Performance reviews tell you whether someone is doing an adequate job, but they fail to reveal whether people are doing the right jobs. This is especially problematic for average performers—those not good enough to be high potentials, but not bad enough to be fired.

Don’t let these folks limp along in roles that are not right for them. Instead, perform “fit tests” at regular intervals that compare people’s strengths and interests with their current job descriptions. For example, is someone in product development, but better suited for a position as an industry researcher?

Trust your instinct if you sense there’s a mismatch, and be honest. You might help average employees become stars.

As good a justification for using Kolbe Wisdom in selecting and building your teams as I could write.

ASU researchers are finding out what makes people tick.

ASU Associate business professor Pierre Balthazard and independent scientist Kathy Kolbe hope to apply data from a new scientific study on the third faculty of the brain, called conation, to learn what drives people.

The study, administered at Kolbe Corp., Kolbe’s company, examined the brains of 117 leaders from a variety of fields. It is the first scientific proof of the existence of conation as a function of the brain.

Conation is a separate but cooperative function of the brain that influences how people make decisions, Balthazard said.

Kolbe hopes to use the information from this and further studies on the topic to help people make better decisions and learn about what drives them, she said.

Balthazard wants to apply the findings from the Oct. 6 study to teach the future leaders of the world at ASU.

“I predict we will apply this knowledge to enhance managerial performance, decision making and leadership,” he said.

Conation is associated with a person’s will, impulse or instinct and has never been studied scientifically before now. This puts ASU in the history books on conation, Balthazard said.

Separate from conation, the “cognitive faculty” of the brain relates to how an individual handles information. It is associated with learning and intellect, Balthazard said.
The “affective faculty” deals with emotion and personality and how the brain handles them.

A faculty is a part of the brain responsible for certain thought processes.

“Conation drives everything and it is just as fundamental as cognition and affection,” Balthazard said.

Balthazard’s research at ASU studies leaders in today’s society to determine what qualities lead to good decision-making.

The EDGE Innovation Network, an organization that consolidates innovative scientific research, originally introduced Kolbe and Balthazard a year ago because those at the network thought the two had similar research goals.

“Our research interests had a lot in common,” Kolbe said.

Balthazard brought his experience with electroencephalograms, machines that scan for brain activity, as well as previous research on leaders’ motivations, while Kolbe brought 30 years of previous research on conation to the table.

Although philosophers as far back as Plato and Aristotle speculated on conation, scientific proof of it had yet to be found before the study, Kolbe said.

Kolbe discovered the four action modes of conation 30 years ago through extensive research.

The four modes are engrained tendencies, or instincts, in an individual’s brain that work together to form a person’s modus operandi, which deals with his or her habits or work approach, Kolbe said.

The four action modes deal with information intake, information storage, risk taking and sensory learning.

Kolbe worked with Balthazard and a team of ASU researchers to scan the brains of 117 individuals in leadership positions, from former athletes, to a three-star general, to business CEOs.
“Community leaders lent us their brains, so to speak,” Kolbe said.

The subjects were put in stressful situations through tests and their brains were scanned to see how they instinctively reacted to the strain, Kolbe said.

The scans showed that different neural connections were made related directly to each action mode. These pathways were different than those used in either cognition or affection, and were different for each person, Kolbe said.

Kolbe added that conation is not a learned process, but like DNA, is set from birth.
“You can learn more and your attitudes can change, but conation is the bedrock of who you are,” she said.

Ty Crossley, a first-year doctoral student in the Department of Management at the W. P. Carey School, worked to gather and analyze the brain scan results.

“This is cutting edge research, with a very unique application,” Crossley said in an e-mail. “ASU has the opportunity to be at the forefront of it.”

A few weeks ago my colleague Jason Cupp “re-blogged” one of my postings, here I return the compliment because his account of the first day of the conference is spot-on.

To take your Kolbe A index go here or contact me for more information.

Take it away Jason….

What an amazing day!

