All stories, including leadership stories, have a plot, characters, conflict, theme, and setting. For leadership stories or for followership stories to be authentic, details need to be added to each element. We have been awarded for best research on Followership and now sharing to the world through our programs with simple steps.

Honoured by our vice president of india for our research on followership

Walking down the memory lane after one year 

Step 1: Defining the Plot

A story’s plot provides the reason why actions are taken. As the basis for a leadership story, it can also be called the mission or purpose, and it is most likely driven by what a leader values. The plot of a leader’s story can inspire both the leader and others around him or her.

To determine the plots of their stories, leaders can reflect on what has been rewarding in their careers, what has challenged and energized them, and what they would like to accomplish. Leaders can perform five activities to help them understand and develop their leadership stories:

  1. Define what makes an effective leader from their own points of view.
  2. Understand what they believe and how it drives their behaviors, learn how others perceive what they value as leaders, and develop a plan to act differently.
  3. Determine the things on which they will not compromise, based on their core values.
  4. List those parts of their career journeys that inspired or excited them, focusing on the positive to determine what energizes them.
  5. Write their personal leadership mission statements, being sure to include the contributions they want to make and convey the purpose behind why they lead.

Step 2: Connecting with Key Characters

Leadership is about having the emotional intelligence that fosters a strong awareness of oneself and others. In a leadership story, the role of each character (including the leader) revolves around the quality and quantity of relationships. Leaders must be able to identify and take into account their own emotions and feelings as well as those of others.

The most important step that leaders can take toward authoring their leadership stories is to understand how other people perceive their leadership skills. Various assessment tools exist to gather anonymous and candid opinions from others. Others’ perceptions can influence a leader’s story positively or negatively, without the leader knowing it.

In every story, there are protagonists and antagonists. Protagonists believe in the leaders and their potential. Antagonists are detractors, and their desire to see leaders fail can be based on any number of factors. Leaders can even be their own antagonists if they do not have faith in themselves, fail to meet commitments, never learn or grow, or do not respect others.

Leaders can mitigate the efforts and influences of antagonists by demonstrating fairness and good leadership practices. If a leader identifies an antagonist, he or she should work to repair the relationship and learn what has motivated the person, because left unchecked, the efforts of an antagonist can irreparably harm a leader’s story.

Leaders can foster good relationships by:

*Identifying nonwork-related things they have in common with others.

*Working to build trust within each relationship.

*Connecting with three to five leaders to be trusted advisors who can provide mentoring and guidance.

*Expressing gratitude and giving credit to those who have had positive influences on their lives and leadership abilities.

Step 3: Preparing for Conflict

Leaders’ characters and abilities are revealed in how they respond to conflict, struggles, and adversity. Leaders will inevitably encounter unexpected conflicts, both great and small, and they should be prepared to deal with them, learn from them, and become better prepared by them for future challenges.

Leaders may experience negative interpersonal conflicts, which can be based on differences of opinion, personalities, or motivations. Patience and good communication skills help leaders ensure that conflicts do not damage relationships or their leadership stories. However, conflicts can also be positive–for example, among team members with differing opinions, which help great ideas to emerge.

A leader needs to assess the source of conflict, determine how he or she will respond to it, and observe how the response impacts others. Sometimes, gaining this skill requires leaders to react differently than they are accustomed to responding. To build a conflict-management capability, leaders can review how they successfully responded to conflict in the past, practice better responses, and ask for additional guidance from mentors.

Sometimes leaders struggle with internal conflicts, believing they might be exposed as leadership imposters. Such leaders can learn to manage this feeling by becoming more competent with experience and becoming more self-aware. A lack of self-awareness will leave leaders unprepared for conflict and might cause them to respond in unproductive ways.

Step 4: Developing the Theme

The theme of a leadership story is built from personality characteristics, attitudes, technical skills, and interpersonal skills. For leaders to understand what they do well and where they require improvement, they must be aware of their abilities and limitations. Each leader has a different story with a different theme; such differences give a leader credibility. Therefore, a leader should never attempt to be something he or she is not.

Effective leaders are aware of which skills, characteristics, and attributes are most needed in their organizations and how well their abilities match with those needs. Good leaders recognize that each person requires a different approach to being led, which requires leaders to adapt by using different skills. Leaders can determine how others perceive their skills, characteristics, and attributes by encouraging anonymous feedback. Candid remarks can help leaders adjust their behaviors and start repairing relationships.

Self-assessments can be valuable tools if leaders are honest with themselves. Leaders can use another approach by assessing other leaders’ capabilities, negatively and positively, and comparing the results to how they themselves would respond in similar situations.

To help build their leadership stories, leaders can analyze their greatest professional or personal successes and failures and glean lessons from them. Successes show leaders what approaches and skills were used to succeed, which they can continue to use in the future. By analyzing failures, a leader can determine alternative ways to approach a situation and discover a better way to handle it next time.

