Nội dung

7. Ginka Toegel, N. Anand, and Martin Kilduff, “Emotion Helpers: The Role of High Positive Affectivity and High Self-Monitoring Managers,” Personnel Psychology 60, 2 (Summer 2007): 337. 64 THE EQ INTERVIEW CHAPTER 6 Social Expertness Social Expertness Inward Inward Outward Competency Competency Competency Competency 1—Building Relationships 2—Collaboration 3—Conflict Resolution 4—Organizational Savvy 65 S ocial expertness is the ability to build genuine relationships and bonds and express caring, concern, and conflict in healthy ways. It includes four competencies: 1. Building relationships, which is the ability to build social bonds with others; 2. Collaboration, which is the ability to invite others in and value their thoughts related to ideas, projects, and work; 3. Conflict resolution, which is the ability to resolve differences; and 4. Organizational savvy, which is the ability to understand and ma- neuver within organizations. Being adept at building and sustaining relationships leads to star performance within organizations.1 When all other factors are equal, how we manage our relationships is the distinguishing factor that defines success. The ability to build honorable relationships and relate interpersonally is of critical importance to many job functions. The more a job requires cross-departmental and/or peer interactions, the more important building honorable relationships becomes. Also, as people move up the corporate ladder, the need to develop enterprisewide solutions requires interactions with peers and others. The quality of those interactions will often lead to the best solutions. When those interactions are laced with collaboration, even greater synergy and teamwork result. Those at the top of their performance look for and create opportunities and invite collaboration. Those who fail often don’t recognize the value of creating strong collaborative relationships. In fact, research from the Center for Creative Leadership suggests that the reasons executives fail are related to interpersonal failures, not failures of technical competence.2 Beyond collaboration, top performers know that conflicts are inevitable. So, as they build a solid foundation with peers and others, they know that those relationships will be able to withstand the strains of conflict. They know that expressing conflict or differences in a way that maintains and preserves the integrity of the relationship will lead to better results. So the ability to build genuine relationships and bonds and express caring, concern, and conflict in healthy ways is critical to success in many jobs. 66 THE EQ INTERVIEW Star performers also know how to advance ideas within organizations, gain sponsors, and maneuver in complex organizations. They recognize that organizational savvy is a required skill for getting results within organizations. These competencies are all demonstrated within the confines of social expertness. Of course, the interviewer or hiring manager must determine which job functions within the organization require these skills. Some job functions require these skills to a much greater degree than others. Consider the accounting analyst who needs data from several departments in order to complete the month-end report. Her requests may fall on deaf ears if she approaches people only when she needs something, doesn’t bother to reciprocate, or uses a demanding tone. However, if she has taken time to build a rapport with and establish a genuine interest in the people she must interact with, those people are more likely to respond favorably to her requests. It’s also important that she respect and reciprocate when others require assistance. The director who was responsible for implementing an organizationwide IT system provides another example. Standard procedure included discussing needs with users, responding to user ideas and suggestions, communicating project status, and delivering effective user training and interface. But what the director did behind the scenes was also critical. She had well-established working relationships with all the other department heads, who knew that she listened to their needs and responded appropriately. The trust she had built over the years was a critical factor in the success of the project. Many other IT directors follow the same steps, but their projects are met with resistance. The difference often comes down to the relationships that managers build. In yet another example, a creative engineer decided that he wanted to leave his present position; he was frustrated because no one would listen to his ideas. The engineer had some great ideas, but he tended to present them in an arrogant manner. His usual approach was to open with a sarcastic remark that belittled the current system or project. He then proceeded to argue his idea, stating that it was of course better than the current system. His peers and even his boss felt that he was attacking their previous efforts, so they didn’t support him. His ideas generally fell flat because he couldn’t get others to buy into them. Most organizations don’t automatically respond to ideas; ideas must be sold. SOCIAL EXPERTNESS 67 If an employee doesn’t understand that dynamic and have the skill to gain support, he may feel as though his talents are wasted. Social expertness comes down to very simple things. One person said that she purposely withholds information from a coworker because the coworker talks to her only when she needs something. You might argue that both are immature and should grow up (I agree), but that doesn’t change the fact that the quality of one’s relationships affects the work that gets done. Competency 1: Building Relationships The first competency to assess in the area of social expertness is the candidate’s ability to build and sustain good working relationships. Many