I was recently interviewed by a long-time friend and colleague, Caryn Lee, on why I chose to use the Big Five Model of personality in my consulting, research, and with my graduate students at Drake University. For the sake of transparency: Over the years I made a clear choice for the Big Five and I have a business relationship with Ms. Lee.  That said, I did have various choices of tools and still use such tools when a client prefers them.  Frankly, I could have had a successful business with other personality tools. I chose a Big Five personality assessment for serious reasons, including increased accuracy, sound reputation among researchers, less chance to create a "self-fulfilling prophecy," and more connections opportunities for program participants.  You'll hear my reasons and story in this brief interview. If you prefer, you may also download and read the transcript. 

What do you think? Have you had any exposure to the Five Factor Model? For a free e-learning training (providing one SHRM credit) and the opportunity to receive a free comprehensive Narrative Big Five profile, please visit THIS PAGE.

First, an important disclaimer: I completed the SPHR a long time ago. I welcome thoughts from more recent test takers. Also, neither I nor Linked:HR has a relationship with HRCI (i.e., as I write this note, HRCI is not our affiliate, sponsor, advertiser, etc.). 

That said, I was asked what materials would be useful for people preparing for the exam, and thought I'd share here some resources and tips I offered colleagues when I passed the SPHR test way back when. I updated the links and checked some of the more recent offers in the HRCI page.

RESOURCES

I would start by checking out the content of the exam you plan to take. The HRCI provides this information freely HERE. Once you have a sense of what you need to know, consider completing one of the HRCI past exams (click HERE to find the one that meets your needs). Doing so will give you a baseline and an idea of how far you need to go in your preparation. 

Next, you will need study and additional test preparation materials. Here are some ideas:

• CertGear PHR, SPHR, and GPHR Practice Tests
• Test Prep Books, PHR Study Guide
• Charles Fleischer, The SHRM Essential Guide to Employment Law
• Hollenbeck et al., Human Resource Management
• David Kimball, Cases in Human Resource Management
• Nolo, The Employer's Legal Handbook
• Nolo, Essential Guide to Federal Employment Laws
• Sandra Reed, PHR & SPHR Deluxe Study Guide
• Cathy Winterfield, Exam Prep SHPR
• Interpretive Case Studies, HR Management Simulation
• HRCI makes other recommendations in THIS PAGE

Notice that I'm including a variety of materials, including a standard college textbook (Hollenbeck et al.), books on employment law (Nolo, Fleischer) and test repositories. The HRCI explains that there isn't "one" set of materials that will be enough to help you pass the exam. A few ideas to reduce the costs include:

• Visit your local library!
• Find a study buddy, divide the books (each buys one) and share.
• Contact a local college and see if you can get a community library card (many university/college libraries offer those).

STUDY TIPS

Here are some tips that may make a big difference in your success and, most importantly, your sanity.

• Don't do it alone.  When I studied for the SPHR, I found a study buddy in California (a big shout out to Jim Foord!) We met via skype to test one another, teach to each other important lessons, and discuss case studies. We kept each other focused and motivated. We set up deadlines and kept them. Jim was a life saver! Find your Jim. 
• Practice test taking. I never took the PHR, so I can't say much about that test (someone, please comment?). The SPHR, however, is a bit of a marathon. How do you practice for a marathon? By running - a bit more each day. It's not enough to just study.  Instead, you need to also get ready to answer hundreds of questions in one sitting, without getting frustrated or exhausted. 
• Technology is your friend. Test yourself with some cool apps such as Kahoot and Quizlet. Kahoot allows you to create fun online games to test your study buddies. Quizlet allows you to create flash cards and then transform the cards into tests and fun online games. Both are free, awesome, and can be used through mobile apps. 
• Go beyond multiple choice. When I studied, I looked for case studies and open-ended questions, discussing those with my study buddy.  Such cases help you dig deeper.  I added on the list of resources an HR Management Simulation by Interpretive Case Studies. I used it in a course I taught a few years ago. It's super fun. You probably can't purchase it as an individual, but I would recommend gathering a small group and calling the company to see if they will let you all purchase it for a study group.
• Yes, you need to study. I have heard many people ask: But I have been a (fill in the blanks) for a zillion years, why would I need to study? Here's the problem: The more experience you have, the messier it gets to remember what the "official" answer to a tough legal question is. When I studied for the test, I was experienced in Human Resource Development (Training & Development) and Research in general. I knew next to nothing about the ins and outs of Human Resource Management and knew nothing about Labor Law. Guess which was my worst result? You got it - Human Resource Development or T&D. I got overly confident (so I did not study enough) and overthought the answers (so I confused myself). What was my best result? Sure, Labor Law.