Step 5: Finding the Optimal Setting

The setting of a leadership story involves the geographical location and organization in which the leader works, as well as the work itself. For many leaders, their stories have emerged from a number of different settings. Sometimes, the setting is the same, but the environment or corporate culture around the leader has changed.

Leaders need to determine how they are affected by their environments and which ones they will thrive in. Developing a plan helps leaders seek environments where they know they can be at their best. Leaders can determine where they want to be emotionally, geographically, culturally, and organizationally and make plans to guide their careers in those directions. Leaders also need to be aware of how settings affect others, and what those others need in order to be at their best. Leaders can then make the changes that are within their control to foster a better environment for others.

Spark Positive Thinking with Questions


Questions that are crafted and timed well can change people’s stories, habits, and motivations in a powerful way. There are four major types of questions that promote positive change:


Appreciation leading to positivity

1. Digging for gold. Successful positive broadcasters know how to gather information by asking open-ended questions. Just asking “why?” can yield beneficial information.

2. Shifting the focus. By using the appreciative inquiry (AI) approach, those who want to become positive broadcasters can help shift the focus of a conversation from negative to positive. Examples of AI questions include:

*When are you at your best?

*What are your three greatest strengths?

*What was the best part of your day?

3. Next best. This sort of question is used when there are negatives beyond a person’s control. It helps all parties make the best of a bad situation by focusing attention on those factors individuals can control.

4. What else? Positive broadcasters know to ask the question, “Is there anything else you want to tell me?” This question helps the broadcasters learn about things they may not have even considered.

Managing The Baby Boomers



Baby Boomers, born during the post-World War II period of unprecedented increases in the U.S. birth rate, identify with ten major generational signposts:

Anubha addressing GenX on Influencing skills

Anubha addressing GenX on Influencing skills

1. The GI Bill. Over seven million returning soldiers took advantage of federal tuition aid to obtain postsecondary degrees. Their children, the Baby Boomers, attended college in greater numbers than any previous generation, bringing a new level of learning into the workplace.

2. Dr. Spock’s “Baby and Child Care.” Before the publication of this bestseller in 1946, parents were encouraged to withhold affection from children. Spock took the opposite tack, convincing millions of readers to celebrate, cherish, and listen to their children. When these Baby Boomers grew up, they were accustomed to being taken seriously.

3. The Soviet Union Goes Atomic. In the 1960s, many Baby Boomers experienced fear, cynicism, and fatalism as a result of the nuclear arms race, as well as the Kennedy and Martin Luther King assassinations.

4. Overcrowded Schools. The sheer number of Baby Boomers overwhelmed the public education system. Forced into larger classrooms, this generation became enamored of teamwork and working in harmony with others.

5. Brown v. Board of Education. This Supreme Court decision ended school segregation and energized the civil rights movement. Racial discrimination decreased significantly while the Baby Boomers grew up, inculcating a pride in positive culture change.

6. Television Reflects Our Angst. The Baby Boomers’ worldview was shaped by televised images of social turmoil and stories of the “good old days.”

7. The “Feminine Mystique.” Together with an explosion of other feminist writings, Betty Friedan’s “Feminine Mystique” helped convince Baby Boomers that gender equality was worth fighting for.

8. Watergate and Vietnam. Political scandal and a hugely unpopular war contributed to a general distrust of government among Boomers, who put their faith in each other instead.

9. Civil Rights Movement. The civil rights movement changed many long-accepted practices in American business, such as hiring based on race. The Baby Boomer generation became the first to appreciate the value of equal opportunity.

10. The Decadent 1980s. Economic prosperity in the 1980s saw Boomers embrace consumption and unabashedly pursue the rewards of capitalism.

Today’s employers must recognize that large numbers of Boomers intend to keep working into the foreseeable future. It is a serious mistake to treat them as “over the hill.” By being sensitive to Boomers’ signposts, managers can take the following steps to maximize their contributions and minimize the loss of their wisdom and experience:

* Do not ignore them. Boomers will respond to attention, and resent the lack of it.

* Make them mentors. Boomers can help younger workers succeed by sharing what they have learned.

* Ask for continuing contributions. Asking Boomers to recommit themselves to their jobs can energize them and unleash their creativity.

* Do not give up on them. Offering training opportunities to Boomers can be a surprisingly good long term investment.

* Deal with resistance. To maintain credibility with other workers and the respect of Boomers, it is important to deal with unproductive or unreasoning resistance to change.

* Confront negative behavior. If a Boomer’s behavior is in danger of hurting morale, the manager is obligated to confront it in a clear, honest conversation.

* Offer opportunities to volunteer. Many Boomers are excited by and grateful for company-sponsored opportunities to give back to society.

We seek your Feedback


Screenshot 2020-07-16 at 7.01.45 AM

PRISM PHILOSOPHY really “Thank all the NIFT students” #ThankyouNIFT cum budding professionals for showcasing your learning and enagament capability. We must acknowledge we too learned from you all.

