Joel G. Carson has been selected to serve as executive director of the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA), succeeding John P. Bachner. Bachner’s firm – Bachner Communications, Inc. – has managed GBA since May 1973; Bachner has served as GBA’s chief of staff during that span. GBA will become a fully self-managed entity in November 2015. Carson will be tasked with assembling the new management team that he will lead to achieve GBA’s long-term strategic vision.

According to GBA President Gordon M. Matheson, Ph.D., P.E., P.G., D.GE (Schnabel Engineering), “The GBA Board of Directors conducted an extensive search to find the right individual. Joel has the executive leadership capability we need, a deep understanding of management, and an intimate knowledge of GBA and the people who comprise it.”

Mr. Carson began his career in 1988 after majoring in civil engineering at the University of Utah. In 1993, he joined the staff of Kleinfelder, a multi discipline technical-services firm that today employs some 2,000 staff members worldwide.

Carson quickly initiated a 20-year focus on environmental engineering, hydro logical and hydro geological site characterization, and remediation. At the same time, he began a steady progression through the firm’s management hierarchy, now retiring there as manager of the commercial segment of its private-sector market, responsible for the segment’s strategic leadership and marketing direction.

Conceived in 1968, and formally established in 1969, the Geoprofessional Business Association is widely regarded as geoprofessionals’ best source of comprehensive business guidance. GBA serves geotechnical engineers, environmental professionals, civil engineers engaged in a variety of specialties, and construction-materials engineering and testing practitioners, among other geoprofessionals. GBA is well known for creating innovative programs, services, and materials to help its member firms thrive by confronting risk and optimizing performance.

All GBA Member Firms’ technical activities are under the full-time control of an individual who is legally and/or ethically bound to hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare. GBA’s associate membership comprises geoprofessional constructors; geoprofessional educators; geoprofessionals employed by government agencies, not-for-profit organizations, and industry; and attorneys and other consultants to GBA Member Firms.

Obtain more information about GBA at its website (www.geoprofessional.org) or by contacting the organization at info@geoprofessional.org or 301-565-2733.

According to GBA President Gordon M. Matheson, Ph.D., P.E., P.G. (Schnabel Engineering, Inc.),
“For many years efforts to collect a bill have been a principal trigger to negligence claims. For that reason, GBA has counseled consistently that it is better to write off a fee than it is to contest it with an unscrupulous client. A key preventive, discussed in the guide, is performing a thorough background check before accepting a new client, to help ensure the organization involved pays on time and doesn’t resort to a claim as a discount mechanism. It’s also why design and environmental professionals’ contracts should include a dispute-resolution mechanism that makes litigation a last resort or not an alternative at all.”

The author of the guide is John Philip Bachner, an independent consultant and long-time editor of GBA’s newsletter, NewsLog, an every-other-week publication that’s available free of charge. For many years, Bachner penned a NewsLog column titled “Getting Paid.” Content of the new guide is based on those columns, with updates through April 2015.

Just a few of the new guide’s chapter titles include:

• Rely on Effective Billing and Payment Language in Your Contract,
• Consider Carrots and Sticks,
• Be Mindful of the Client’s Payment Language,
• Obtain a “Creditworthiness Guarantee,”
• Use Lump-Sum Pricing More,
• Post Bills to a Client-Accessible Extranet,
• Use a Well-Designed Invoice,
• Restrict Use of Deliverables,
• Obtain Cash on Delivery, and
• Require Collectors to Abide by the Ten Commandments of Effective Collectors.

Getting Paid is available to nonmembers at $125 per copy; members receive it as part of their membership. Order it from the GBA website.

Established in 1969, the Geoprofessional Business Association is widely regarded as geoprofessionals’ best source of practice business guidance. GBA serves geotechnical engineers, environmental professionals, civil engineers in a variety of specialties, construction-materials engineering and testing professionals, and other geoprofessionals by giving them effective tools to help them achieve business success by confronting risk and optimizing performance. GBA creates those tools by promoting an environment of trust where members share their collective talent, energy, expertise, and experience to help one another succeed as firms and individuals.

All GBA Member Firms’ technical activities are under the full-time control of an individual who is legally and/or ethically bound to hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare. GBA’s associate membership comprises geoprofessional constructors; geoprofessional educators; geoprofessionals employed by government agencies, not-for-profit organizations, and industry; and attorneys and other consultants to GBA Member Firms.

Obtain more information about GBA at its website (www.geoprofessional.org) or by contacting the organization at info@geoprofessional.org or 301-565-2733.