This week, I’ve been in Phoenix, AZ attending the Kolbe Professional Growth Seminar – an educational event geared towards Kolbe Certified Consultants.  As many of you know, I have been a Kolbe Certified Consultant since 2006, and have been devoting the majority of my time now to Growth Consulting and utilizing Kolbe Wisdom as part of that process.

Today, Kathy Kolbe, creator of Kolbe Wisdom, and Dr. Pierre Balthazard, an Associate Professor at Arizona State University, revealed one of the most fascinating studies I’ve ever been a part of.

Let me back up…  If you’ve been to one of my seminars on Kolbe Wisdom, you’ve heard me talk about the Three Parts of the Mind:  The Cognitive, The Affective and The Conative.  The Cognitive Part of the Mind is the way you think – things such as Knowledge, Education and IQ.  The Affective Part of the Mind is the way you feel – things such as emotion, values, attitude and desire.  But, the Conative Part of the Mind is the way you do – otherwise your natural instincts – things like drive, instinct, talent and innate force.  Folks, your INSTINCTS do not change.  But your feelings and your thinking can… and will.  That said, the Kolbe A Index measures a person’s Conative Part of the Mind.

I’m a prime example of “Going Against the Grain” in my previous career… and I had a SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT of Conative Stress.  If you haven’t heard my story, call or email me – I’m really open to share it.  And, it’s somewhat powerful to amplify the idea of Conative Stress.

That is where the Brain Research that Kathy and Pierre did comes in.  It was more than fascinating, and it analyzed the Brain and the Conative Side of the Mind.  AMAZING.

It’s was so in-depth, that I could write for a LONG time on it.  BUT, then thing I wanted to share with you is simply this:

Do you have Conative Stress in your life?  I sure did.  And, honestly, now I don’t.  All because of the Kolbe A Index.

Kathy and Peter, in their final slide, revealed the graphics below, which I want to share with you for the first time.

OK, you’re probably asking yourself, “Jason, what is this??” Well… Let me explain.  These are actual EEG readings from a Brain Monitor.  The top image is when you’re working alongside your Natural Instincts – what is determined by your Kolbe A Index Results.  The bottom image is when you’re working against your Natural Instincts.

So, for those that know my story, the bottom image was when I was in my previous career, the top image is what I’m doing now.

What would you rather be doing with your life?

With your stress?

With your conative stress?

I’ve been lucky enough to work with HUNDREDS of people all over North America on their “Conative Stress” and “Not working against your Natural Instincts and Grain” — and it’s real.

Here are the Steps to Determine your Conative Stress:

1.  Contact me to take the Kolbe A Index online (it only takes 20 minutes)

2.  Assess how you’re expected to work (I help you with this too)

3.  Compare your strengths versus your work expectations (Yup, my job!)

4.  Get individual Conables Tips to make your brain work better (Again, I do this…)

This is huge.

THANK YOU Kathy and Peter for your amazing “conversation” today.  It was empowering.  And not really to me… but to those who will be affected by this for years to come.  Cheers to working on instincts and changing lives.

Kathy Kolbe

The definition of leadership that I shall use comes from the 1935 book “the art of leadership” by Ordway Tead. He says that: “leadership is the activity of influencing people to cooperate toward some goal which they come to find desirable.”

Leadership is an activity. That means it is neither a skill, nor an attitude, but conative.  A leader’s actions are directly tied to identifying team members’ instinctive capabilities and finding ways of putting them to productive use.   A leader is both an influencer and an enabler, and such qualities were rare in 1935 and remain rare today.

Depending upon their MO, every leader will have a different way of working. Every conative method can be used to influence others, but the most effective approach is when the leader is true to their own instincts. Trust develops between leader and team members when neither with holes the instinctive self. When leaders use their own instinct is to gain the commitment of other people’s instincts, goals become more attainable.

Leaders act as a catalyst for freely given cognitive commitments and give direction the variety of problem solving methods that a conatively synergistic group will suggest. And they managed to do this without inhibiting anyone’s participation. They bring out the best in people, drawing forth and focusing instinctive energy toward cooperative efforts.

