I travel often for work, and have become quite critical of the airlines I choose.  Frontier, United, Continental, Southwest, American, Virgin, Delta- each have their own unique advantages and disadvantages.  So, how do you choose the right airline for your needs?

I suggest using a strategic approach to decision making that I learned at the Critical Thinking Boot Camp.  While I cannot share the handy worksheet we used at the bootcamp, I will share a shortened version of the general process for deciding between multiple alternatives.

After I search for the available flights to my destination, I need to decide which criteria I should use to evaluate the airline choices.  What features of this flight should be considered mandatory? Which measurable factors make one flight better than another?

For example, my criteria for a good flight would be:

• timing that works with my planned schedule
• low price
• no layovers
• ability to upgrade to more legroom
• good customer service experience
• low rate of delays/cancellations
• nice boarding area
• TV availability
• Auto Check-in
• Good frequent flyer program
• In-flight wi-fi

Based on this list, it is clear that some of the criteria listed are just “nice to have” versus necessary.  So, next we need to assign a numerical weight to the criteria.  For me, having a direct flight would be a 10 (most important) whereas the auto check-in availability would be less relevant (likely a 2).

Once we have addressed which criteria are most important, it is time to compare the airlines to the criteria.  For example, prior to merging with Midwest, Frontier had TV’s on the headrest of each flight.  Southwest lets you pay a few extra dollars to automatically check in.  Both of those satisfy one of the criteria completely, so they would receive a 10 for those categories.  However, Southwest does not offer any upgrades for extra legroom, so for that category they would receive a 0.

Pricing and flight times would vary for each airline, so the values assessed compared to the criteria would differ for each flight.

As you can see by now, we are taking a qualitative decision and thinking critically about the best possible choice by quantifying the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative.

At the end of the process, you should be able to use the scores assigned to each airline for the weighted criteria to choose the best airline to meet your unique needs.  In the end, the decision you make will be justified by data, and not gut feeling or emotional preference.

How can you imagine using this decision making process today?

Let’s first start by defining Wishful vs. Cynical Thinking.

Wishful Thinking (according to Wikipedia) is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality or reality.

Cynical Thinking (which is NOT the same thing as Critical Thinking) is thinking that is predisposed to doubt and lack of trust.  Cynical Thinkers have a pessimstic view when problem solving and decision making.

The idea of Wishful vs. Cynical Thinking came to mind for me this week when a friend told me he thinks he has a coin worth $35,000.  This particular person is not a collector and typically does not own things of value, and to be quite honest, my Cynical Thinking kicked in immediately.

1. If you “think” you have a coin worth $35,000 and yet you’re just scraping by with your bills, wouldn’t you run to a coin appraiser and sell it immediately?
2. What does this individual even know about coins that would make him think it’s worth $35k?
3. Just because this kind of coin was once sold at auction for $35k doesn’t mean that’s what his coin is worth.  After all, his version isn’t even in the original packaging, so it would be down-graded in its current condition.
4. I’ll bet it’s a fake.
5. People like “us” don’t experience miracles like this.

So after I asked him several questions he showed me the coin and I really saw the stark difference between a Wishful Thinker and my Cynical Thinking.  He told me the history of how the “Sacagawea Dollar 2000 P” came into circulation.  Apparently Cheerios ran a marketing campaign that included 5,500 of these previously unreleased Sacagawea dollars in Cheerios boxes.  It is still unknown how this happened, but non-patterned Sacagawea coins were included in this series, which means that they have a very slight design difference from the Sacagawea Dollars currently in circulation.  Translation:  rare + mistake  = valuable.  On top of the fact that these rare coins (now commonly referred to as a “Cheerios Dollar”) were available to unsuspecting cereal eaters, there’s the very real possibility that the individuals lucky enough to receive one of these 5,500 coins had no idea how valuable the coin would be.  Remember, they were still only worth a dollar in 2000.  They were created by the U.S. mint to get people excited about the upcoming release of the coin to the general population.  So, who knows how many people opened the packaging and spent the coin over the past 12 years.

