|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barrett Consulting Group was 7 years old in January 2002. Over
that time we have worked on many projects across abroad range
of industries. However, one thing continued to eluded us and that
was our ability to clearly define who we are, what we want to
achieve, what we do and how we act. So after much soul searching,
self examination and a deconstruction of our business we have
finally been able to define ourselves now and for the future -
Welcome to the Conscious Culture of Discipline at Barrett Consulting Group.
Mission - what we do
We strive to make sure no organisation or leader fails for want
of effective selection, development and retention solutions. We
apply our skills, knowledge and attitudes in two core areas:
- Sales Performance & Productivity Solutions
- Selection & Retention Solutions.
Vision - what we want
We will inspire and promote greater self awareness and understanding
in people which is socially aware and responsible.
Values - how we act
We are professional, collaborative and courageous.
Who we are
We are an Australian based management consulting firm who provides
a range of consulting, development, facilitation, public speaking,
design, testing and technical services.
Our Values in more depth.
|
|
|
R
etention of quality staff is one of the single biggest factors
affecting future business success. In particular, the success
of an organisation is very much dependent on their “critical employees”
– those employees in whom the intellectual capital and corporate
memory resides.
Not withstanding, not all turnover is necessarily bad. Paradoxically,
a low turnover (i.e., high reten-tion) rate in some organisations
may pose just as serious a problem. A high retention rate may
indicate a workforce which is “stuck” (i.e. the “walking wounded”)
and who are too afraid to leave. These people consider their employment
prospects elsewhere, under the equivalent terms and conditions
of their current employment, to be bleak.
Such a workforce is hardly the foundation for an organisation
to move forward and respond to today’s dynamic business environment
and challenges. What is therefore important is selective retention
or retaining the “right” people. However, retention is a complex
issue – there is no “silver bullet” or “magic wand” solution.
Ultimately, retention is about how an organisation manages its
workforce, or more specifically, its relationship with its workforce.
Apart from the obvious cost savings in retaining the right people,
there are other significant, lasting benefits to an organisation
which are often unappreciated.
These include:-
-
Higher levels of job satisfaction and performance;
-
Reduced workplace stress/enhanced employee well being; and more
satisfied customers
Barrett Consulting Group have a keen interest in the research
undertaken by Colin Beames, Corporate Psychologist of the WRDI-Institute,
and the development of a “cutting edge” diagnostic survey called
the Workplace Relationship Development Indicator (WRDI). This
research has led to the creation of a set of valid and reliable
diagnostic assessments (combined with structured intervention
strategies), aimed at addressing retention throughout the employment
life cycle. The advent of this survey tool has obvious “bottom
line” benefits for organisations and recruiters.
Employment Life Cycle
Barrett Consulting Group are able to assist organisations address
retention through the following stages:-
-
Pre- employment screening – WEM;
Realistic Job Preview – WEM;
-
Post Recruitment Assessment (including contract and temporary
employees);
-
Retention Risk Assessment (“critical employees”);
-
Mass surveys with reporting by workforce segment;
-
Exit Interviews.
Note:
The WEM stands for Work Expectations Match, a derivative online
questionnaire of the WRDI which assesses the “fit” of the applicant
to key aspects of the job and work setting.
The Retention Risk Assessment (RRA)
approach categorises employees into 3 groups: Stayers; At Risk;
and Leavers. Additionally, the RRA approach provides answers to
two vital questions:
-
Why are people likely to leave?; and
-
What you can do about it?
However, the “icing on the cake” is that we recommend targeted
interventions (designed to address perceived organisational and
individual factors), that are contributing to the wastage of talent.
Employer/Employee Relations
At the core of the Retention assessment model are the concepts
of: The “Psychological Contract” (which represents the essence
of the employer/employee relationship); and the “New Deal”. These
concepts provide a way forward for organisations to create workforce
alignment and more productive employment relationships in the
contemporary workplace.
Further enquiries, please contact Sue Barrett on (03) 95327677.
|
|
|
Situation:
Large sales and service call centre which employed over 370 telemarketers
and 35 team leaders.
Majority of the telemarketers handled
inbound customer calls
Small dedicated team which concentrated
on outbound customer calls
Both types of calls were to have a sales
focus
All new employees were required to attend
a 3 week induction program (included service and sales training,
product knowledge and skills practice)
The company wanted
their telemarketers and supervisors to have a stronger, more proactive
selling approach.
Some of the issues:
Company advertising for customer service people when they really
needed sales people
Majority of telemarketers had been favouring a service approach
at the expense of a sales focus (“nice information providers”)
Telemarketers not converting many opportunities
presented to them and were a cost to the business
Senior Management and Team Leaders didn’t understand what behaviours
were affecting them and their teams’ sales performance (lack of
sales experience and know how)
Barrett Consulting Group Solutions:
-
Assess selling behaviours profiles of all team leaders and managers
using SPQ*Gold to assess the amount of initiative, energy and
drive each supervisor devoted to proactive sales and the amount
of energy spent on coping with inhibiting influences such as
fear. This was necessary as they were in a position to influence
the selling behaviours of others and as such needed to understand
their own approach to selling before they could coach others.