Well, Any Project is incomplete without appreciation and feedback. Please share about your experience with PRISM and especially your trainer cum facilitator “Sanjana, Pooja, Manpreet, Babita, Ritu, Anubha, Gunjan, Nishie, Shilpa, Avani “. Thanks you and big virtual hug. All the very best in near future.

Please give your comment/ inputs/feedback in box by adding your details:



Leverage Past Wins to Fuel Future Successes


The first thought a person has when hearing a word is called a flash memory. For example, if people hear the word “campfire,” they may think of marshmallows or of a time they got burned. The flash memory associated with a word, person, or topic shapes how a person feels about it. When people’s flash memories are negative, they avoid the person or thing that spawned the memory. In contrast, people gravitate to those people or things associated with positive flash memories.

IMG_8627People’s memories help them process the world around them and guide them through life. However, new information can influence how people remember things. It is possible for a person to shift his or her flash memories and those of others. By providing new information and highlighting success stories, a person can make someone else’s memories more positive. When rewriting flash memories, there are three keys to success:

1. Spotlight the wins. Positive broadcasters can motivate others by highlighting current and past successes. In studies, athletes who received praise and encouragement in addition to instruction put more effort into subsequent activities.

2. Select the package. Positive stories have much more impact when they come in the form of a personal message. For example, fund raisers at a college worked harder and raised more money after getting a visit from a scholarship recipient. Messages are best delivered in person or by video.

3. Choose the frequency. Repetition is the key. One study found that it takes three exposures for a person to connect to a message.

Staffing: Data Analytics


How staffing can be framed as a sequence of decisions, rather than a sequence of processes. Staffing Cycle Framework highlights a sequence of seven high-level decisions that occur in staffing every position in an organization. These decisions, listed in Table 1 cover the time period from the initial intent of individuals and organizations to enter into employment relationships, through the matching processes associated with making and accepting job offers to the decision by individuals or organizations to end these employment relationships. You can register our session on HR Analytics and get certified by Dr.Anubha Walia  or contact In staffing, these decisions are not seen as joint hiring decisions, but as a sequence of decisions in which control shifts between job seekers and the organization. In Table 1, the following decision events (D1, D3, D5, and D7) are controlled by job seekers, which decision events (D2, D4, and D6) are controlled by organization decision-makers. When they are not in control of a decision, the job seeker or organization decision making acts as an influencer of those decisions.

Table 1: Decision Event and Description (Seven Core Decisions in the Staffing Cycle (Carlson & Connerly)). for Understanding Description analysis order your book today.

1 Fundamentals of Research-01

Order your copy today


The job seeker’s decision to enter the workforce (to begin actively seeking employment). In the United States, just over half of the population is a part of the workforce (employed or actively seeking employment).


The organization’s decision to create a position that it wants to hire an individual to fill. A key aspect of this decision is the organization’s decision about how the job will be designed, compensated, incentivized, located, and supervised. In many cases, these decisions can substantially impact on the success of subsequent staffing outcomes.


The job seeker’s decision to apply for the organization’s position. In the United States, applicants must make an affirmative decision to seek a specific position within an organization. This decision is likely the most critical in staffing as it determines who can potentially be hired. Influencing better quality recruits to apply increases the potential impact of the cycle (achieving a high-quality hire). If high-quality applicants do not apply, they cannot be hired, and no subsequent action in the staffing cycle can replace this lost potential value. Recruiting is effort by the organization to influence these job seekers’ decisions.


The organization’s decision to extend an individual a job offer. This is the domain of selection. Organizations increase value by using more valid and cost-effective selection procedures.


The job seeker’s decision to accept a job offer. While we can offer individuals positions, not all of them may accept them. Top candidates that fail to accept job offers represent lost value; the value of that loss is determined by the difference in the potential to contribute to the organization between the top individuals that do not accept offers and the lesser-rated candidate who eventually accepts.


The organization’s decision to retain an employee. Framed in the negative, this is the organization’s decision to dismiss an employee or involuntary turnover. This may happen if the organization no longer needs the position (the opposite of D2), or the individual is unable to perform in the position that is acceptable to the organization. This decision is framed in the positive to acknowledge that the organization’s evaluation of the individual is ongoing throughout their employment.


The job seeker’s decision to remain in a position. Framed in the negative, this is a person’s decision to leave a position (but not necessarily the organization), or voluntary turnover. Retention programs are efforts by organizations to influence these decisions.

This framework is useful for guiding workforce analytics efforts in staffing because it identifies key intermediate outcomes in the sequence of staffing decisions that can be evaluated and helps identify the critical component processes (and roles of the key players) in influencing these outcomes. For example, consider the outcomes of decisions D3, D4, and D5.