So, back to my original story…after seeing the coin in person and doing some research, I examined the coin for the necessary characteristics.  I found myself looking for ways in which his coin differed from the pictures of the authentic coin.  At the same time, my friend kept telling me about all the ways in which the coin looks similar to the authentic coin.

And there’s the problem…neither Wishful Thinking nor Cynical Thinking is superior.  They’re both flawed by a logical fallacy called “Confirmation Bias.”  Instead of looking at the situation neutrally and only relying on logic and reasoning, we were both predisposed to seeking out information that proved our respective beliefs.

I wanted to prove that the coin was fake, so I paid close attention to the differences in his coin vs. a verified coin.  He wanted to believe he had a $35k coin, so he paid close attention to the similarities between his coin and the verified coin.

When you become influenced by Confirmation Bias, you stop paying attention to anything that could disprove your belief/hypothesis, and that is a major error.  That is NOT critical thinking.  So, in the end, it doesn’t matter if you’re a Wishful Thinker or Cynical Thinker because, by their very nature, the thinking is flawed from the start.

What examples of Confirmation Bias have you seen recently?

In January of 2011 we told you about the new book “Academically Adrift” which followed 2,322 students during their 4 years in college and found that these students are not improving their critical thinking skills.

In fact, in the first 2 years, 45% of students showed no improvement in critical thinking skills, and after 4 years 36% still showed no improvement.

This week, a follow-up report was released that showed the long term effects of this critical thinking crisis.  The study (“Documenting Uncertain Times: Post-graduate Transition of the Academically Adrift Cohort”) showed the devastating results of poor critical thinking skills with respect to job placement and debt.

…graduates who scored in the bottom quintile of the test were three times more likely to be unemployed than those who scored in the top quintile, twice as likely to still be living at home and significantly more likely to have amassed credit card debt.

This study should be no surprise considering the competitive nature of the job market when unemployment is still extremely high.  When you lack the #1 skill sought after by employers, you will likely remain unemployed.  However this paints a very bleak future for Gen Y graduates.  Students are taking out massive student loans to get through 4 years of college, only to find that their basic analytical thinking skills are lacking.  As a result, they are living at home longer, taking out credit cards to cover daily expenses, and likely going into default with their student loans.  The debt they amass will haunt them for a lifetime as they apply for car loans, mortgages, auto insurance, and even jobs.

So, who should be held accountable?  Are the Universities to blame? Are the students ultimately responsible for choosing challenging courses that will improve their skill set?  What are the long term implications for employers?

How would you solve this problem?

Krishnan Anantharaman from the Wall Street Journal wrote an interesting article about the new trend of asking questions designed to elicit critical thinking abilities in candidates.  Initially, I was pleased to hear that recruiters are trying to measure critical thinking ability given the fact that only 28% of college graduates are rated as having excellent critical thinking skills yet it’s the #1 workplace skill.

However, the types of questions being used by interviewers really caught my eye.  Here are a few examples from the article:

• “What did you play with as a child?”
• “If you could describe Hershey, Godiva and Dove chocolate as people, how would you describe them?”
• “What is the chance that at least two people were born on the same day of the week if there are three people in the room?”
• “If you walk into a liquor store to count the bottles unsold, but the clerk is screaming at you to leave, what do you do?

I’ll be honest, if I received any of those interview questions, I would be very caught off-guard.  To some extent, that is the point.  Candidates today are so well-coached on the common questions like “Tell me about a time when you had a conflict with a co-worker” or “Where do you see yourself in 5 years?” that the answers rarely reflect the candidate themselves.

But do these questions really get to the heart of critical thinking ability?  Given the fact that interview questions are notoriously unreliable  measures of ability, it is doubtful.  However, there is an easier solution.  Use an assessment.

Not only is the Watson-Glaser II Critical Thinking Appraisal the gold standard for assessing critical thinking skills, but there is also an Interview Report that recruiters/interviewers can use to delve deeper into an individual’s assessment results.