-
Conduct Sales Manager’s “Fitness” Interval training program
for team leaders and management, the objective being to develop
the supervisors' leadership, coaching and counselling skills
and encourage them to approach their management roles with a
stronger sales and results focus.
The result:
-
The company recorded a 43% increase in sales and subsequently
a substantial growth in business within 3 months.
-
The company had 3 staff accredited to interpret SPQ results which
is being used to support the recruitment of people more suited
to their newly defined culture.
|
|
|
D
o all salespeople exaggerate, or does it just seem that way sometimes?
And does the seller's home turf make a difference in how much
and how often the truth gets stretched?
To answer these questions, behavioral scientists George W. Dudley
and Shannon L. Goodson recently reported preliminary results of
a long-term international search for "the world's most 'ethically
challenged' salespeople." In a paper originally presented to the
Southwestern Psychological Association, the researchers scientifically
analyzed the exaggeration behavior of 5,000 sales people representing
nine countries.
THE "SPIN" CAPITAL OF THE SELLING WORLD?
So where is the "spin" capital of the selling world? The land
of the free and the home of the late night infomercial wins hands
down in the study, American salespeople exaggerated more than
50% of the time, scientifically establishing Americans as the
most "ethically nimble" sellers in the world.
But salespeople in the other eight countries know how to grow
hair on their sales pitches, too, according to Dudley and Goodson.
U.S. Salespeople were followed by those in Canada (48%), Australia
(46%), South Africa (39%), Hong Kong (37%), New Zealand (35%),
Singapore (33%), Italy (36%), and the U.K. (30%). Overall, the
average salesperson in the study exaggerated 48% of the time.
Why do they do it? "Why does anybody exaggerate?" Dudley asked.
"Preachers and politicians exaggerate. So do attorneys, advertisers
and corporate executives. Even scientists have been known to stretch
the fabric of truth from time to time--and that's not an exaggeration!
So it's not surprising that salespeople, who are paid to project
a positive impression, are inclined to exagger ate.
What surprised us is how much. The exaggeration we found may be
the norm." The researchers found that salespeople exaggerate despite
the current popularity of high-minded "integrity"-based sales
training programs--most of them U.S. based. "The more you hear
words like 'values,' 'integrity,' and trust' in a sales presentation,
the closer you should probably watch your wallet." The researchers
reminded organizations in other countries that there are profound
cultural differences between the U.S. and other nations, some
of which--like the tendency of U.S. salespeople to exaggerate--may
not be altogether welcome. "Be wary of slick U.S.-based sales
training applications," Dudley said, "especially those which promise
more principled salespeople. It could be an exaggeration."
|
|
|
T
here are no crystal balls for selecting salespeople. Too often,
sales managers never know they've made a bad hiring decision until
a would-be superstar's production hits the skids. In other words,
until it's too late. Now, a controversial new study from Dudley
& Goodson has found an effective way to boost hiring "hit"
rates and avoid the costly pitfalls of selecting the wrong candidates.
Sales managers have long relied on personality traits like dominance,
sociability and empathy to identify top sellers. But one of the
best predictors of future sales performance is a salesperson's
willingness to consistently prospect for new business. Studies
have shown that salespeople who hesitate to promote themselves
and their products to prospective buyers sacrifice an average of 15
orders every month. That hesitation is called Sales Call Reluctance®.
Detecting it before a hiring decision is made, say the researchers,
can help managers correctly identify candidates as potential top
producers or future liabilities.
Recently Dudley and Goodson looked at a multi-industry sample
of 206 currently employed sales-people. Industries represented
ranged from financial services and real estate to manufacturing
and advertising sales. Approximately half the sample was identified
as Very High Producers (in the top 20% of their companies), and
half as Very Low Producers (bottom 20% of their companies). Each
participant completed SPQ*GOLD®, a 110-question computer scored
test designed specifically to detect and measure 12 types of behavioral
inhibitions associated with sales call reluctance. Then, using
only questionnaire results, the researchers attempted to correctly
pick the high producers. Analysis of SPQ results enabled Dudley
and Goodson to correctly identify 72% of the VHPs. Whiles that's not
perfect, it significantly improved on the sample's base "hit"
rate (candi-dates correctly identified at time of hire) of 54%.
Dudley emphasized that even small increases in selection accuracy
can save companies hundreds of thousands of dollars in wasted
training and unmet quotas. "In most cases, knowing up front whether
a candidate will be able to prospect comfortably saves time, money
and frustration."
Other findings from the analysis include:
-
High producers have significantly less fear that their calls
will be seen as pushy or intrusive.
-
They don't wait for a mythical "right time" to call on prospects
– to them, it's always the right
time.
-
High producers are not afraid to call on major decision-makers:
people of wealth, power,
and prestige. Low producers, on the other hand, tend to be more
intimidated by these
potential buyers – and avoid calling on them.