The difference between a leader and a star is that the leader strives to increase others’ performances toward group goals, and the star strives towards individual achievement. We are all capable of being stars. It only takes a situation where one’s conative talents are most necessary for the star to initiate activity. A leader on the other hand uses all three zones of instinctive energy to help group succeed.

Perseverance is an essential characteristic of leadership. It takes backbone, great, and strength of mind to influence the goal setting process and to gain the cooperation of others. A common trait among leaders is their decisiveness. Their tenacity singles them out.

I tend to see two extremes in my work with dental practices. There is a lack of leadership either:

1) Because of an abdication by the practice owner or owners who are seeking to have equality within their practice and fail to take responsibility.

2) No regard is given to the team members’ instincts and therefore they are forced into roles where they are the least productive.

In neither case does the practice get the best out of their teams. Frustration ensues resulting in high turnover of staff, low productivity, and poor service being given to patients with a resulting drop in business profitability.

As an aside, I see a great many dentists who initiate in Implementor, presume that their staff know their jobs, like to believe that because someone has the title “practice manager” they know what they’re doing and therefore ignore what is going on around. On the other hand I also frequently encounter insistent Fact Finder who will not allow anybody any space and persist in micro-management. Both these scenarios produce unhappy practices.

Leadership is a responsibility, not a prize. It ought not to be given as a reward to individual achievement unless the person expresses a determination to fight for the will of the group. If leadership were merely a matter of making demands, of telling people what to do and rewarding them when they did it, then oppressors would rule, and ultimately fail.

Leaders in the workplace who nurture employees’ instinctive strengths are awarded with high employee job satisfaction and high productivity. Team members are pleased when leadership intervenes in, conatively stressful situations, whether they be conflicts, cloning, unrealistic self-expectations or misguided requirements.

It is important to select and train people for most suited roles on a team that is balanced to achieve conative synergy. However, every team needs a leader to take responsibility for influencing its members to strive towards achieving common goals. Every team needs a person or people who are willing to contribute instinctive energy toward leadership efforts, often forsaking the opportunity to use their personal resources in ways that are more likely to make them star performers. That’s the sacrifice of leadership. The benefit of leadership is in helping a team reach its greatest potential.

This is the story of a venture that failed, the business survived but the fallout and bad feeling between the participants persists. It wasn’t a dental practice, it could well have been and, bearing in mind the readership, I will retell the tale as if had been a clinical practice.

Mike and Neil are two practice owners, for several years they have been running their own successful “one-man bands” with varying amounts of staff support. Occasionally Neil provides holiday cover for Mike and has taken some referrals from him for the specific skills that he has developed. They each have support teams; Mike has a part-time but enthusiastic associate, Oliver and works with his partner, Philippa, who is a hygienist.

After several months of discussion and enthusiasm they decide to go into partnership together. They will be expense-sharing partners, the business is launched and almost immediately there are operative problems.

Both partners are enthusiastic about using Kolbe in recruitment but make the fundamental error of failing to look at themselves as part of the bigger picture, in fact one of them says “this is bound to be a success we’re practically Kolbe twins.”

A brief explanation of some of the terms before we progress, Kolbe Wisdom is about how people will act and solve problems, the four Conative Characteristics are:

• Fact Finder – Gathering and sharing of information.
• Follow through – Sorting and Storing Information.
• Quick Start – Dealing with risk and uncertainty.
• Implementation – Handling space and intangibles.

Each Action Mode has three Zones of Operation, which determine how the individual acts when using it.

• Initiating Zone: how they insist on beginning the problem-solving process.
• Accommodation Zone: how they respond to people and situations.
• Preventing Zone: how they avoid or resist problems.

Let’s look at that “Kolbe Twins” optimistic statement, which ironically is one of the keys to their failure. Both Michael & Neil Initiate in Quick Start, Respond in Follow Through & Fact Finder and as they have very similar scores for Implementor will tend to Prevent in that mode.