Many geoprofessional reports include recommendations whose efficacy is dependent upon findings in the field. If the subsurface conditions observed during excavation are the same as those inferred to exist based on the results of sampling and testing, and the geoprofessional’s knowledge, experience, and judgment, then – and only then – the recommendations can be “green lighted”; i.e., they become final and can be applied.

If observed conditions differ from inferred conditions, however, the recommendations must be modified before they can become final and used. This important information – that the recommendations included in a final report are not final recommendations – is covered in GBA’s unique series of “Important Information” report- and proposal-insert sheets; e.g., “Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final….”

But how should you label these recommendations in your report? Should you simply write RECOMMENDATIONS and rely on the “Important Information” insert sheet? No! Because a user may assume the recommendations are “good to go” as written and, as a professional, you are obligated to warn users they are not. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS is also incorrect, it seems because the recommendations are not preliminary. Dr. English suggests that you consider using CONFIRMATION-DEPENDENT RECOMMENDATIONS, to make clear exactly what the recommendations are; i.e., recommendations that can be applied only when conditions inferred to exist are confirmed to exist.

You may also want to consider using a lead-in paragraph such as the sample below:

CONFIRMATION-DEPENDENT RECOMMENDATIONS :
We have developed the following recommendations under the tenuous assumption that the sampling and testing we performed on a relatively tiny portion of the site accurately portrays conditions that are otherwise concealed by earth, rock, water, and time. RESPONSIBLE GEOPROFESSIONALS CANNOT FINALIZE SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS UNTIL THEY CONFIRM THAT THE CONDITIONS THEY INFERRED TO EXIST ACTUALLY DO EXIST, a process they perform in the field, through observation of excavation. We are responsible geoprofessionals. Accordingly, if we do not observe excavation to see what actually exists, we cannot accept responsibility for these recommendations, given that – if we observe conditions we did not expect to see – we would modify the recommendations.

If another party performs field observation and confirms they are what we expected, that other party must take full responsibility for the recommendations. Please note, however, that another party would lack our project-specific knowledge and resources. DO NOT RELY ON THESE RECOMMENDATIONS UNLESS A QUALIFIED GEOPROFESSIONAL OBSERVES ACTUAL CONDITIONS AND TAKES APPROPRIATE FOLLOW-UP ACTION.

Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) is the new name of the organization formerly known as ASFE/The Geoprofessional Business Association. According to GBA President Steven D. Thorne, P.E., D.GE (Terracon),

“The time had come. Continually fewer of our most active members knew what GBA originally stood for or how we’ve evolved over the years. Geoprofessional Business Association identifies who we are today.”

ASFE was an acronym for Associated Soil and Foundation Engineers, the name the organization began with in 1969. Several years later it changed its name to Association of Soil and Foundation Engineers and, a few years after that, it dispensed with the name entirely.

“GBA Member Firms were the first to become active in the environmental-remediation field,”  Mr. Thorne said, “and those members of staff who focused on the environment, rather than soil and foundation engineering, felt like second-class citizens. That’s when we changed our name to ASFE – adopting the acronym as our name in full – and added a tag line explaining who we were; for example, ‘The Association of Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences.’ Taking that approach, we were able to recognize our geotechnical heritage while also explaining what we had evolved into. But answering the question ‘What’s ASFE stand for?’ was becoming a steadily more cumbersome process.”

Mr. Thorne noted that the geoprofessions, as defined in Wikipedia, consist principally of geotechnical engineering; geology and engineering geology; geological engineering geophysics; environmental science and environmental engineering; and construction-materials engineering and testing. He said,

“GBA is the source of programs, services, and materials geoprofessionals apply every day to help themselves and their clients confront risk and optimize performance.”

He added that, to the best of his knowledge, GBA is unique in that it provides all its materials – more than 700 items – to member-firm personnel free of charge.

Now that GBA has renamed itself, subsequent steps include establishing a new logo, securing a new website address and creating an entirely new Internet presence, and revising graphics on its 700 case histories, best-practices monographs, manuals and guides, model documents, and so on. “It’s a daunting task,” Mr. Thorne observed, “but we’ve already made some excellent progress.”

All GBA Member Firms’ technical activities are under the full-time control of an individual who is legally and/or ethically bound to hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare. GBA’s associate membership comprises geoprofessional constructors; geoprofessional educators; geoprofessionals employed by government agencies, not-for-profit organizations, and industry; and attorneys and other consultants to GBA Member Firms.

Obtain more information about GBA at its website (www.geoprofessional.org) or by contacting the organization at info@geoprofessional.org or 301-565-2733.