Finally, I cannot emphasize this tip enough:  Do not rely on one resource only.  Internalizing information may be easier if you read about it in different texts, including different examples, etc.  

Best of luck to everyone and please comment! What are your best tips and resources?

For the past half hour, Jane and Mary, respectively the customer service and the sales manager at organization ABC, have tried to solve a problem related to one of ABC's major customers.

“The customer feedback form is incomplete,” Mary says.  “My sales reps cannot gather enough background information when visiting their customers.  ABC had a major problem and this was not expressed in the form.  I understand that you are doing the best you can, Jane.”

“Well, I understand your concern, Mary,” Jane answers calmly, “and you know that I value your opinion.  Here is my perspective, though: My employees already have a hard time completing that form.”
 
An observer who happened to stop by in the meeting room would fail to see anything wrong. Jane and Mary’s discussion is polite and professional.  Both individuals take great pains in following the rules of courtesy, using words such as “understand,” "value," and “perspective.” 

In reality, however, Jane and Mary are unlikely to solve their problem. Eventually they will just adjourn, check the meeting off their list, and move on. 

In “The Practice of Adaptive Leadership,” Heifetz, Grashow, and Linsky suggest that a typical office discussion involves four separate meetings.

The first meeting occurs before the meeting as Jane and Mary exchange ideas with their supporters.  It may surprise the outside observer to learn that customer service forms are not a very important topic of discussion in that first meeting. Instead, Jane may feel unrecognized and undervalued by Mary and by the company CEO.  Mary, on the other hand, may feel that Jane does not support her sales efforts.

The second meeting takes place in Jane’s and Mary’s heads. For instance, here is a sample of Jane’s internal meeting: “Mary is always recognized as the ‘company savior’ and no one realizes the hard work my staff does.”  Mary’s meeting, on the other hand, involves Mary’s quota difficulties, the current economic crisis, the pressures suffered by Mary’s department, and Jane's inability to understand her business needs.  

The third meeting – a long, tedious, and inefficient conversation about customer service forms – involves two very polite and political (even if untruthful) versions of Jane and Mary. 

The fourth meeting will take place after the meeting, when Jane and Mary return to their supporters and continue chatting about issues unrelated to the customer service forms.

We have all been there. We talk to our supporters because we need to vent.  We fail to tell the truth to those whom we oppose because it is politically risky and personally scary to do so. We spend time discussing issues that do not really matter because bringing up what does matter is unthinkable. We fail to resolve problems because we cannot possibly bring them up.

Why does this happen? Why can’t people just be “honest”? Four possible answers occur to me.

• Some people simply detest conflict. The need to vent and “get things off one’s chest” is real – but such venting is far more comfortable behind closed doors, involving only a trusted confidant.

• Speaking up is politically dangerous. Others who spoke up in the past have suffered dire consequences.  Thus, the perceived benefits of “speaking up” are trumped by very real risks.
• Relationship building is not encouraged. Some people are simply not comfortable enough with one another to speak their minds.
• There is no clear process that invites and supports real conversations.

Leaders must come up with such a process.  Further, leaders must learn to recognize signs of mistrust and discomfort with real conversations.  Some of these signs include:

• Excessive politeness and use of “canned” comments such as “I understand your position,” “I hear that you are upset,” and “I have a different perspective.”
• Impromptu meetings are quickly disbanded when outsiders arrive.
• Meetings include long conversations about seemingly unimportant (albeit innocuous) topics.

Don’t get me wrong. Politeness is important.   I’m not advocating that basic rules of courtesy be ignored in the workplace.  When people are real, however, they may speak more informally and filter their words less.  Ask yourself – how do you tell a trusted friend that you disagree with him/her? Do you say “trusted friend, I fully recognize that you have a different perspective from mine and I value that”? Or do you just say “sorry dude, but that really won’t work…”?

Heifetz et al.’s “four meetings” are not only inefficient – they are dangerous.  When team members fail to discuss what truly bothers them, they cannot possibly reach synergy. Further, conversations behind closed doors are likely to breed mistrust, fuel gossip, and create organizational factions.

Have you experienced "the four meetings"? How can we transform them into one productive and truthful conversation?