Through in to the mix the fact that Oliver also initiates in Quick Start and you have 3 individuals who will:

• Take risks
• Create a sense of urgency
• Initiate change
• Seek Challenges
• Create Innovation
• Act on Intuition

Now these characteristics are great for individual entrepreneurs but they need to be balanced by one or more people within the organisation who can Initiate in Follow Through & Implementor.

Rosie & Philippa who both score highly in Fact Finder both end up researching and researching until they come close to “Perfection Paralysis”, Rosie is the only person who initiates in Follow Through and she becomes overwhelmed.

The organisation lacks anyone who initiates in Implementor, there is no one who:

• Has a Time Zone that is the Present
• Is grounded in the here and now, who can create quality products that will endure through time.
• Communicates using props, models & demonstrations.
• Stores Information by Quality
• Works with models or prototypes
• Requires concrete, demonstrable goals that have lasting value.

So, the partners, who were always looking at the future, dominated business meetings with their MOs, the poor old practice manager (who had a financial stake in this particular business) desperately wanting to provide the information gets bogged down in detail.

The irony of this case is that what the leadership needed was someone who had the typical Kolbe score of a “hands on” dentist, who Initiated or Responded in Implementor and either Prevented or Responded in Quick Start, which would have brought the Team Synergy back to the appropriate levels. Unfortunately although those individuals might well have been available the partners’ “rush” was not balanced sufficiently from the outset and failure was inevitable.

The venture lasted as a going concern for fewer than nine months; the episode has left a bad taste in the mouths and soured the personal relationships of most of those involved. The two main protagonists have gone back to being – in the main – their own “bosses” but have learned to have great support teams.

The associate went on to give all his energies to his own practice that, contrary to his instincts, he had put on hold to do what he could for the new venture because he had wanted that to work. He proceeded to write articles like this one in an attempt to prevent the upset and confusion that can be caused when people ignore Kolbe Wisdom ™.

After several months of discussion and enthusiasm they decide to go into partnership together. They will be expense-sharing partners, the business is launched and almost immediately there are operative problems.

Both partners are enthusiastic about using Kolbe in recruitment but make the fundamental error of failing to look at themselves as part of the bigger picture, in fact one of them says “this is bound to be a success we’re practically Kolbe twins.”

A brief explanation of some of the terms before we progress, Kolbe Wisdom is about how people will act and solve problems, the four Conative Characteristics are:

• Fact Finder – Gathering and sharing of information.
• Follow through – Sorting and Storing Information.
• Quick Start – Dealing with risk and uncertainty.
• Implementation – Handling space and intangibles.

Each Action Mode has three Zones of Operation, which determine how the individual acts when using it.

• Initiating Zone: how they insist on beginning the problem-solving process.
• Accommodation Zone: how they respond to people and situations.
• Preventing Zone: how they avoid or resist problems.

Let’s look at that “Kolbe Twins” optimistic statement, which ironically is one of the keys to their failure. Both Michael & Neil Initiate in Quick Start, Respond in Follow Through & Fact Finder and as they have very similar scores for Implementor will tend to Prevent in that mode.

Through in to the mix the fact that Oliver also initiates in Quick Start and you have 3 individuals who will:

• Take risks
• Create a sense of urgency
• Initiate change
• Seek Challenges
• Create Innovation
• Act on Intuition

Now these characteristics are great for individual entrepreneurs but they need to be balanced by one or more people within the organisation who can Initiate in Follow Through & Implementor.

Rosie & Philippa who both score highly in Fact Finder both end up researching and researching until they come close to “Perfection Paralysis”, Rosie is the only person who initiates in Follow Through and she becomes overwhelmed.

The organisation lacks anyone who initiates in Implementor, there is no one who:

• Has a Time Zone that is the Present
• Is grounded in the here and now, who can create quality products that will endure through time.
• Communicates using props, models & demonstrations.
• Stores Information by Quality
• Works with models or prototypes
• Requires concrete, demonstrable goals that have lasting value.