Forty-two organizations now endorse Recommended Practices for Design Professionals Engaged as Experts in the Resolution of Construction Industry Disputes, an annotated list of 13 “shoulds and should-nots” originally developed by the Interprofessional Council on Environmental Design (ICED).

The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) recognized the need for the document and spearheaded its development through ICED, an “umbrella organization” also including, among others:

• the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE),
• National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE),
• American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC),
• and The American Institute of Architects (AIA),

all of which are endorsers. GBA accepted responsibility for the document’s publication and management, as well as gathering additional endorsers. The 37 additional endorsers comprise a “who’s-who” of construction-industry organizations.

According to GBA President Steven D. Thorne, P.E., D.GE (Terracon), Recommended Practices for Design Professionals Engaged as Experts in the Resolution of Construction Industry Disputes is believed to have received more construction-industry-organization endorsements than any similar document or position statement ever developed. Created in 1988, “Recommended Practices…” has been used extensively – and very successfully – in legal proceedings, especially in matters involving the standard of care.

According to GBA Executive Vice President John P. Bachner,

“To find a design professional negligent, a trier of fact – a judge or a jury – has to believe that the design professional failed to uphold the standard of care. But first the trier of fact has to decide what the standard of care actually was at the time of the incident in question. As it so happens, the standard of care is a moving target. It’s what’s commonly done by peer professionals operating in a given area at a given time. Practices evolve, however. What is common today may have been unheard of just five years ago.”

Bachner explained that courts almost always require an expert witness to explain the standard of care in terms the trier of fact – usually a jury – can readily understand. He went on to say,

“All too often, however, experts testify about the standard of care based on what they would have done or what a book says to do, and either or both of these measures may be seriously out of sync with reality. Forty-two prestigious organizations concur unanimously that experts need to conduct research to know what the standard of care was at the time it allegedly was violated. Experts who are cross-examined need to be able to explain how they reached their opinion about the standard of care.”

Some of the other issues addressed in the document include conflicts of interest, expert qualifications, research methods and integrity, illustrative devices, and confidentiality.

Because the document has been used extensively to impeach the testimony of “hired-gun experts,” GBA advises that leaders of “every engineering, environmental, and architectural firm in the nation should be familiar with ‘Recommended Practices.’ Their lawyers and insurance agents need to be aware of it, too.”

Recommended Practices for Design Professionals Engaged as Experts in the Resolution of Construction Industry Disputes is available at GBA’s website (www.geoprofessional.org) or by contacting GBA staff at info@geoprofessional.org or 301-565-2733.

Established in 1969, GBA “helps its members – geoprofessional firms – and their clients confront risk and optimize performance.” Geoprofessional firms provide geotechnical, geologic, environmental, construction-materials engineering and testing, and related professional services.

All GBA Member Firms’ technical activities are under the full-time control of an individual who is legally and/or ethically bound to hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare. GBA’s associate membership comprises geoprofessional constructors; geoprofessional educators; geoprofessionals employed by government agencies, not-for-profit organizations, and industry; and attorneys and other consultants to GBA Member Firms.

Obtain more information about GBA at its website (www.geoprofessional.org) or by contacting the organization at info@geoprofessional.org or 301-565-2733.

Geoprofessionals write more than just about any other professionals, are constantly under the gun to produce now, and are personally liable for every word they write in their professional capacities. And because the best legal evidence always is what’s in writing, wise geoprofessionals want to be certain that what they say is unambiguous, so it is not subject to interpretation and so limits the ability of others to claim,

“What the geoprofessional wrote was ambiguous, making the geoprofessional liable for the consequences because professionals are supposed to write clearly.”

Words to the wise:

Unless you are trying to be ambiguous, always select words that have the fewest alternative meanings. Therefore, when you want to discuss causality, use “because,” because “since” has a meaning with respect to time, and because “as” – popular usage notwithstanding – does not mean “because.” Likewise, when you’re talking in terms of quantity, use “more than” instead of “over,” because “over” has more meanings than “more than.”

Engage in such exercises not only to help reduce ambiguity, but also to remind yourself that, by choosing words effectively, you perform more professionally. The career you protect will be your own.

“You, too, can have the vocabulary of a Harvard English major.” You’ve probably seen that advertisement in airline magazines, suggesting that you, too, can develop knowledge of words that other people don’t know, making them feel stupid and, thus, elevating your own self-image.

As it so happens, Dr. English is a Harvard English major, and the only others he knows who use words most people don’t understand are just plain rude. After all, why say “eleemosynary” when “charitable” will do just as well? Why say “have a predilection for” when all it means is “like”?