You don’t need to come up with silly questions or have someone role-play how to sell an imaginary pen.  Instead, use a psychometrically sound assessment that has a proven correlation with overall job success, occupational/educational attainment, and cognitive ability.

In the Watson Glaser Interview Report, interview questions are generated based on each individual’s results on the Watson-Glaser assessment.  This creates a unique interview experience for each candidate.  In addition, the report uses a structured behavioral question format, additional probing questions, and scoring format to guide the interview.

Which approach do you think would more accurately predict a strong critical thinker- the questions in the WSJ article or the results from the Watson-Glaser II plus Interview Report?

Are you scheduled to take the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal assessment for training or selection and looking for a practice test?

Then I have bad news for you.

Because the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal assessment is the most widely known assessment for measuring critical thinking skills and is most often used to select employees, therefore you will not find a practice test online.  In fact, if you’ve found a site that says it has the “real” questions to the Watson-Glaser, save your money…the site is a fraud.  We have a full-time team devoted to scouring the web to ensure that the questions in the assessment are not leaked.

The Watson-Glaser is a measure of cognitive ability, so there is really nothing you can do in a short period of time to practice the test and increase your scores anyway.

The best way to prepare for the assessment is to clear plenty of time (at least 30-45 minutes), make sure your environment is free of distractions, and read all of the questions carefully.

The assessment itself is made up of 40 questions and measures your skills in thinking, reasoning, and intelligence.  What you can expect are questions that measure your ability to understand:

• A strong versus weak argument
• Relevant versus irrelevant data
• Whether or not the conclusion follows from the data given
• Whether or not there is sufficient information to make a conclusion
• What assumptions were made

If you’re currently searching for a new job, I have tremendous sympathy for you. Unemployment is high, the job market is full of overqualified candidates, and unfortunately the candidate application process isn’t made to suit you.

If you haven’t looked for a job in the last 5 years, let me update you on the 2012 employment application process. The experience has evolved, and not in a positive way.  Over a decade ago, candidates still looked through the Help Wanted ads in the newspaper and  ”pounded the pavement” passing out resumes to every manager who would shake hands with them. Many people still snail-mailed their resumes to potential employers.  That’s right, kids, people paid for postage and fancy resume paper to look for a job during the dark ages. When Monster.com and Careerbuilder.com appeared on the scene, candidates rejoiced.  A job seeker could fire off hundreds of resumes a day with the “Apply Now” button (whether they were qualified or not) all while sitting on the couch, munching on Cheetos, and lounging in pajama pants.

Recruiters, on the other hand, did not necessarily rejoice. Suddenly they were inundated with hundreds of resumes for a single job posting. As a former recruiter myself, it was not uncommon to post a job opening for a Director of Sales and receive 2 dozen resumes from “pizza delivery specialists.” Something had to be done. Recruiters were spending tons of time wading through unqualified applicants and not meeting/interviewing true prospects.  

Around the same time, companies started heavily investing in Applicant Tracking Systems.  These programs helped weed through the unqualified candidates based on a set of criteria or keywords and give recruiters a chance to have more face time with interviewees.  Additionally, they helped recruiters track the candidates as they moved through the selection process and kept valuable records in case of a lawsuit.  Super! Applicants can still apply online, and recruiters have a computerized helper to target their efforts. Problem solved!

Not quite. Now when you click the “Apply Now” button on Monster or CareerBuilder, you’re taken to a company’s website and asked to fill in every detail of your employment history in their customized program.  Remember that resume that you worked so hard to format perfectly?  Well forget about it, because even if you’re allowed to upload your resume into the system, you’ll still have to manually type in your name, address, contact info, references, employers, job descriptions, dates of employment, education, certifications, blood type, organ donor status, favorite color, and food allergies (I’m almost kidding here).

