Graphology in the Workplace

Looking Beyond the CV

A CV tells us what a candidate has done.

Qualifications tell us what the person has studied.

References tell us how previous employers experienced the candidate.

An interview tells us how the candidate presents himself or herself during a relatively short and important meeting.

But employers frequently need to know something different:

How is this person likely to function once the interview is over and the real work begins?

How independently does the person operate?

How does he respond to pressure?

How does she make decisions?

Does the person need structure or prefer freedom?

How persistent is the candidate when difficulties arise?

How does the individual respond to authority, responsibility, criticism, routine or change?

And perhaps an even more important question:

How well will this particular person function in this particular working environment?

These are questions about behaviour.

And this is where graphology can provide an additional perspective.

Beyond Qualifications

Two candidates may have almost identical qualifications and experience yet function very differently in the same position.

Imagine that both are highly intelligent and technically competent.

One enjoys independence, makes decisions quickly and becomes frustrated when required to obtain approval for every step.

The other is equally capable but prefers clear instructions, established procedures and regular feedback.

Which one is better?

Neither.

The important question is:

Better for what?

The first may flourish in a position requiring initiative and autonomy but become frustrated in a highly regulated environment.

The second may perform exceptionally well where accuracy, procedure and consistency are essential but feel uncomfortable in a position requiring constant improvisation.

Workplace graphology is therefore not simply about identifying “good” and “bad” candidates.

It is about examining the relationship between the person, the requirements of the position and the environment in which that position actually exists.

I Need to Understand the Workplace Too

Whenever practical, when I am asked to assist a company with the selection of candidates, I prefer first to understand the working environment myself.

A written job description is useful.

But it does not tell me everything.

It tells me what the employee is expected to do. It does not necessarily tell me where, how and among whom the person will be expected to do it.

For example, a company may be looking for an accountant.

I may identify a candidate whose behavioural characteristics appear highly suitable for accounting work: methodical, accurate, responsible, organised and capable of sustained concentration.

But where will this accountant actually work?

A quiet corporate office?

An industrial environment with machinery, noise and constant movement?

An open-plan office surrounded by people and interruptions?

A private office requiring long periods of independent concentration?

These differences matter.

Some people flourish in open-plan environments. Others find them exhausting and require privacy in order to concentrate.

Some enjoy being close to the physical operation of an industrial company. Others may be technically excellent but strongly prefer a quiet, orderly office environment.

Neither is necessarily better.

Again:

Better where?

I am therefore not merely trying to match a personality to a job title.

I am trying to understand the relationship between the person, the job and the environment in which that job actually exists.

The Person Behind the Interview

A job interview is an unusual situation.

Both sides know that an assessment is taking place.

Candidates naturally want to present themselves favourably. They prepare answers, anticipate questions, dress appropriately and attempt to demonstrate confidence, enthusiasm and suitability.

There is nothing dishonest about this.

It is normal human behaviour.

But it means that an interview frequently tells us how somebody behaves during an interview.

That is not necessarily identical to how the person will behave six months later when facing deadlines, frustration, routine, disagreement with management or responsibility for other employees.

Handwriting offers a different source of behavioural information because mature writing consists largely of established and automatic habits.

The objective is not to replace the interview.

It is to add another dimension to it.

What Can Be Explored?

Depending upon the position and purpose of the assessment, handwriting analysis may assist in exploring behavioural characteristics relevant to occupational functioning, including:

• independence and initiative;
• decision-making style;
• adaptability and flexibility;
• persistence and perseverance;
• response to pressure;
• organisation and planning;
• attention to detail;
• ability to follow structure and procedures;
• need for supervision;
• leadership tendencies;
• assertiveness;
• interpersonal approach;
• cooperation and ability to work within a team;
• response to authority;
• emotional control;
• tolerance of frustration;
• consistency;
• speed versus deliberation;
• confidence and self-reliance;
• creativity and willingness to depart from established methods.

But once again, graphology is not TMT – “This Means That.”

No single handwriting characteristic determines whether somebody will make a good manager, accountant, salesperson, technician or engineer.

The analysis comes from the combination of characteristics and the way they interact.

The Same Quality Can Be an Advantage or a Disadvantage

This is one of the most important principles in workplace assessment.

Consider stubbornness—or determination.

A person who refuses to give up easily may be invaluable when pursuing a difficult objective.