What about you? How secure or insecure are you about your language skills? The more you opt for the simple alternative, the more secure you are.

It’s pretty common for people to mishear a word or phrase and then go on to use it improperly, and it’s also pretty common for those who recognize the corruption to say nothing about it, so as not to offend the user.

Just a few you may be familiar with:

An early adapter : would be someone among the first to modify something for a new purpose. What’s almost always meant is early adopter; someone who is among the first to start using something new, like an iPhone.

Take a different tact : makes no sense. What’s meant is take a different tack, which refers to the course taken by a boat; generally a zigzag course when heading into the wind.

Unchartered waters : could mean water that charter boats aren’t seen in an area. The correct expression – uncharted waters – refers to new areas that have not yet been mapped (a map being a chart). The phrase is also used metaphorically to indicate a new situation for a person.

Throws of passion : could refer to what Stephen Strasburg hurls for the Washington Nationals, but when pitching woo is the topic, it’s throes of passion.

All and all is used by people who are trying to express “In summary” but don’t realize that all in all is the phrase that does it.

Butt-naked : is used (incorrectly) because the correct phrase – buck-naked – doesn’t seem to make sense. (“Buck” was a term used sarcastically to refer to African-American slaves and American Indians, who, at the time the word was applied, were imagined as savages in the woods.)

Remember the old days when you had to submit a paper that contained at least 1,500 words, so you did everything you possibly could to add words when your count came up short? All the words you added were worthless, of course, except to the extent that they got you to where you had to be numbers wise. And that’s when you decided that a technical career was the career for you, only to learn (too late now!) that geoprofessionals probably write more than almost all other professionals. The good news: You graduated. The bad news: You’re still likely to be using worthless words that sap energy from your writing, tarnish your image as a professional, or, worse, create a significant liability exposure.

All: This is one of the most dangerous words of all. It means “no exceptions whatsoever, no matter how tiny.” Still, so many people use it all the time. For a technical professional, it’s not just a bad habit, it’s outright dangerous. Bottom line: Get into the habit of not using it at all. (Removing “of all” at the end of the first sentence of this paragraph and “at all” from the end of the fifth have no impact on meaning; they simply reduce the word count, making the writing less off-putting, and lower the risk. In the third sentence, removing “all the time” does the same thing the other two deletions would do, and more: It eliminates an outright lie created by use of a colloquialism. “All the time,” colloquially, means “frequently,” not continuously, ceaselessly, endlessly, and so on. But professionals are supposed to be able to express their thoughts clearly and reliably. What to do? Just delete “all the time.” It results in fewer words and enhanced accuracy. (Use other colloquialisms cautiously, too: Replace “for a duration of 48 hours” with “for 48 hours“; use “100 yards” instead of “a distance of 100 yards“; try “now” as a substitute for “at this point in time.”)

Currently: Replacing a suspected-worthless word with its opposite is an easy way to tell if the word is really worthless (with “really” as just used being itself worthless (and “itself” as just used also being worthless)). As examples, even though they’re spoken far more often than they’re written, “Our lines are currently busy.” or “I’m currently away from my desk.” Given that “Our lines were really busy yesterday.” or “I’m going to be away from my desk sometime next week.” make no sense, “currently” should be eliminated.

(Note that the tense of the verb – the present in both examples – itself conveys “currently.”)

Apply the same test to “past experience,” “different examples,” “existing debt,” “successfully delivered,” “intended objectives,” “diametrically opposed,” “disorganized mess,” “received correspondence,” “end result,” and the “personally” of “Personally, I believe that….”

Subjective modifiers – like “hot” – are worse than worthless, because what the writer conceives as hot is most likely not what a reader – let alone all readers – regard as hot; e.g., the temperature hit 80F and the writer wrote, “It’s a hot day today.” The reader, from Tucson, Arizona, reads “hot day” and imagines it to be 110F wherever the writer was at the time of writing. “Very” – as in “very hot” doesn’t help, given that “very” is worthless, as is the “particularly” of “particularly hot.” “Several” falls into that category: Just how many are several? Even worse, and responsible for at least one claim we know of, “a number of.”

Some modifiers are worthless when they are used to add something to an absolute word; e.g., the “more” of “more perfect,””more ideal,” or “more unique.” “Perfect” and “ideal” are the top rungs of the ladder. If someone considers something “more perfect” or “more ideal,” whatever it is that the something is being compared to is less than perfect or ideal. (That’s why “fullest” is illogical and, as such, worthless.) “Unique” means one of a kind. Because something cannot be “more one of a kind” than something else, “more unusual” or “odder” – among other words and phrases – can be used to convey the intent.

