Past behavior is often the best predictor of future behavior, even when it comes to how a manager will score on a survey.
Fish know a thing or two about employee selection - coral reef fish specifically. They employ a very interesting method to determine whom they should hire while interviewing candidates for a job.
Coral reef fish experience what must be an uncomfortable sensation. Parasites tend to attach themselves to their skin. To rid themselves of these parasites, they visit and employ “cleaner” fish to remove the parasites. But how does the coral reef fish know which “cleaner” fish will be best at removing the parasites? They have developed some skill at employee (fish) selection, skills that are useful for human managers to understand as they look at potential candidates for a job.
The cleaner fish have a choice as they work on cleaning the coral reef fish. They can work diligently, eating parasites and cleaning off the coral reef fish, while not taking what has been described as a delicious bite of mucous membrane (I assume it hurts to have a cleaner fish bite your mucus membrane), or they can chomp on the membrane and get a tastier meal than just parasites. It has been shown that when other coral reef fish are nearby (potential customers) and watching the cleaner fish, the cleaner fish are more likely to behave appropriately, foregoing nibbles on mucus membranes. This gives you a sense of what appropriate supervision can do, but it also demonstrates that the cleaner fish know what is expected of them on the job. (I wonder who wrote that job description.)
Where it gets really interesting is that coral reef fish who have witnessed the desired behavior on the part of the cleaner fish are more likely to choose those that behave in the desired fashion for their own cleaning. They are, in essence, interviewing candidates for the position by observing the cleaners’ on-the-job performance and then selecting those that perform best. They seem to instinctively know that one of the best predictors of future behavior is past behavior. (I had to go to graduate school to learn that, so I wonder what that says about me.)
What can we learn from this about employee selection or employee survey results? Human behavior often has parallels with other animals. When psychologists study personality characteristics, it has been found that as people age, it becomes very difficult for them to change, and by 30 years of age or so, personality traits seem locked in. One theory of personality describes how people can change if they undergo a “unfreeze – change – refreeze” experience, but the “unfreeze” events, events that have the potential to “unlock” personality characteristics or behaviors, tend to be of a fairly significant nature for the person. The point being, people tend towards consistency in the experiences they seek out and in how they behave, and in fact, one of the best indicators of how an employee will perform on the job or how a manager will interact with their staff is past job performance and interactions. Don’t expect a 40-year-old manager who acts immaturely to suddenly find a mature side or someone who exhibits marginal ethics to suddenly walk the straight and narrow, or an employee who is generally sloppy or last-minute in their work to suddenly become fastidious and timely – at least not without a very significant event to propel them. Even then, the rates of recidivism will be extraordinarily high.
Very often, when we see radical changes, either positive or negative in employee survey results, it is not because a manager has radically changed personally, but because the new manager has been put into place.
The goal of psychologists when they construct assessment centers or develop job based testing for selection is the same as the coral reef fish, that is to set up a situation where on-the-job behaviors can be observed in order to get a sense as to how the candidate will perform in the future; in the case of the psychologist from a simulated or historical standpoint and in the case of the fish by direct observation. (The use of biodata, such as job history, promotions, credit worthiness, even speeding tickets etc. is another method to examine past behavior).
Selecting the right employee for the job in the first place, one that fits correctly into the organization and has the necessary skill set, is absolutely critical. But do not take the above example about fish and the tendency of people to behave consistently to mean that there is no benefit to developing or training employees. In fact, just the opposite is true. Employees can benefit tremendously from having someone “show them the ropes” on how to be a highly performing employee in the organization. They may have in place the correct personality or skill set, but they may lack experience or some other component that would allow them to excel, to be a highly performing employee or manager. Development for these people can be very advantageous – especially early in their careers. However, if you have an experienced employee or manager who consistently exhibits behaviors that are not appropriate (biting mucous membranes, for instance), don’t keep holding out hope that they will someday change their behavior if just given one more chance – it may be a fool’s vigil.