Evaluating Recruitment Effectiveness (D3)

D3 is the decision by job seekers to apply for a position. The outcome of that decision from the organization’s perspective is the creation of an applicant pool. Applicant pools have attributes that can be used to determine how good the outcome of D3 is for the organization. Traditionally, this is often evaluated by examining the number of applicants attracted. Having enough applicants to ensure that the position can be filled is an important outcome of recruitment. But not only does the organization want the process to result in a hire, but they want to hire an employee who, through their work, will be able to maximize value contributed to the organization. Thus, not only does the organization want to attract applicants, but they want to attract high-quality applicants. Further, because every applicant that applies will require at least some amount of expense to process their application and candidacy, the organization does not want large numbers of low quality applicants. Table 2 offers an example of a workforce analyses that provides

Table 2: Analysis of Quality of Applicants Attracted by Requisition ID

Req_ID/ SCORE <10 10s 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s 100s 110s Total Apps
22473 37 52 73 68 27 32 21 8 1 319
23473 32 8 16 5 5 26 80 63 6 241
27453 22 7 2 4 3 23 69 30 1 161
25106 17 3 2 2 1 10 50 27 5 117
23549 1 9 19 38 29 15 3 114
27158 8 18 37 28 16 3 110
27160 32 59 19 110
32159 8 18 14 6 1 2 49
30060 9 2 1 8 11 9 4 44

insight into the quality of recruitment outcomes for a position in an organization. This analysis includes information about the number of applicants attracted for each job requisition and an estimate of their quality (e.g., capacity to contribute in this job).

These data highlight substantial differences in recruitment outcomes across requisition IDs and show that the number of applicants attracted to a job listing (requisition) may not be strongly associated with the number of high-quality applicants in the pool. For instance, Requisition 22473 resulted in most applicants (n = 319), but generated slightly fewer high-quality applicants and substantially more low-quality applicants than requisitions 23549, 27158, or 27160. These types of data can be used to guide decisions regarding recruiting processes, particularly with respect to how organizations might alter the content of their recruiting messages and channels to alter the distribution of quality scores in future requisitions. For instance, an organization may seek to replicate the recruiting outcomes, like those for 27158, or even improve upon these results. The seniors offer guidance for helping organizations that currently do not generate quality scores for all applicants to do so.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Job Offer Decisions (D4)

D4 is the organization’s decision regarding who among those who have applied will receive job offers. As noted above, the outcomes of D3 represent the starting point for D4 selection processes. Consequently, the outcomes of D3 have downstream effects on the outcomes of selection decisions. The objective of selection is to identify the applicants who will be the best performers; however, because the selection activities have costs, the objective is to optimize selection decisions in light of these costs. We know from selection research that an optimal set of selection devices can be identified for any job (though that optimal set will not guarantee perfect selection decisions). To maximize selection validity (i.e., making the most correct hiring decisions), the strategy that maximizes validity is to administer all useful selection devices to all applicants and then aggregate scores optimally across these devices. Offers should then be made first to those individuals with the highest scores.

Although this approach maximizes validity, it also maximizes cost. Therefore, organizations seek methods to find an optimal combination of validity and cost. One common approach is the use of multiple hurdle selection systems. In multiple hurdle selection, organizations administer one or a few devices at a time to applicants, identify high scorers (and dismiss low scorers), then administer the next device, retain high scorers, and so on until all useful devices have been used. This minimizes costs because not every device is administered to every applicant. However, validity is lost because not every device is equally valid, so individuals who score high on some devices may not score high on others. Consequently, applicants that may ultimately be top performers get dismissed during the process. This is further exacerbated by the incentive to use lower costs devices early in the sequence when there are lots of applicants to process. However, lower-cost selection devices also typically have lower validity, which increases the likelihood of losing high-quality applicants early in the process.

The objective of workforce analysis in support of selection decisions is to help organizations first understand and then improve the validity of their selection practices. Validity refers to the association between scores on a predictor (selection device) and future job performance. The validity of a selection practice is typically evaluated by examining how individuals’ scores on the selection device (i.e., a resume review, standardized test, interview, etc.) correlate with future job performance scores. Consider, for example, a situation where the predictor and future job performance are correlated rxy = .50 (Figure 3).

Screenshot 2020-07-08 at 10.35.06 PM

Fig 3

Figure 3 uses an oval to represent where within the plot area the greatest density of points will occur with a correlation of rxy = .50. The horizontal and vertical lines divide the X and Y axes respectively into low versus high scores on the predictor and low versus high scores on the outcome, with high scores being to the right or above the lines respectively. In Figure 3, the intersection of these horizontal and vertical lines divides the area in the diagram in to four quadrants. Quadrant I represents people who scored high on the predictor and were hired and who were also high performers on the job. Quadrant III represents people who did not score well on the predictor and, therefore, where not hired, but would have been poor performers had they been hired. Thus, Quadrants I and III represent correct hiring decisions. Quadrant II represents individuals who scored well on predictor, but will not be high performers on the job; these are false positives. Quadrant IV represents people who do not score well on the predictor and were not hired, but had they been hired would have been high performers; these are false negatives. Both Quadrant II and IV represent hiring mistakes. The proportion of hiring mistakes here is indicated by the proportion of the area in blue that falls in Quadrants II and IV. Higher selection validity results in a tightening of the distribution of points, reducing the number of instances falling in Quadrants II and IV