My husband is currently searching for a new job, and over the past week I’ve timed how long it takes to complete each application.  On average, it takes 22 minutes per job and that’s if there is no selection assessment included in the process.  For one electronic retailer, there were 42 pages of questions, and several pages asked the same questions over and over again.  Imagine how it feels to do your taxes or apply for a mortgage loan.  Now multiply that by 5 or 6 times a day.  That’s how a job applicant feels.

To say the least, the candidate experience has suffered.

Now, seeing as how I’ve worked in the selection assessment industry for 8 years, I am obviously a strong advocate for using scientific assessments in the hiring process.  However, the right assessment should be used at the right place and the right time.  Some companies are trying to weed out candidates by including a selection assessment in the initial application process.  While that may cut down on the number of resumes to read and the amount of time a candidate has to spend in the recruiter’s office, there are a few problems with that approach.

First, without proctoring the assessment, you have no way of guaranteeing that the person answering the questions is the actual candidate you’re hiring.  Why assess a candidate’s skills if you aren’t sure who answered the questions?  My husband has completed at least 20 assessments during his job application process, and I could have easily taken any one of those assessments for him.  My assessment score wouldn’t help him once he’s on the job, but at that point the company has already wasted time, energy, and money bringing him on-board and training him.  Using a selection assessment without proctoring is risky at best.

Next, candidates often take the same popular assessments over and over when they apply at multiple companies. Recently, a colleague of mine mentioned that he had taken the same “sales ability” questionnaire 3 times now for 3 different companies.  He joked that it would be interesting to see if he even answered the same across the 3 administrations.  He also planned to take screen shots the next time he had to fill out that assessment so he wouldn’t have to read the questions in the future and could just fill in the same answer pattern.  There’s a problem here.

Finally, to accurately assess a candidate, you want them to be fresh, clear-minded, and free of distractions. How often is your household free of distractions?  How fresh and clear-minded do you think your candidate is if he/she has been filling out job applications/assessments all day long?  Certainly, I believe that it is the candidate’s responsibility to manage his/her time, energy level, and focus, but let’s be realistic.  Life happens.  When my husband was filling out applications, I was sitting next to him and the dogs were begging for his attention.  Some days he spent 4 to 6 hours just applying for jobs.  The last thing I want one of my candidates to do is take the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (which requires serious concentration and mental clarity) after a long day of filling out mind-numbing applications. We all want the best candidates for our open positions, and our candidates should have the best chance possible to show off their skills.

HR and Recruiter friends, we can do better!

We need to do some creative thinking and problem solving to strike a balance between automating the paperwork side of recruiting while keeping the process human for our candidates.  We can take advantage of valid, scientific assessments that measure skills and abilities without compromising the integrity of the assessment or exhausting candidates with the length of the application process.  We have to stop looking at the candidate application process as an “either/or” experience (i.e. Either the recruiter is inconvenienced by paperwork or the candidate is inconvenienced by redundant questions.)

Let’s look for the win/win.

How can we improve the process for the recruiter and the candidate?

Do you ever read a news story and just shake your head in total bewilderment?  Prepare to start shaking your head now.

My friend Jessica Miller-Merrell of Blogging4Jobs brought the following news story to my attention:  Louisiana Official Moves to Ban Wearing Pajamas in Public

Here are a few excerpts from the news story:

“Michael Williams, a Caddo commissioner, is proposing an ordinance that will prohibit locals from wearing pajama pants in public after an incident at a local Walmart offended the official and other customers. Williams said one of a group of young men clad in pajama pants revealed his private parts, inciting the idea for the ban.”

“If you can’t [wear pajamas] at the boardwalk or courthouse, why are you going to do it in a restaurant or in public? Today it’s pajamas,” Williams told the Times. “Tomorrow it’s underwear. Where does it stop?”

With all of the problems in today’s economy, education, and unemployment rate, this is what Caddo Parish is spending their time legislating- pajamas!  When I first read the article I double-checked the source, because I was positive that something this absurd must have come from The Onion, but I was wrong.  The story is sad and true.