Place the same person in an environment requiring constant compromise and rapid adaptation, and that determination may become an obstacle.

Consider attention to detail.

For an accountant, laboratory technician or quality-control position, meticulous attention may be essential.

In another position, excessive attention to detail may slow decisions and prevent the person from seeing the broader picture.

Consider spontaneity.

It may be extremely valuable in creative work, negotiation or an unpredictable environment.

The same spontaneity may become problematic where strict procedures must be followed consistently.

A personality characteristic therefore has no occupational value in isolation.

Its value depends upon what the job and the environment require.

Can We Predict Loyalty?

Some years ago, a company manufacturing sweets approached me for assistance in selecting a workshop manager.

I visited the company to understand the environment, discuss the requirements of the position with the Managing Director and collect handwriting samples from the candidates.

During our discussion, I asked the MD to provide handwriting samples from some existing employees whom he regarded as particularly suitable for the company. Such samples can sometimes help me understand the type of person who functions successfully within that particular environment.

His answer taught me an important lesson.

He told me that had I asked the same question one month earlier, he would immediately have given me the handwriting of the company's longest-standing employee.

The man had worked there for exactly nineteen years. He had been the workshop manager, the Managing Director's right-hand person and was regarded as an exceptionally loyal employee.

Then the company discovered that, for some time, he had allegedly been stealing sacks of sugar and selling them in the township.

The story raises an important question:

What exactly do we mean by loyalty?

Loyalty Is Not a Permanent Guarantee

It would be tempting to conclude that the employee had never been loyal.

But human behaviour is rarely that simple.

A person may serve an organisation faithfully for many years and subsequently encounter an opportunity, temptation, financial pressure or change of circumstances that alters his behaviour.

This taught me to be particularly cautious with the word loyalty.

Loyalty should not be regarded as an absolute and permanent personality characteristic.

Its expression may change when circumstances change.

A psychological or behavioural assessment may identify characteristics associated with reliability, responsibility, integrity, attachment to an organisation or resistance to temptation.

What it cannot do is guarantee:

“This person will remain loyal under every circumstance for the rest of his employment.”

No responsible psychological method can make such a promise.

Personality gives us tendencies.

Circumstances test them.

When Apparent Loyalty May Serve Another Purpose

There is another possibility that must not be overlooked.

Sometimes exceptional devotion itself may serve a psychological or practical purpose.

A person engaged in wrongdoing may have an additional reason to become indispensable.

He may work harder.

Remain longer.

Volunteer more readily.

Develop a particularly close relationship with management.

Become the person everybody trusts.

This does not necessarily mean that every aspect of the person's loyalty is false. Human motivation can contain several apparently contradictory elements at the same time.

But apparent devotion can sometimes provide protection:

“He is the last person I would ever suspect.”

This is why behaviour cannot always be interpreted at face value.

Long service is evidence of long service.

Commitment is evidence of commitment.

Trust is evidence that trust has developed.

None of them, by themselves, constitutes a guarantee of future conduct.

Do not confuse evidence of past commitment with a guarantee of future behaviour.

The Limits of Personality Assessment

There is an even broader principle.

No personality assessment can predict human behaviour with absolute certainty because behaviour does not occur in a vacuum.

People respond to circumstances.

A person may be principled, determined and strongly committed to an employer, yet behave differently when confronted with extreme financial temptation, intimidation or a credible threat to personal safety.

Years ago, I was asked to assist with candidates for an unusually sensitive supervisory position in the mining industry, where the person appointed could potentially face both inducements and intimidation from criminal syndicates.

The requirement could easily have been described as finding somebody “loyal.”

I deliberately avoided relying upon that concept.

The more meaningful questions concerned firmness, resistance to pressure, determination, susceptibility to inducement and the ability to function under intimidation.

But even those characteristics have limits.

No personality assessment can tell us with certainty how somebody will behave when a gun is aimed at his head.

Understanding personality can help us assess tendencies and vulnerabilities.

It cannot remove the power of circumstances.

Leadership Is More Than Dominance

Employers frequently want to know whether a candidate has leadership qualities.

But leadership itself is not one characteristic.

A dominant person is not necessarily a good leader.

One manager leads through authority and decisiveness.

Another through persuasion.

Another creates loyalty through interpersonal sensitivity.

Another provides structure and stability.

Some leaders perform exceptionally well during a crisis but become impatient during routine periods.

