enough flexibility to reward performance based upon merit to send the right signals to employees about expectations. All rewards should be based on performance versus loyalty. 

Bass, B. (1990). From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share the Vision. Organizational Dynamics, Winter, 272-273.

Barling, J., Christie, A. and Hoption, A. (2011). Leadership. In S. Zedeck(Ed.), APA Handbook of Industrial and organizational psychology. Vol 1: Building and developing the organization  (183-240). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Campbell, N. (2004) The Practice of Management and the Idea of Leadership: An Overview of Theory and Practice. [Online] Retrieved June 7^th, 2013

Malik, S. (2012). A study of relationship between leader behaviors and subordinate job expectations: a path-goal approach. Pakistan Journal of Commerce & Social Sciences, 6 (2).