So, the partners, who were always looking at the future, dominated business meetings with their MOs, the poor old practice manager (who had a financial stake in this particular business) desperately wanting to provide the information gets bogged down in detail.

The irony of this case is that what the leadership needed was someone who had the typical Kolbe score of a “hands on” dentist, who Initiated or Responded in Implementor and either Prevented or Responded in Quick Start, which would have brought the Team Synergy back to the appropriate levels. Unfortunately although those individuals might well have been available the partners’ “rush” was not balanced sufficiently from the outset and failure was inevitable.

The venture lasted as a going concern for fewer than nine months; the episode has left a bad taste in the mouths and soured the personal relationships of most of those involved. The two main protagonists have gone back to being – in the main – their own “bosses” but have learned to have great support teams.

The associate went on to give all his energies to his own practice that, contrary to his instincts, he had put on hold to do what he could for the new venture because he had wanted that to work. He proceeded to write articles like this one in an attempt to prevent the upset and confusion that can be caused when people ignore Kolbe Wisdom ™.

Their Kolbe scores:

I had been working with Julie for six months or so before Debbie was appointed and already knew the main problems that existed in the management team of the two partners and practice manager.

Neil, who initiates in Quick Start, is an instinctive innovator who:

• Challenges
• Originates
• Promotes
• Brainstorms
• Risks &
• Intuits

Sharon scores equally in Fact Finder & Quick Start but in the Kolbe “Theory of Dominance”, Fact Finder will dominate the other mode.

Both Julie and Debbie initiate in Fact Finder also. This means that all three will:

• Probe
• Prioritise
• Prove
• Specify
• Calculate
• Define

That’s a certain amount of theory behind things but what happened in practice? Let’s not forget that Neil & Sharon are married and both can initiate in Quick Start, so one problem was predictable and happened as predicted. Julie would have management meetings with both of the partners where decisions would be made, Julie with her high Fact Find & Follow Through wants to plan, co-ordinate, seek order, establish procedures and work sequentially.

The partners would go home, talk things through, change decisions and act on their intuition. Result – one thoroughly irritated Practice Manager not because she disagreed with anything that her bosses had done, as she would say “It’s their business and ultimately their success, so they can do what they think is best”, but rather because, as she prevents in Quick Start, her instinct is to not be impulsive, ambiguous or to create chaos, neither will she want to operate in crisis mode whereas Neil & Sharon thrive on that.

One other problem was that Sharon, with her high fact find, a trait common in dentists, would frequently duplicate Julie’s efforts and draw conclusions leaving Julie feeling by-passed.

Sadly, although the partners had introduced Kolbe analysis into the practice I don’t believe they realised the evidence in front of them. Julie struggled with her role, not with getting the work of practice manager done but with any allowance for the way that she worked and how challenging she found working with the partners.

To go back to the addition of the associate. She initiates in Fact Finder, add that to the same scores from Sharon & Julie, could well result in there being a tendency for the clinical & management team to fall into “Perfection Paralysis”.

Here’s a quick look at the team synergy;

They score above 30% in the Initiate and Prevent Zones this can lead to Polarization which in an organisation is like conflict between individuals. Productivity is blocked because energy is sidetracked in internal tugs-of-war.

Their energy is turned inwards and this results in “on again, off again” efforts culminating in a self-destructive team.

The solutions?

• Appoint people to “bridge” the gaps for selective projects – not necessarily easy for a small set up.
• Break into project teams, this was tried on an informal basis but as soon as the partners got to talking across the dinner table the efforts were undermined.
• Work independently towards shared goals, within a small organisation not that easy.
• Look for an associate with a complimentary Kolbe MO

There was no simple answer to this one and most of my time was spent supporting the practice manager who, in spite of her efforts, felt repeatedly let down by her employers and was planning her long-term exit strategy.