Others build excellent systems but struggle when circumstances change unexpectedly.

Therefore, asking:

“Is this person a leader?”

may be less useful than asking:

“How is this person likely to lead?”

That is the kind of distinction behavioural assessment should attempt to make.

Understanding the Team, Not Only the Individual

Workplace graphology can also be useful beyond recruitment.

Sometimes the problem is not that an employee is unsuitable.

The problem is the combination of people.

A highly independent employee may repeatedly clash with a manager who requires close control.

Two dominant personalities may compete for authority.

A cautious employee may frustrate an exceptionally fast and impulsive manager.

A creative individual may feel suffocated within an excessively rigid structure.

Conversely, two people with very different behavioural styles may complement one another extremely well.

Understanding these differences can assist with placement, management style, team composition and communication.

The question is not always:

“What is wrong with this employee?”

Sometimes it should be:

“What is happening between these people?”

Promotion and Placement

A person who performs exceptionally well in one position will not necessarily perform equally well after promotion.

This is particularly relevant when a technically excellent employee is promoted into management.

The qualities required to perform the original job may be very different from those required to supervise people, delegate responsibility, manage conflict and make decisions affecting others.

Promotion should therefore not merely reward previous performance.

It should also consider the behavioural requirements of the new position.

The same applies when deciding where within an organisation a person's natural characteristics may be used most effectively.

Sometimes the question is not whether the person belongs in the organisation.

It is:

Where within the organisation is this person most likely to flourish?

Knowing What Not to Report

Workplace analysis also carries an important professional responsibility.

A comprehensive handwriting analysis may sometimes suggest information that is deeply personal.

But an employer does not automatically have the right to know everything that might be observed about an employee or candidate.

The purpose of workplace graphology is occupational assessment.

If information has no legitimate relevance to the person's ability to perform the position, work with others or function within the professional environment, there may be no reason for it to appear in an employer's report.

Having access to information does not automatically justify disclosing it.

Knowing what not to report is part of professional analysis.

What Workplace Graphology Is Not

I also make a clear distinction between professional workplace assessment and private investigation into another person's personality.

Workplace graphology is not a service for somebody who happens to possess another person's handwriting and wants to know everything possible about that individual.

It is not intended for parents investigating their adult children, spouses investigating partners, prospective family members or other private individuals attempting to discover intimate information about somebody else.

The purpose is specifically professional:

to assist organisations in understanding behavioural characteristics relevant to occupational functioning and the working environment.

That boundary protects both the integrity of the assessment and the privacy of the writer.

Graphology Should Not Make the Decision

Handwriting analysis should not replace professional qualifications, interviews, references, appropriate assessments or the judgement of experienced management.

Nor should a candidate be reduced to a graphological profile.

The purpose is to provide additional information.

Sometimes the analysis may reinforce what emerged during an interview.

Sometimes it may raise a question that deserves further investigation.

Sometimes it may explain why a candidate who appears excellent on paper may not be ideally suited to one particular environment.

And sometimes it may identify strengths that were not immediately apparent during the conventional selection process.

The graphologist provides another perspective.

The organisation makes the employment decision.

Beyond the CV – Beyond the Obvious

A CV contains facts.

An interview contains conversation.

A reference contains somebody else's experience of the candidate.

The workplace itself provides the environment in which all those qualifications and characteristics will eventually have to function.

Handwriting adds another perspective:

a pattern of individual behaviour expressed through a highly developed and largely automatic activity.

None of these sources should necessarily stand alone.

Together, however, they may provide a more complete picture.

The obvious question in recruitment is:

“Can this person do the job?”

The deeper questions are:

How will this person do the job?

How will this person respond when circumstances become difficult?

What kind of environment is likely to bring out the person's strengths?

What type of management will allow those strengths to develop?

Where might difficulties arise, and can they be managed?

And perhaps most importantly:

Are we assessing the person who exists on paper, or the person who will actually have to function in this particular workplace?

The objective is not to find the perfect personality.

There is no such thing.

Nor is it to predict future behaviour with absolute certainty.

The objective is to understand the person, the position and the environment well enough to determine whether they are likely to work successfully together.

Personality creates tendencies.
Circumstances influence how those tendencies are expressed.
The workplace provides the environment in which the two meet.

That is Graphology in the Workplace.

And that is Beyond the Obvious.