Remember the "Pepsi Challenge?" Pepsi conducted what is known in their industry as a "sip test," and the Pepsi product consistently hammered Coca Cola, often by more than 14%. Coke was convinced that the numbers were fixed, so they did their own "Pepsi Challenge" and the numbers came back the same.

As a result, Coke came out with a new product called "New Coke" and, if you recall, the product was a colossal failure. Coke studied the situation carefully, and they discovered that although people prefer the sweeter taste of Pepsi when they are taking a sip, they actually preferred Coca Cola when they were drinking the whole can, or purchasing a case.

So, the question to ask yourself is: Are you making your hiring decision based on a sip, or on how much you like the whole case? The answer is: Absolutely. Will the case be as good as the sip? Sometimes - when it is, you have a good decision.

Unfortunately, the reasons why we may like a candidate in the interview process can be as erroneous as trying to make a cola decision on a sip test. The very thing the candidate does well in the interview may actually have very little, if anything to do with their ability to perform the functions required on the job. This cycle of New Coke to Coke Classic cost the Coca Cola Company a fortune. We're trying to help you avoid that pain!

Our goal is to help you better understand the difference between how a sip of your candidate really compares to the whole case that you're really buying. Understanding the candidate's key strengths and behavioral style will allow you to better determine which candidate truly is bringing the right talents to your organization. After all, the measure of your candidate isn't how they perform during the interview, it's how they do on their job, every single day.

Allow OPUS Productivity to help you in this key area of your business. Over the course of a year's worth of hiring decisions we will positively improve your odds on making excellent choices with your new hires, and help you guide and lead them towards consistent responsiveness.

How about when the team is more than two people, say four or five. The "card cutting" gets really time-consuming, doesn't it? Why is that? Are people really as "dishonest" as all the lack of trust would indicate? In most cases, the answer is no. Lack of trust is not coming from dishonesty nearly as much as from the fact that people can't be confident that they know where the other person is coming from.

Two people are waiting for an elevator. The doors open, and the elevator is full. One person pushes forward, "knowing" that there's always room for one more. The other person steps back and says "that's okay, I'll get the next one." Each person shakes their head when they think about what the other person did, and says to themselves, "I just can't figure out why they did what they did - that was really dumb."

Now, was it a decision based on intellectual differences, or behavioral style? (Answer ö behavioral) And had they understood the behavioral nature of the other person, would the other's decision cause them any surprise, concern, or upset? Absolutely not, it was the completely predictable thing for each person to do.

OPUS Productivity's goal in working with every one of our clients is to help them better understand the behavioral nature of their team members and communicate that to every one of them. You SHOULD know which of your team members will push their way on to the elevator, which ones will wait, and which ones will count the people that are currently on board and read what the sign says for the allowable weight load and calculate whether they can get on, or wait.

Will that help build trustworthiness and improve teamwork? You bet it will. And people will spend a lot less time "cutting the cards," and getting real work done.