Off the Wohl

“How come all my PROs look the same?”

For those of us involved in the world of the Predictive Index® as users or as facilitators of the use of the PI®, it is not at all uncommon to hear the frustrated lament, “many of my PROs look the same.” Most likely, the PRO has turned out to be some variation of “High A/Low C” for a position at an operational level of the organization. A period of frustration with underperforming or unmotivated employees may be the cause. Think of a typical “entrepreneurial fix” for a job that really just needs to be done well, every day. This scenario is frequent at The Oliver Group and we often see PROs completed without dialogue about the role and without discussion of the results.

Let´s take a step back and examine the streams of thought that contribute to this confusion and perhaps we can avoid them in the future.

Why do a PRO?

The foundation we begin with is the assertion that Performance = Capacity x Motivation. Of all of the different pieces of capacity that contribute to an individual´s performance, we know that the PI measures and assesses the motivational/behavioral dimensions of a person. We understand that other competencies are important and necessary for leveraging performance. We acknowledge that without tools, we are unable to apply valid and reliable measurements to pieces of capacity. Therefore, it is more difficult to accurately assess the capacity part of the equation.

The mathematical rigor used in the measurement of motivational drives with the Predictive Index permits us to place high levels of confidence in the reliability and validity of the measures. The PI also provides a common and natural language to describe the behavioral and motive qualities that we find in ourselves and others. When others not trained in PI do not share our objective approach and substitute their own perceptual reality, we have the potential of missing the mark. The PRO lists statements that can mean different things to different people. We see success with the PRO only if those participating in the exercise are clear of expectations for the role before they complete the PRO survey.

What is the PRO and how should we use it?

While many jobs have similar or identical titles, the actual requirements for specific work may not be. It is less a matter of the name of the job than of the substance of the work itself. The PRO represents specific content of the work that is anticipated or desired by the organization. While a job may be accomplished in a myriad of ways, the PRO is describing how a specific organization wishes the job to be done, at this point in time. The PRO is the model of the ideal or “top gun” expression a job. It is a specific model and expression of the way we choose to spend our compensation dollars. The results represent your thinking for the best potential for successful performance in your organization at the time the PRO is completed.

There appears to be a high level of intuitive “loading” or preference for many of the statements on the PRO worksheet that relate to the scaling of Factor-A. As we work with our clients to discuss their results we find a strong connection in people between the “A” items and the simple ideas of “making decisions,” and “getting work done.” When we discuss the results and probe the thinking about the actual nature of the work to be done, many of the A items for most PROs could be eliminated or replaced by D items. Does the job require high A or just the environment?

Positions requiring execution and getting work done are numerous within any organization. However, the need for higher A motive behaviors is limited. Remember, the rule of thumb is still that up to 85 – 88% of positions will function well with higher D, lower A expressions of performance related behavior and the motivations that drive them. It is also possible that with more pressure to perform quickly and with employees taking on many more responsibilities, more high A, low C behavior is necessary for success. It is important to understand the cultural implications of more than 15% of that behavior in an organization. Are you able to provide more autonomy, challenge and independence?

The following are suggested steps when completing a PRO:

  1. Present an overview of this process to participating leaders and explain how to complete the PRO form.
  2. Review the job description, discuss the performance outputs and get clarity on where the employee´s time will be spent.
  3. Send the PRO link from Access PI to these participating leaders. As practitioners of the PI we need to remember to tell those we work with that when doing a PRO, they should check only those words they believe to be essential, critical or non-negotiable” for the minimum performance of the job. All other item possibilities should be omitted. This habit will create a more thoughtful and critical approach and help us to recall that each word we check has a specific relationship to the measurement and description of the behavioral differences.
  4. Compile, analyze and send results of the PRO to the stakeholders involved. Extra due diligence can be done, where necessary, including:
    • Reviewing PIs of those currently in the role looking for trends in top performers and different trends for poor performers
    • Looking at studies that have been done on a role at a different organization
    • Talking with your PI consultant about his or her experience with that role
  5. Review and discuss differences and similarities with the group to gain common understanding of each behavioral benchmark and try and reach consensus.
  6. Communicate the final PRO to all involved.

Preparation prevents poor performance. So if you focus some prep time for those who complete the PROs for you, your results will surely improve.