positions require strong relationships across the enterprise; others may require strong relationships only within the person’s immediate team. Still others require that a person be able to build strong relationships with people outside the organization. Many positions require people to be skilled at building relationships in all directions. According to Karl Albrecht in Social Intelligence: The New Science of Success, how you develop relationships with people makes them want to work with you, makes them want to work harder, and inspires them to be more committed to their work.3 Consider the job of an executive headhunter. The headhunter must be able to build strong relationships with the hiring company. Then she must be able to build a trusting relationship with an executive who is successful and happy in his current position. Why would a successful and happy executive even talk to a headhunter? According to an article in Personnel Today, it’s because of the headhunter’s emotional intelligence skill of building a strong relationship with the potential candidate.4 Much research supports the value of building strong relationships at work.5–8 Strong relationships at work, characterized by expressing caring, demonstrating support, sharing feelings and opinions, and deep listening, may even encourage resilience during times of change.9 Employees’ ability to build strong relationships also improves the overall climate within an organization. In addition, when strong relationships and social ties with coworkers are present, less turnover occurs.10 Therefore, assessing a candidate’s ability to build strong relationships can 68 THE EQ INTERVIEW reap many benefits. As the interviewer or hiring manager, you will need to determine the necessary breadth of these relationships. As with many of the competencies of emotional intelligence, some job functions require the competency more than others. Questions to Assess Building Relationships Q: Who are some key people within your organization who you currently must work with on a regular basis to get your work done? • Describe your relationships with these people. Q: Describe your present responsibility for building and maintaining relationships at work. • Whom do you build relationships with? • How? • Why? Q: Tell me about a time when you were able to get something done at work because of a relationship you had with another person. Q: Tell me about some of the people whom you have to work with on a regular basis that you find difficult to get along with. • What have you done to build stronger relationships with these people? Q: Tell me about a situation when you “won someone over” at work. • What did you do? Q: Tell me about someone who is resistant to you. • What did you do? Q: Tell me about your relationship with your manager. • What works well? • What would you like to see improved? Q: What do you do that makes you a good follower? SOCIAL EXPERTNESS 69 KEY POINTS TO CONSIDER WHEN ASSESSING ANSWERS The interviewer should determine what steps the candidate takes to build relationships. Does she take active steps to build solid working relationships? Or is she unaware of how to build working relationships? Ideally, the candidate should recognize and take steps to actively build relationships. Evidence of steps would include being friendly toward others by saying good morning, asking if there is anything a coworker needs, inviting people to express concerns, listening to others’ ideas, asking for input, following through on commitments, taking steps to include people in meetings, and finding ways to assist when possible. According to a study in the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, these types of expressions of positive psychology in the workplace by peers and management lead to enhanced satisfaction, motivation, and productivity and create a positive workplace climate.11 The proactive steps taken by the candidate should be work related. We’re not looking for people who develop friendships at work. We’re looking for candidates who value and take actions to build honorable and respectful working relationships. When asking the candidate about someone who is difficult to get along with, look for evidence that the candidate has tried to build a relationship with the difficult coworker. A few people are just very contrary, and no amount of effort may change that. We don’t expect candidates to have perfect working relationships with 100 percent of their coworkers, but we do expect candidates to get along well with most people. Be sure to probe if someone says he gets along with everyone. That’s the kind of pat answer that begs for clarification. Respond with “It sounds like you’re working with a great team. Most of us, however, at some point in our past, have encountered a team member that isn’t easy to get along with. Can you tell me about someone in your past who was more difficult?” Another important consideration is how the candidate views his relationship with his boss. Does he view the boss as someone with whom he should actively be taking steps to build a relationship? What is he doing to ensure a solid relationship? In this regard, the interviewer can assess how the candidate keeps his boss informed, how he supports his boss’s mission, and how he works as a team member with 70 THE EQ INTERVIEW his boss. The relationship with the boss is about being a good follower. What type of follower skills is the candidate expressing? Good followers are not yes-people. They are open to direction, offer suggestions, give honest input, put the department (and the boss) in the best light, seek to understand the department’s mission, and help others within and outside the organization to get the best from their department. Competency 2: Collaboration In many projects and positions, collaboration is an