FIGURE 3 Stylized Scatter Plot Depicting the Distribution of Data Points for a Selection Processes That Has a Validity for Predicting Future Job Performance of rxy = .50 

To evaluate selection device validity, the organization requires data on the correlation between applicant scores on selection devices and their future job performance. As readers may recognize, organizations are unlikely to hire all individuals in an applicant pool, so the organization will not have performance scores for all applicants. There are several imperfect solutions to this challenge. First, organizations can examine the magnitudes of relationships between predictor scores and outcomes for the data they do have (i.e., job performance for hires only). This can be a potential solution when the organization hires large numbers of individuals for a given position. Second, organizations can choose to rely on selection devices that have been developed by outside organizations for which large scale validation studies have been conducted. Here evidence of validity generalization can be used to estimate the validity of devices for positions in a given organization. Schimdt and Hunter (1998) provide evidence of the validity of a number of common selection devices. While methods for estimating the validity of selection devices may yield imperfect results, organizations should not be dissuaded from developing the best data they can to help improve the validity of selection procedures.

Evaluating Job Acceptance Performance (D5)

Finally, organizations want to maximize the acceptance rates of applicants. Job acceptance performance refers to the extent to which the organization is able to influence its preferred candidates to acceptance of job offers. In our staffing example, an outcome of D4 is a list of individuals to whom the organization is willing to make job offers. If all preferred candidates accept the offers extended, job acceptance performance is maximized. Often that is not the case. A traditional means of assessing job acceptance is through a yield ratio, the ratio of offers accepted to offers extended. For example, an organization that extends five job offers for a particular position and has three of them accepted would have a yield ratio of .60 or 60%. Organizations seek to maximize yield ratios.

A yield ratio does have limitations though. Specifically, yield ratios assume that every job offer that is accepted and, likewise, every job offer that is declined, have the same impact on the organization. That is rarely true. Not everyone who is extended an offer is necessarily expected to produce the same on-the-job performance. Further, if the organization has a given number of positions to fill, failing to gain acceptance of an offer often means that an offer will need to be extended to the next-higher-scoring applicant pool that, by definition, is perceived to have lower potential. The difference in performance potential between the first-choice applicant and the person who eventually accepts the offer reflects the loss that occurs by not gaining an acceptance from the preferred candidate.

The magnitude of the opportunity that exists for improving job acceptance results is gauged by the number of individuals who do not accept offers and the difference in job performance potential between initial offerees and the individuals that ultimate accept positions. If an organization experiences few instances of rejected offers, or who recruits sufficient numbers of highly rated applicants such that there is little difference in performance potential between original offerees and accepters, then there may not be opportunities to substantively improve job acceptance practices. On the other hand, job acceptance results are poor and poor recruiting results in few high-scoring applicants, then improving job acceptance results may be an important opportunity for the organization.

The following example illustrates these effects. The data in Table 5 represent applicant scores for the top 10 applicants for a position for two different job requisitions. The three top-scoring individuals from each applicant pool will receive offers. Now con- sider the following scenarios. First assume that the top applicant in each pool does not accept their offers, while Candidates 2 and 3 do. In response to the nonacceptance, the organization offers the fourth best candidate who then accepts. The amount of regret in each case can be initially scaled by the difference in applicant scores between the non-accepting top scoring applicant, and fourth best applicant who accepts. In Pool 1, the presence of several high scoring applicants results in a modest loss of six points (i.e., [1st − 4th] 108 − 102). In Pool 2, which has the highest overall scoring applicant, the smaller number of top scoring applicants results in a more substantial loss of 25 points (i.e., [1st − 4th] 110 − 85).

Consider the alternate scenario where job acceptance performance is worse, resulting in the first, second, and fourth best applicants do not accept offers, but the third, fifth, and sixth do. In Pool 1, this results in a loss of 20 points (i.e., [1st − 4th] 108 − 102 + ([2nd − 5th] 107 − 99) + ([4th − 6th] 102 − 96) = 20). However, in Pool 2, the result is a more substantial loss of 52 points (i.e., [1st − 4th] 110 − 85 + [2nd − 5th] 102 − 81 + [4th − 6th] 85 − 79).

Table 5: Job Acceptance Performance Analysis

Score Range Pool 1
Applicant Scores
Pool 2
Applicant Scores
110–120 110
100–110 108, 107, 105, 102 102
90–100 99, 96, 95, 92, 90 93
80–90 87 85, 81
70–80 79, 76, 73
60–70 67, 65

Analyses like these can be useful for every organization. Ideally, organizations would attempt to estimate more precise value of differences in scores in dollar increments, though in many cases, this may not currently be feasible for at least some positions in every organization. But the value of working toward such estimates is easily seen in these examples, particularly when gauging the amount of investment an organization should be willing to make to intervene to capture opportunities of different magnitudes. But, even in the absence of dollar valued estimates of score differences, these analyses can be very useful. They provide guidance that is more conceptually correct than commonly used alternative metrics and score differences are directionally correct and the magnitudes have at least ordinal interpretations—bigger differences in scores represent bigger opportunities for improvement.