I could spend all day ridiculing the bill, its intent, and Michael Williams, but instead let’s focus on the critical thinking aspect of this proposal.

1)  The ordinance was proposed after some young men exposed themselves in a local Walmart.  In critical thinking, it is essential that we define the problem before we offer an appropriate solution.  In this case, the problem is indecent exposure in public.  The proposed solution is banning the style of pants worn by the accused in this particular case– pajama pants.  Here are some critical thinking questions we should ask ourselves before placing a ban on pajama pants:

• Do all indecent exposure cases involve pajama pants?
• How often do indecent exposure cases involve pajama pants?
• What is unique about pajama pants as compared to any other style of pants?
• Are pajama pants the problem?
• Will banning pajama pants stop indecent exposure?

2)  Michael Williams believes that allowing pajama pants to be worn in public is a slippery slope towards allowing underwear in public.

• The Slippery Slope argument is one of the most common logical fallacies.  Just because X happens does not mean that Y will inevitably happen as well.
• If you want to legislate against wearing underwear in public, then do that.  Do not use another ordinance as a Trojan Horse for future legislation.
• If they do pursue future legislation against wearing underwear in public, they will hopefully be prepared to define the difference between a bra/panties and a bikini (for example).  Thin line…

3)  And now on to my favorite problem with this ordinance- how do you define pajama pants?

• Not all pajama pants are pink, fuzzy, and covered in Hello Kitty (though in my perfect world, they would be).
• Many women wear yoga pants as pajama pants.
• Many men wear track pants or basketball shorts as pajamas.
• And let’s not forget about the 21st century miracle invention of the Pajama Jeans!
• So, should we outlaw wearing yoga pants, track pants, pajama jeans, and basketball shorts in public or only pants with cartoon characters on them?

4)  Will the ordinance stipulate an age requirement for enforcement of the law?  Michael Williams, I would duck and cover if you plan to ban all pajama pants in public regardless of age.  The first time you try to cite a mother headed into Walmart while carrying  a pajama-wearing toddler who has the sniffles will not end well.

Whether you think it is fashionably appropriate for a person to wear pajamas in public isn’t the issue.

The fact is that Michael Williams isn’t seeking this ordinance as a “crime against fashion”- he’s seeking the ordinance as a solution for public indecency.  I would argue that it is just as easy to expose oneself in pajama pants as it is in drawstring basketball shorts.  Banning pajama pants doesn’t solve the indecent exposure issue at all.  And if the solution doesn’t address the true problem, then we are not critically thinking.

What do you think about the Pajama Prohibition?

Do you think Michael Williams and Caddo Parish are thinking critically?

(Image source #1)

I follow a lot of brilliant bloggers who write compelling content and stimulate fascinating discussions.  One of those people is Laurie Ruettimann who writes at http://thecynicalgirl.com.  But what happens when someone disagrees with the perspective of a blogger?  Sometimes there are valuable learning experiences for everyone involved, but often it looks like this:

This outrageous comment was left on a post about whether Homeopathic, Naturopathic, or Chiropractic care should be covered on medical insurance plans.  Laurie made the argument that those types of therapies have less scientific backing than traditional medical therapies and therefore should not be covered under insurance plans so that premiums are kept as low as possible.  While I may not agree with Laurie’s perspective of chiropractic therapy, I think she opened the door to an interesting/worthwhile debate.  However, just because you open the door doesn’t mean everyone will step through it.

Instead of responding with something thoughtful or reasonable, “JF ” (the commenter above) resorts to name calling and logical fallacies.  He essentially says “I disagree with you, so you are an idiot and everything you say about any other topic will be wrong too.”

Where do I even begin here?  I thought about listing out all of the logical fallacies committed by this individual, but decided it wasn’t worth the effort.  This kind of response to a healthy debate shows a disinterest in learning, critical thinking, and communication.

When you shut down an argument by insulting the other person and implying that everything else they believe is false, you lose.  You lose the opportunity to grow as an individual.  You lose the opportunity to influence.  You lose the opportunity to educate and/or learn.  But most importantly, you lose all respect from the critical thinkers that spend time evaluating the argument, researching information, and questioning conclusions.