-
Low producers are more likely to criticize, complain, and make
excuses for their behavior.
They tend to be more difficult to manage, coach, train, and advise
than their high-producing
counterparts.
Goodson acknowledges that this study flies in the face of current
sales selection philosophies, especially those which favor candidates
with high relationship-building skills. But, she says, today's
so-called client-centered approaches tend to put the cart before
the horse. "The current emphasis on nurturing client relationships
assumes that salespeople are comfortable with initiating the relationship
in the first place. But many aren't. They can't, won't, or simply
don't make initial contacts with prospective clients in sufficient
numbers. As a result, many salespeople who have become well-versed
in relationship-building chronically lack new customers to build
relation-ships with."
|
|
|
W
eb-based test publishers have prioritised speed, ease of integration
and usability over a rigorous approach to testing itself. Unless
security issues are fully addressed, the test content can be duplicated
and candidates can ‘practise’. This reduces the test's integrity
and compromises the validity of results, especially in the case
of remote testing, where you can't control the testing environment
or verify the test-taker's identity.
Guaranteeing virtually instant results limits online test offerings
to basic screening instruments, rather than comprehensive measurement
of job-related competencies. Furthermore, bypassing psychologists
increases the risk of litigation, due to inappropriate test selection
and interpretation of results by untrained personnel. Substantial
research and development is required to develop credible assessment
tools, which web-based publishers have had little time to undertake.
The most realistic option is to partner with a reputable psychological
assessment provider, who can provide relevant assessments tools
regardless whether they are administered on line or in the standard
format. Even then, psychological assessments should never stand
alone. Their real value is in complement-ing an employers' own
evaluation procedures.
|
|
|
A
man puts his nose to the grindstone. But a woman sharpens her
claws on it. That's the conclu-sion of a new study of American
women managers. The latest study from research scientist Shannon
L. Goodson examines the differences between informal corporate
support for men and women - the old boys network vs. the old girls
network.
"For generations," Goodson says, "men have worked as hard on their
golf game as their work skills to help establish themselves professionally."
As a professional woman herself, Goodson has found networking
with other professional men and women extremely valuable. Recently
Goodson and colleague Terry Donia began surveying a sample of
approximately 150 male and female managers from Fortune 500 companies.
Survey participants ranged from middle management to senior executive
level. What they found is new support for networking, along with
alarming and altogether unexpected rumbles of discord just beneath
the surface. The glass ceiling, it turns out, could have a sister:
the petticoat hurdle.
As expected, women overwhelmingly agree that forming and maintaining
networks is important. But Goodson found out that mere rhetorical
commitment to networking does not necessarily create more effective
managers, or shorten their path to the top. Fifty-four percent
of the managers surveyed said it didn't matter to them whether
they worked for a man or a woman. But those who expressed a preference
had an unexpected opinion. Seven in ten said they would rather
work for a man than a woman. Why? Their reasons varied, but their
comments on women managers had a common thread: "Backstabbing,"
"Gossip-focused." "Not as supportive as men." "Crisis creator."
According to Donia, "There may be more bitching than bonding going
on among aspiring career women." Goodson is quick to point out
that women are not intentionally bad bosses. They are just trying
to survive the best way they know how. "Male managers in well
established networks are more likely to give each other a helping
hand because they see it as an investment in their own career,"
she says. But women must still compete against men and against
each other for fewer opportunities. So they are more likely to
see each other as potential threats. Their attitude tends to be,
"If I help you today, will you step over me tomorrow?" Goodson
offers no excuses for such self-protective behavior. "Women need
to recognize that bitchy behavior can destroy more progress than
it creates. There are enough real obstacles to our professional
growth without throwing hurdles in each other's path."
|
|
|
-
Be passionate and courageous about what we do
-
Keep a firm eye on the bottom line
-
Be disciplined in thought and action
-
Be committed to our firm's business success
-
Explore ideas, be innovative and create practical real solutions
-
Develop healthy, productive relationships with co-workers and
clients
-
Let others know about our firm
-
Take responsibility and ownership for our work
-
See our work as part of a holistic environment
-
See the link between our job, our clients' and our organisation's
success
-
Help set and implement organisational goals
-
Take personal responsibility for client service
|
|
|
You can subscribe to this newsletter, by
- using your preferred mailer by simply clicking on
this linkand send the empty mail (the subject subscribe line should come
up automatically).
- use another mailer and send an empty mail to
barrettnewsletter-request@barrett.com.au with a subject line of subscribe
- use our mailing list interface at here
and follow the instructions.
You can unsubscribe from this newsletter, by
- using your preferred mailer by simply clicking on
this link and send the empty mail (subject line unsubscribe should come up automatically)
- use another mailer and send an empty mail to
barrettnewsletter-request@barrett.com.au with a subject line of unsubscribe
- use our mailing list interface at here
and follow the instructions.
You will (in both cases) receive a "You must confirm" message. Simply reply to it and
you will be either subscribed or unsubscribed depending upon your instruction.
|
|
|