Assessing the Financial Impact of Staffing Decisions: Utility Analysis

Thus far, the staffing analyses that have been described examine changes in intermediate staffing outcomes, such as increases in applicant quality, increased acceptance rates of first choice job offerees and retention of high performing employees. Although improving these outcomes is important, these metrics do not provide an outcome that is readily interpreted in dollars that can be directly compared to changes in costs. Estimating the contribution of better performance on intermediate outcomes to organizations can be challenging. The discussion of utility analysis provides an initial step toward estimating the value of the greater contributions of better employees to organization effectiveness. Utility analysis requires three pieces of information. The first is an estimate of where applicants fall in the distribution of potential employee performances. The can be estimated imperfectly by the relative location of an applicant’s quality score in the distribution of all applicant quality scores. The second is an estimate of how imperfect the estimate of applicant quality is likely to be. This is provided by the estimate of the validity of the selection procedure. The third piece of information is an estimate of the value of differences in job performance. Jobs that have high autonomy, where individuals have greater capacity to determine what they will do and how it will be done, have greater potential for increasing the variability in outcome. Done really well, those decisions create the potential for high outcomes, but done poorly, there is also the potential for very poor outcomes. Low autonomy positions tend to produce more consistent results. High responsibility increases the potential impact of each decision, perhaps because it involves more dollars or impacts more people, further increasing the difference in the value of high versus low performance. These can be estimated by subject matter experts, or in the absence of these data, a rough estimate can be develop using salary data as shown below.

In utility analysis, differences in the value of better employees can be determined by estimating the difference between the location of two employees in the distribution of all employees. This can be done by calculating a standardized difference in applicant scores (i.e., ∆Z = [Score of Applicant 1 – Score of Applicant 2] / Standard deviation of applicant scores). If standardized differences are calculated, the value of these differences can be estimated if we know the difference in contribution we might expected for a one standard deviation difference in job performance. In utility analysis, this is known as the standard deviation of job performance in dollars (SDy). This value will vary across jobs according to a number factors including the amount of autonomy and responsibility assigned to the job. In the absence of more specific information, an initial estimate of SDy can be developed by multiplying .4 times salary. So, for a job with a salary of $50,000, this approach would yield an estimate of SDy = $20,000. Given these inputs differences an initial rough estimate of differences in job performance could be estimated using the following formula:

Utility = ∆Z * rxy * SDy

Therefore, for two applicants with scores of 110 and 90 for a device for which the standard deviation of applicant scores is SD = 20, a selection device with validity of rxy = .50, and who are applicants for a managerial position with an annual salary of $50,000 an estimate of the difference in job performance per year would be calculated as follows:

Utility = (110 – 90)/20 * .50 * (.40* $50,000) = $10,000

Thus, when triaging selection analysis opportunities, greater opportunity comes from (a) high volume of hires, (b) low validity of current selection processes, and (c) the value of the standard deviation of performance for a given position. These data can then be evaluated in conjunction with data on the validity and cost of various alternative selection processes. Thus, workforce analytics can be used to put a tangible cost or benefit value to the hiring decision based upon the score on a selection device.

You can read Book on Fundamentals of Research published by Dr.Anubha Maurya Walia for the description analysis 



Prime the Brain for High Performance

Those who want to become positive broadcasters must learn how to use power leads, which are positive openers that set the tone for a conversation. These positive power leads prime the brain to focus on growth. The human brain receives 11 million bits of information every second. However, it can only process about 40 to 50 bits of that information, so people choose what they will pay attention to. By focusing others’ attention on the positive, a positive broadcaster can influence the social script. For example, a clerk at Wal-Mart primes interactions with customers by saying, “It is a great day! How are you doing?”

Thanks to evolutionary influences, people may be on the lookout for threats and be prone to see the negatives in a given situation. Negative individuals fall into three categories:

1. The PSA expert: This is a person who warns others about the bad things that could happen to them.

2. The tornado: People who begin conversations by talking about their most recent traumatic experience fall into this category.

3. The squasher: These people highlight the negative in order to express the seriousness of a situation.

People who want to start using power leads should focus on one of the areas below and add 1 power lead per day for the next 21 days:

*Conversations. People should think of something positive and share it. Others will likely respond with positive remarks. This works well with coworkers and clients.

*Meetings. Sharing positive news and showing gratitude are great ways to prime a group for a productive meeting.

*Email. Starting a message on a positive note can reduce miscommunication. A simple “Hope you are doing well” can go a long way.