essential job skill. Collaboration leads to improved solutions and employees’ increased sense of ownership. Individual and organizational success and competitiveness today require collaboration because integration of ideas and information is critically important.12 We define collaboration as the ability to invite others to share ideas by genuinely seeking input to problems or decisions. When people collaborate, they involve relevant stakeholders, build consensus, facilitate processes or systems, and record input.13 Collaboration increases employees’ ownership of ideas and level of commitment. A study in Group and Organization Management found that when workers were permitted to exercise personal control and to collaborate on solutions, they invested themselves more extensively and increased the psychological ownership of their work.14 The hiring manager or interviewer must look for evidence that the candidate offers peers and others the opportunity to collaborate. However, collaboration is a two-way street. Not only must a person invite others to offer ideas and solutions, but that same person must also be willing to offer his ideas and solutions to others. Sometimes people resist participating in workplace solutions. They prefer to keep their ideas private. These lone rangers do not see the value in collaboration. Still others use collaboration as a means to gain information and then take credit for the ideas of other people. These views not only damage the collaborative spirit in the workplace; they also decrease problem resolution and process improvement. Consider these examples: Ben performed routine functions at the IT help desk. He found that users often called with the same problems. In the past, the help desk published responses to routine problems in an effort to reduce repetitive calls. Ben’s affable nature allowed SOCIAL EXPERTNESS 71 him to build relationships with several users across the network. Ben began to ask users whether they referred to the published responses before calling. As he investigated the situation, he learned that users did not find the published answers understandable. Ben began to rewrite the answers and asked users for input. After a year, repetitive calls were reduced by 27 percent. Ben’s skills at collaboration engaged users and dramatically improved results for the department. In another situation, Gary, the new shipping department supervisor, decided to reorganize supplies. He came in over the weekend, on his own time, and did a major reorganization of materials and supplies. He was eager to share the improvements with his staff on Monday morning. Instead, on Monday morning, his staff protested loudly. They felt completely left out of the decision to relocate supplies. In fact, most people had arranged the supplies to suit their own work habits. Not only did Gary not include his staff; he somehow managed to insult them. Although Gary’s intentions and initiative were good, he demonstrated a failure to understand the value of collaboration. Questions to Assess Collaboration Q: Tell me how you recently solved a work problem. • What process did you use? Q: Describe a time when you had to solve a problem that involved or affected other people within the company. • How did you solve it? Q: Have you ever implemented an idea or solved a problem and had your solution meet with resistance? • What do you think you could have done to avoid the resistance? Q: Describe a time when you sought someone’s ideas or opinions about a project or idea you were working on. Q: Was there ever a time when you rejected someone’s idea or opinion about a project? • Tell me about that. 72 THE EQ INTERVIEW Q: Tell me about a time when you offered your idea or opinion to someone. Q: Describe a time when your input improved someone’s work. Q: Have you ever offered an idea or opinion at work and had nothing to gain from it? • Tell me about that. KEY POINTS TO CONSIDER WHEN ASSESSING ANSWERS The interviewer should be looking for two specific types of actions: actions that the candidate took to invite collaboration and actions that demonstrate that the candidate acted collaboratively with others. The candidate should be able to describe times when he deliberately sought out the ideas or suggestions of others. As the interviewer or hiring manager, you should look for proactive steps on the part of the candidate that invite others into the problem-solving or idea phase of a project. Collaboration isn’t about telling people afterward. That might qualify as good communication, but it’s not collaboration. If collaboration is the competency that you desire, look for action steps. Also, follow up with questions that clarify the specific type of input the candidate was seeking. Also, ask follow-up questions to determine what the candidate did with the input. If the candidate asked for input but didn’t use it, what steps did she take up front and afterward to ensure that people still felt respected or valued. Nothing can be more demoralizing than to be asked for input and then have that input ignored. Action steps to mitigate this type of situation might include asking for input on any of three acceptable solutions; telling people specific reasons why their input could not be used; and making clear to people that you are seeking advisers, not decision makers, in the process. However, a collaborative spirit goes beyond seeking advice. True collaboration requires that we sometimes surrender the decision making to the group process and that we facilitate a group process that will generate the best result. The interviewer will have to decide what approach is best suited to the job and the organization. In addition, the candidate should be able to give examples of when she behaved in a collaborative manner to help others with their ideas SOCIAL EXPERTNESS 73