Don’t be that guy!

The next time you disagree with something a blogger says, take time to formulate a quality response.  Here are a few things to consider before you post a comment:

• Can you find any points of agreement?  If so, acknowledge those before you detail the areas in which you disagree.  Building rapport leads to more respectful communication.
• Focus on the argument, not the individual.
• State your points clearly and thoroughly with evidence, not insults.
• Remember that we are all limited by our own experiences/biases and no 1 person is right all of the time.  This includes you.
• Accept the fact that there are some people who will never change their beliefs/opinions.
• Pick your battles and know when to walk away.  You will not win every argument, and not every argument is worth your time/energy.
• Saying “no offense” before you say something overtly offensive does not excuse the offensiveness.  Same thing goes for starting an insult with “with all due respect.”

What is the most outrageous comment you have received on your blog or during an argument?  How do you handle offensive or mean commenters?

Did you just read that title and groan?  Why do so many of us find talk of New Year’s resolutions so loathsome?  Perhaps it’s because so often New Year’s resolutions are made over and over again (meaning we didn’t really commit to them in previous years).  How many years in a row have you made a resolution to lose weight, eat healthier, spend more time with your family, quit smoking, save money, etc?

A recent survey showed that:

“a little less than half of all Americans make some kind of new year’s resolution, but most don’t keep them.

75% will last a week.
64% will keep them for a month.
Only 46% will ever make it to the six month mark.”

In fact, gym memberships rise by about 30% in January, but actual gym attendance only stays high for a month or two.

The idea of making a resolution to improve oneself sounds fantastic, but having the energy/persistence to follow through with that commitment for 12 months takes considerable effort.  So, why do so many resolutions fall by the wayside so quickly and how can we think critically to make smarter/more attainable resolutions?  Here are a few tips:

• The goal is unrealistic. When I hear someone say that their resolution is to go to the gym every day I have to bite my tongue.  I happen to have a body builder and an athletic coach in my family and even they don’t work out every single day.  Instead of trying to commit to a complete behavior overhaul, try making incremental changes first.  Remember that we are naturally resistant to most change, so just like you slowly enter a hot bath so that your body can become accustomed to the temperature, you should ease in to your resolution.
• The resolution is too general. A resolution such as “Be a Better Mom” is so broad that it’s hard to nail down all of the specific tasks you’d need to accomplish to make the change.  Just like the goals you set for yourself at work, your goals should be specific and measurable.  How do you define “Being a better mom?”  Choose a resolution that you can define and assign specific activities to yourself that will help you accomplish that goal.
• Too much, too soon. If you have more than 1 resolution, that’s probably too many.  Don’t underestimate how difficult it is to make a change.  For instance, if your resolution is to stop smoking, don’t also make a “lose weight” resolution at the same time.  A life changing goal like trying to stop smoking is extremely difficult.  Don’t stack the odds against yourself by trying to take on that task as well as other equally difficult and competing goals.  Most people who try to stop smoking will gain some weight.  You will likely set yourself up for disappointment if you think you can do everything at once.
• There are no milestones. Just a few weeks ago you could hear parents all across the world warning their children to “be good because Santa is watching.”  If a parent tried that same tactic today when Christmas is 360 days away, it would have little effect because there’s too much time between now and the pay-off for good behavior.  It will be difficult to stick to your goal if you can’t celebrate for 12 more months.  Instead, set monthly goals with milestones and celebrate your progress along the way with little gifts to yourself.  This will help you stay motivated and committed to continuous improvement over the next 366 days (unless of course the Mayan calendar is correct).
• No accountability. What happens if you cheat on your goal?  Are there any consequences?  Have you ever noticed that it’s harder to disappoint someone else other than yourself?  That’s why lots of people adopt gym buddies to stay committed to the task of working out consistently.  Skipping a day at the gym when you have a gym buddy means that you’ve left the other person unsupported.  We naturally feel bad about not helping someone else that is relying on us.  That guilt alone might help you stay on task.  Choose a trusted friend to help you stay committed to your goal.  Ask them to monitor your progress, nudge you along when you’re straying, and celebrate your successes.
• Frustration kills hope. Expect setbacks.  It’s difficult for anyone to make a 100% change and stick with it for a full 12 months.  If you slip up, don’t give up entirely.  Accept that you will occasionally fall short of your goal, and be ready to adjust your plans.  Perhaps in March you will realize that your goal of saving $100 per paycheck was unrealistic.  Don’t stop saving money entirely.  Try only saving $50 from each paycheck and see how that goes for a few months.  Some progress is better than no progress.