*Reports. Reports can start with a positive goal to focus the reader’s attention.

Transformative leaders


Transformative leaders can be everyday heroes–ordinary people who achieve extraordinary things. These leaders display seven key mindsets of success: high aspirations, courage, resilience, positive, accountability, collaborative, and growth.


Having high aspirations means daring to dream and to create the future. It involves transforming and disrupting–that is, not just trying to make things better but making them different. To make a difference, leaders must be unreasonable in pursuing goals, yet reasonable and flexible about the means to achieve them.

There are three major obstacles to having high aspirations:

For the best leaders,

1. Living in a comfort zone of high standards without learning and growing. high aspirations are

  • Focusing on achievement in current roles rather than preparing for next at the heart of how roles. they think.
  • Falling back to lower standards and aspirations over time. To overcome these obstacles and attain and sustain high aspirations, leaders should imagine the perfect future; seize opportunities that are presented every day; work in a culture that is running, not walking; act as a partner, not a follower, of powerful people; and know what they want and work to achieve it.


Courage is required to take the risks that separate great leaders from others. There are three main types of risks:

  1. Rational risk is the risk undertaken in such projects as drilling for oil or financing motion pictures. Dealing with rational risk is a basic management routine; it does not separate great leaders from the rest.
  2. Ambiguity, or risk of the unknown, is disliked by most companies. It is seen as risk by managers but as opportunity by leaders and entrepreneurs.
  3. Personal risk, the fear of failure and ridicule, can be the most daunting but is accepted by the best leaders.

Leaders can build their courage mindsets by making the unknown familiar and routine; by believing in a mission where a greater commitment will match a greater cause; by creating a bigger fear, which causes the fear of inaction to become greater than the risk of action; by focusing first and foremost on outcomes and benefits, and then developing plans to mitigate the risks; by finding support and sharing the burden; and by managing fear through recognizing it and visualizing the benefits of success.

COVID-19 LOCKDOWN…….Yet the positivity prevailed!


1Having done some professional writing / blogging / research in our individual capacities, we as authors ( thought we could anticipate what it took to structure, plan, and align our thoughts in the form of a sequential array of topics. However, what we could not anticipate was the challenge the Covid-19 lockdown would throw onto us. The announcement of ‘staying-in’, ‘no movement’, coming to terms with the hard-hitting reality that while we were at a stage requiring working together uninterrupted for hours & days, we could not even for now, possibly meet. But as Michael Jordan said – “If you’re trying to achieve, there will be roadblocks. I’ve had them; everybody has had them. But obstacles don’t have to stop you. If you run into a wall, don’t turn around and give up. Figure out how to climb it, go through it, or work around it.

What seemed an obstacle, however, reshaped into resolve as we took on the  Herculean task of a true ‘work from home’ on our book, working in pace, while at our own place with series of  calls, zoom calls, google meets & skype sessions, spaced in-between by running tasks around the house devoid of any help. The true picture of the work-life balance emerging as we juggled to and fro from ‘Kitchen to Laptop’ & from things around the house to chapters around the book.

Multiple mornings of, ‘not possible’ saw by the end of the day, ‘Yes! we can’, and emerged, ‘The Fundamentals of Research’ as you see it today. ( the article is an excerpt from Book)

The belief “If you hear a voice within you say ‘you cannot paint’, then by all means paint, and that voice will be silenced.” – Vincent van Gogh

Presenting our first book & many more to follow!!

-The ‘socially distanced’ authors!

1 to 1 meeting do’s & don’ts


Excerpt cum article from training industry magazine ….we offer six dos and don’ts to help you reframe your approach to meetings with colleagues. While we share them with one-on-ones in mind, the lessons can apply to any meeting.

DO: Start with the person. DON’T: Start with the task.

Sure, you have important business to cover in this meeting. But that business is not more important than the person standing in front of you. Take time to ask how they’re doing, how their kids are or if they caught the game last night.

Starting with task communicates, “You’re just here for the work.” Starting with the person communicates, “You’re here because you are valued.”

DO: Set an agenda. DON’T: Wing it.

If you don’t have a clear agenda for a meeting, don’t have a meeting.

Having an agenda communicates that your time and your colleague’s time is important, so you want to focus. Winging it communicates that you view the other person’s time and work as unimportant.

DO: Lead through questions. DON’T: Lead through commands.

Telling people what to do is old-school. Research shows the best teams ask five times more questions than their lower-performing counterparts.

Questions put information on the table and invite the opinions of the other person, which means you draw out his or her leadership capacity and best insights. Leading through commands communicates, “It’s my way or the highway, and your opinions aren’t welcome.” Leading through questions recognizes that everyone has a contribution to make.

Ask questions that invite people to reflect on strengths, formulate their vision for the future and determine the best strategies to reach that vision.

DO: Focus on the future. DON’T: Focus on mistakes in the past.