Ironically although she was, at least on the face of it, regarded as a highly valued employee and a cornerstone of the practice, it was possible that she had come to the end of her time in terms of the use of her skills. Her instinctive initiation in Fact Find and Follow Through had been invaluable during a period of change and growth (coinciding ironically with Debbie’s maternity leave) but now in a time of building on those changes her skills MO wasn’t as applicable.

There also came into this, obviously, the practice owners whose emotional relationship overrode most other things although it was frequently to the detriment of the smooth running of the practices. So if you’re going into business with your spouse / partner or you’re already there your Kolbe score may explain a huge amount.

PS There was a coach’s dilemma, I was employed by the partners to coach the manager, to whom was my duty? In this and every case, to the individual who was being coached.

I have had some queries from readers and clients about where the Kolbe Index fits with other measuring methods favoured by coaches, HR & recruitment agencies. My considered response is: “I’m glad you asked me that because I have done a lot of research into them and that is why I choose to have invested in becoming a Kolbe Consultant”

Usually I am asked about Myers-Briggs (MBTI) and DiSC; but I am also aware of MSCEIT (which measures Emotional Intelligence), IQ testing (the use of which with the US military was pioneered by Kathy Kolbe’s father, E.F. Wonderlic), PF16, HVVA, TONI, Social Styles, OVA and the Hogan Personality Inventory. There are plenty of others all with their adherents.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is the most widely used employee test in the world, not because it is better than other methods, but because it’s the oldest and most studied. The MBTI is based on Carl Jung’s landmark 1921 book, “Psychological Types”.

MBTI asks questions that rate four pairs of personality traits: your natural predisposition toward extroversion versus introversion; sensing versus being intuitive; thinking versus feeling; and judging versus perceiving. After taking the test, you get a score based on which traits are most dominant, with each trait represented by a single letter. The MBTI is a affective instrument it provides a deep insight into the way people want to work. It can change over time and people do have difficulties remembering their preferences.

The MBTI is a good for understanding how people think and interact emotionally and cognitively. But it is not so great in the job world as a predictor of performance. It is based on preferences, which may change over time or even with situation.

DiSC is a behavioural (observed) model, it helps people understand why they do what they do, by measuring the interaction of four behavioural factors: dominance, influence, steadiness and conscientiousness. Using this information, DiSC can be used to describe a person’s general approach, including his or her motivation, dislikes, strengths and weaknesses. The way you relate to other people is, in large part, defined by which of these social styles is dominant in your personality.

The Social Style™ training model originated by Merril & Reid looks to find flexibility – the ability to get along with people whose styles differ from one’s own. It is said that flexibility frequently distuinguishes success or lack of success. The two continuums in this model are Ask vs Tell and Controls Emotions vs Emotes. This results in the four social styles: Expressive, Driving, Analytic and Amiable.

The 2008 study by Colorado University and Regis Learning showed that Social Style is easier to understand and apply than Myers-Briggs or DiSC.

Hogan Assessment Systems specialise in personality instruments. Their 3 primary indices contain 28 separate scales designed to identify:

(a) how others perceive one’s behaviours and day-to-day interaction style from a leadership/managerial perspective,

(b) one’s values, and

(c) derailing tendencies that inhibit positive interactions.

The complete set of reports provides a comprehensive description of an individual’s behavioural tendencies, how they are viewed by others, and insights into how/why they are effective.

So it’s clear that there are a lot of instruments out there, all with their fans. To differentiate Kolbe we need to go back to basic principles. The mind has three basic features:

• Cognitive relates to knowledge or intelligence.
• Affective relates to attitudes, beliefs or values.
• Conative relates to instinct or natural energy.

• The Cognitive, telling you what you can or can’t do, is measured by IQ, and similar, tests.
• The Affective, telling you what you want to do, can be measured by most of the systems that I have described above.
• The Conative or Natural Instinct is measured by use of the Kolbe Index.

The Kolbe Index has been shown to be consistent over periods of many years. As a potential employer or someone looking to build a team that you can predict and rely upon for consistency this is most important. The measures of the Affective mentioned earlier can change dramatically in a relatively short space of time, MBTI as much as 50% in six weeks, as an employer I would find that scary.