Hopefully these suggestions will help you stick to your New Year’s resolutions.  What are your tips for successfully setting and attaining your goals?

It’s Christmas eve, and if you celebrate Christmas, then I really hope you have all of your shopping done.  I waited until last night to do my shopping and it was BRUTAL.  On 3 separate occasions I heard mothers screaming at their children saying “Santa is watching and he’s not going to bring you any presents if you act like this.”

I’m not a parent, so I found the fact that the children immediately showed improved behavior fascinating!  That threat of “Santa watching” is powerful!  I also recently learn about the Elf on the Shelf who is apparently Santa’s secret spy/tattletale.  This little elf heads back to the North Pole every night to tell Santa whether you’ve been naughty or nice.  But the problem is, Santa’s “Big Brother” power only really works from about November until Christmas.  How do these parents keep their kids in line all year round when the imminent threat of Santa has worn off?

Let’s be honest- the same issue is true for adults. What happens when no one is watching? If you’ve caught the 2 latest unfortunate videos about package deliveries, then the answer is “nothing good.”   It’s as if the cloak of anonymity and lack of accountability erases our good decision making skills.   When a FedEx delivery driver thought no one was watching, he decided to toss a flat screen TV over a security fence instead of ringing the bell to deliver the package appropriately.  When the security camera caught the shocking behavior, the video went viral and provided unfortunate PR for Fedex (despite the fact that this was the action of only 1 employee).

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLoIGu3mm5o

So, would this employee have made this same mistake if he’d known someone was watching?  We hope not….but then there’s this:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE0G1y2InrE

Only 1 week after the now infamous FedEx video, this UPS driver boldly looks square at the camera, gives a one finger salute and then tosses the package at the porch.  Maybe it doesn’t matter if anyone is watching.  This guy definitely made it on Santa’s naughty list.

I’d love to say that these are isolated incidences, but if you search for UPS or FedEx on YouTube you will find an abundance of additional similar videos.  So, what is the real source of the problem?  Are they hiring irresponsible workers?  Are their employees disgruntled?  What is going on here?

Let’s be honest, being a delivery driver during the holidays can’t be fun.  Everyone wants their packages faster than is often possible.  Last night, I saw a UPS driver walking down a super long driveway after 8pm to deliver a package.  I am guessing he worked much longer than an 8 hour day and was exhausted, but he was still working.  Additionally, some package delivery companies pay their employees based on the total number of items delivered in 1 day.  So if you’ve ever wondered why your delivery driver is so quick to leave a “You missed your delivery” note on the door, it’s because every second they spend at your door is taking potential money out of their pocket.  I also assume that’s why my local delivery driver has perfected a bowling ball style delivery of my packages.

Perhaps the problem isn’t the quality of the worker, but the unintended side effects of a pay-for-performance system.  While both FedEx and UPS would rather not be in this PR nightmare, I think it provides a wonderful opportunity for management to do some deep problem solving.  What is the real problem?  Are we listening to the frustration expressed by our front-line employees?  Have we examined the total cost of these unethical practices vs. the value of additional training or modified selection process?   Should we re-assess our compensation/bonus packages?

What do you think is the real problem here?

Do you have similar issues in your organization?  What do you think happens when no one is watching your employees?