Do employees work hard because of positive attitudes and work poorly because of negative attitudes?

Positive attitudes alone are not responsible for productive employees, but they are definitely a prerequisite. With a positive attitude, a leader can work with the them to reach their full potential.

Now if the employee has a bad attitude, you don't stand a chance. Bad attitudes rub off a lot quicker than positive ones and spread like a disease. Before long the employee is insubordinate and very low in productivity.

In the words of Pat Croce, "Players with a good attitude don’t guarantee success, but players with a bad attitude guarantee failure.”

Are certain attitudes unalterably linked to certain behavior? In other words, do employees do best what they like and do poorly what they don’t like? Thank you for your responses.

Hello Joey:

Yes, attitudes are important but we cannot see them but we can see the behaviors that stem from the attitudes. The following is my thoughts on employee success.

Hiring for talent is the key to hiring successful employees.

If we want to be sure that all our new hires and employees become long-term successful employees, we need to make sure that all employees are competent and have a talent for their jobs.

For employees to find job success...
talent is necessary, but not sufficient.
skills are necessary, but not sufficient.
training is necessary, but not sufficient.
orientation is necessary, but not sufficient.
knowledge is necessary, but not sufficient.
competency is necessary, but not sufficient.
qualifications are necessary, but not sufficient.
effective management is necessary, but not sufficient.

Talent is the only necessary condition for job success that employers cannot provide their employees and schools cannot provide their students. Employers must hire talent, see the book "First, Break All the Rules, what the world's greatest managers do differently." I can send you my review if you'd like.

Most employers don't measure talent so they can't hire for talent even if they do hire the best and the brightest.

Competence and Talent are necessary but they are not the same.

The following ties competence and talent together in a short guide for selecting the right people for a position. Talent and competence are necessary but they are two different things. Selecting for competence and talent avoids many performance problems. There are two conditions when competent people should not be hired or selected for a position. Each position has its own talent requirement.

Job applicants can have
1. Excellent Talent
2. Adequate Talent
3. Inadequate Talent

Job applicants can also be
A. Highly Competent
B. Competent
C. Not Competent

The following is the order in which applicants
and/or employees should be selected for positions.
1A = Excellent Talent and Highly Competent
1B = Excellent Talent and Competent
2A = Adequate Talent and Highly Competent
2B = Adequate Talent and Competent

The following should be selected if they can become competent.
1C = Excellent Talent and Not Competent
2C = Adequate Talent and Not Competent

The following should not be selected.
3A = Inadequate Talent and Highly Competent
3B = Inadequate Talent and Competent
3C = Inadequate Talent and Not Competent

Talent must be hired since it cannot be imparted or acquired after the hire.

Bob,

I've read your posts both here and in other forums before, and I appreciate your views of talent and it's necessity for successful employees. Your post hear leads me to a question:--Maybe I'm missing something?

How is it possible for an employee to have inadequate talent for a job, yet still be highly competent or competent for that matter? Am I missing something? Can you provide an example?

Much appreciated.