Kolbe is a straight forward, simple to remember, system that tells you how employees and colleagues approach their work and problem solving, and how they will ACT during stressful times. Let’s face it that’s really what we want to know when we hire someone or work with them on a team isn’t it?

For more information and to take the Kolbe A Index go to my website.

So far in this series of articles I have concentrated on the Kolbe A index and how its use can benefit both individuals and teams. This time I will talk about the other tools that are available particularly the Kolbe B and C index and their use.

The indexes correct titles are really “Kolbe Conative Index” which from here are referred to as KCI, I will start with a definition that is taken from Kathy Kolbe’s book “Conative Connection.”

Conation: Conation is the area of one’s active mentality that has to do with desire, volition and striving. The related conatus is the resulting effort or striving itself, or the natural tendency or force on one’s mental makeup that produces an effort.

Conative: is the term in psychology that describes anything to do with conation.

All these words come from the Latin conatus, past participle of the verb conari (to try). The Scottish philosopher William Hamilton (1788-1856) considered conation to be one of the three divisions of the mind, the one that included desire and volition, the other two being cognition (perception, awareness) and feeling.To recap: the Kolbe A Index (KCI-A) gives an individual’s Modus Operandi (MO) and shows their instinctive strengths thus how they will best operate.

The Kolbe B Index (KCI-B) focuses on the methods a jobholder perceives are necessary for success; a questionnaire similar to the KCI-A with results on the same four-mode grid makes it straightforward to detect similarities and differences between realities (KCI-A) and self-expectations (KCI-B). The information highlights obstacles that keep workers from functioning through their instinctive strengths.

The Kolbe C Index (KCI-C) is completed by the business owner or the individual’s immediate supervisor (traditionally, this would have been the practice owner but there is an argument for the business manager taking this role). Again the result appears in the four-mode grid for easy comparison.

We have a situation where we now have available to compare:

KCI-A = Individual’s instinctive Talent

KCI-B = Jobholder’s self-expectations

KCI-C = Job requirements or functional necessities

Comparing A and B gives a sense of how much strain you may be under because of the pressure put on yourself. Comparing A and C indicates whether the organisation is limiting the individual’s opportunity to achieve, therefore causing tension in the workplace. Comparing B and C can explain differing perceptions of the role.

How to apply in a practice – I presume that the existing team members and management are all aware of their KCI A results. The time has come to recruit a new team member, from the analysis of existing KCI-A any operating zones that are lacking can be identified. The manager completes the KCI-C for the post to be filled and the search begins.

Firstly look at the current team members. Are any of them more suited to work in the vacant post than where they are currently? Is there a nurse with really high fact find that is clashing because her current role needs an individual who prevents in fact find? Her skills may well be more suited to an administrative or front desk role.

OK, the decision has been made to recruit from outside the current set up. Throw your recruitment net in the usual manner until you are in a position to have the final three or four candidates and at this point you ask them to take the KCI-A.

This is where a lot of business owners baulk, they seem to think that spending $48 is throwing money away. The logic for investing in the Index at this stage is that if you get the wrong person it will cost you immeasurably more in poor performance of the individual and other team members. Then you will have to go through the whole process of removing the wrong cog from the machine, fraught with potential difficulties, and start the recruitment again.

With the A index you are in a position to see who “fits” both with the post and with the skills of the other team members. If you are still torn between, say, a couple on a final shortlist then use the KCI-B to see what the make of the prospective job and the conative skills required. A final comparison should hopefully give a successful and happy result for all parties.

In the short and long term an unhappy and unfulfilled team member does nobody any good. They will not function at anywhere near their best, they will bring the performance levels of the rest of the team down and the resulting organisation operates way below its optimum.

It is estimated that something approaching 50% of staff recruited stay in post for less than 12 months. The cost in terms of time, money and team morale is immeasurable, isn’t it time you took your team recruitment and retention procedures up to the level of your clinical skills?

Take the Kolbe A Index