Sometimes, your one-on-one conversations require helping to develop the other person. When that’s the case, choose language that focuses on future possibilities rather than mistakes they’ve made.

Imagine that one of your direct reports received poor reviews from a recent training. Instead of confronting him with, “The reviews were terrible,” which communicates an irreparable mistake, try saying, “In your next training session, I want you to focus on creating more opportunities for interaction with the participants. Will you share your plan for doing that?” Communicating in this way helps defeat defensiveness and creates a shared understanding that you anticipate growth. This forward-looking focus is a fundamental part of giving feedback overall.

DO: Listen, absorb ideas and respond. DON’T: Hear, ignore and move on.

Listening and responding communicates that you value ideas and that it’s safe to communicate concerns. Ignoring and moving on communicates that divergent opinions will be squashed.

When you have an environment where others feel it’s safe to share their ideas, you have psychological safety. Google research found that the sales teams with the highest levels of psychological safety overshot their targets by 17%, while teams with low psychological safety missed their goals by 19%.

DO: Close with clarity. DON’T: Quit in confusion.

How often have you walked out of a meeting only to realize that a lot had been discussed, but few decisions had been made. Who was supposed to do what, by when?

Quitting in confusion ensures you’ll have to have another meeting to straighten it all out later. Closing with clarity communicates that you were productive and that everyone knows who is responsible for the next steps in the process.

How You Can Use This Information

Whether you’re the chief learning officer, the CEO or a trainer, these tips can help you accomplish more in your one-on-ones. Start by doing the following:

  • Think through your last five meetings with a colleague. Can you check the boxes beside all six dos? If not, how will you fix your meetings in the future?
  • When you see an executive who excels at one of the dos, acknowledge it as a best practice.
  • Incorporate these tips into your training, especially with new managers or leaders trying to grow their emotional intelligence and improve their productivity. Create a shared language by using these terms.

Be a Coach



Coachability: How to Reach Goals Faster and Better

One of the quickest and most effective ways for a middle manager to make an impact on the organization is through coaching; unfortunately, it is an often underutilized tool. Coaching is different from advising, preaching, counseling, and persuading because the last four are all done from the viewpoint of and for the person offering it. Coaching is the opposite. A coach’s focus is on the recipient’s goals and possibilities. High-impact middle managers have a genuine interest in knowing how to help employees be successful, and they themselves are also coachable individuals who are receptive to change and always ready to improve.

Managers who are highly coachable:

* are not defensive when challenged or offered an alternative view.

* welcome feedback and ideas for improvement.

* ask for coaching.

* consider and use ideas offered by others.

* seek training and development in the form of reading, classes, new assignments, and coaching from others.

* have a good sense of their strengths and weaknesses.

* handle failures and setbacks with grace.

Managers who are uncoachable, on the other hand:

* do not listen to ideas offered by others.

* staunchly defend current ideas and approaches.

* believe they must do things on their own and that asking for input is a sign of weaknesses.

* appear to be unreceptive or not interested in coaching.

* do not engage in conversations about development with their manager. In addition, they view suggestions that they should develop new skills as a criticism.

* can be dismissive of others.

Techniques for Improving Coachability

Middle Managers who need to improve their coachability should keep the following in mind:

* Coachability starts with a mindset. When managers realize they are being uncoachable, they should pause, take a deep breath, and decide to let go of the feelings or resistance and be more open.

* Ask more open-ended questions to glean more information about projects and processes.

* Ask follow-up questions to understand ideas and suggestions fully.

* Take the initiative to ask for input on one problem, idea, or topic each day.

* Resist the urge to defend themselves or argue why an idea will not work. They should focus on the desired outcome, not being right.

* Schedule brainstorming and problem-solving meetings during the time of day or week that they are most coachable.

Using Coachability to Attract a Breakthrough

Some middle managers are like sponges, happily soaking in new information. More often than not, however, preconceived notions, fears, and the ego shut out the opportunities for change that these managers seek. Those who are eager to attract a breakthrough might want to try the following practices.

* Let peers, managers, and employees know about the most important or interesting topics or challenges that you are working on.

* Call a meeting to brainstorm new ideas and novel suggestions.

* Seek nontraditional avenues of information and ideas.

* Do not be shy. Call or email thinkers and researchers in the field and ask for their perspectives.

* Focus on defending the ideal desired outcome and asking questions about what conditions are needed to support this outcome.

* Take (and be fully engaged in) a course on the subject.

* Make a request that you would normally consider unreasonable. It does not hurt to ask, and it may even work. Most middle managers are so conservative about what they ask that their unreasonable requests are not likely to be that unreasonable.

* Adopt a “this shall be” mindset. There seems to be some legitimacy to the idea of the self-fulfilling prophecy, so managers might as well have this phenomenon work in their favor.

* If important enough, ask an outside facilitator to lead a group of people through a work session to brainstorm ideas, approaches, barriers, and desired outcomes.

* Benchmark other admired and respected companies that perform this particular task or process extremely well.