You don’t need to use “as follows” to introduce a list; readers can see a list follows the colon you should use. Likewise, “Finally“is often unnecessary when writing the last paragraph, because readers can see it’s the last paragraph. (When finishing an oral address, people can assume that “finally” happened when you’re done talking.)

“You, too, can have the vocabulary of a Harvard English major.” You’ve probably seen that advertisement in airline magazines, suggesting that you, too, can develop knowledge of words that other people don’t know, making them feel stupid and, thus, elevating your own self-image.

As it so happens, Dr. English is a Harvard English major, and the only others I know who use words others don’t understand are totally rude. I mean, really, why say “eleemosynary” when “charitable” will do just as well? Why say “have a predilection for” when all it means is “like”? And, at a lower level, why say “utilize” when all it means is “use”?

What about you? How secure or insecure are you about your language skills? The more you opt for the simple alternative, the more secure you are.

Why can’t we all get along? Because we’re animals, meaning that conflict is inevitable as long as food, mates, and territory are limited. (In the case of humans, add money to that list.) These conditions are aggravated at work because the workplace is commonly a small, closed system where recognition, promotions, and raises are in great demand but extremely short supply. In other words, no matter how effective a firm’s leaders believe their management systems may be, people and their different personalities, ethics, and outlooks create situations that make it impossible to minimize conflict. NOT! In fact, effective management can reduce conflict, and – that being the case – one can surmise that employee conflict can be a sign of ineffective management, frequently associated with the following issues.

Centralized functions like HR, IT, and marketing can create conflicts because they put all the related resource eggs in one basket. Try to put enough eggs in the basket to meet all usual needs, or possibly consider an alternative or supplementary resource-distribution method.

Lack of accountability can leave people lost, resulting in finger-pointing, backstabbing, and other forms of conflict. (“She got the promotion I should have gotten, because….”) Lack of accountability commonly manifests itself when poorly defined objectives and/or metrics result in poorly constructed bonus, compensation, and promotion programs.

Shared or unclear responsibilities are blueprints for conflict. If responsibilities are to be shared, they must be clearly circumscribed: In fact, who is responsible for what? For that matter, any responsibility should be closely delineated, to help prevent people from stepping on one another’s toes.

Unstructured compensation and review systems are perennial conflict creators, because employees have little knowledge of: how they’re regarded by superiors, peers, and other coworkers; what they need to do to improve; the objectives management would like them to achieve in the upcoming months.Unstructured systems take on a veneer of structure by rewarding tenure rather than merit or embracing criteria that are vague and subject to interpretation, resulting in more exceptions than rules.

Overly structured compensation and review systems can be just as problematical, especially when their lack of flexibility prevents managers from recognizing rising stars by giving them a career ladder that helps them rise faster.

Poorly managed growth can create conflict when it results in an organization holding on to fundamental processes – like those associated with forecasting, operational and strategic planning, and budgeting – that worked well for the smaller organization that used to exist, but no longer does.

The “Peter Principle” holds that some people get promoted to a position they are not qualified for, and they stay in that position until they finally get it right. Which they usually never do. The result?Qualified individuals get stuck working for a boss or coworker they disrespect, creating conflicts between the qualified and the unqualified, as well as the decision-makers who, for whatever reason, are unwilling to replace the unqualified with those who are capable.

One of the nicer features of GBA’s webinars is the speakers’ willingness to answer questions. An important question came in after the webcast of “Think. Be Accurate.”, a John Bachner-led presentation focusing on commonly used words and phrases that can be dangerous. What follows is an edited version of the Q&A exchanges involved.

Tim wrote:
Good afternoon, John.

We just finished watching “Think. Be Accurate.” at our office and I have a question with regard to one of the phrases you brought up. We often use the phrase “in general accordance with project plans and specifications” in our field reports. We aren’t typically on site full-time and we therefore don’t want to make a guarantee that the work we observed was performed in full accordance with the project plans and specifications. However, it seems reasonable that we ought to tie our observations to the project plans and specifications, because if not, why are we even out there? In your experience, is there a phrase that is more suitable than “in general accordance with”?

Thanks for the lively presentation. I appreciate the ways you push the geo community towards excellence.
– Tim

John’s response…

Thanks for writing, Tim. Here’s how I see it.

If you were on the witness stand and opposing counsel asked, “What exactly does ‘in general accordance with project plans and specifications’ mean?” what would you say? I guess it would have to be along the lines of, “Well, it means we don’t have enough knowledge to know if full compliance was achieved, because we are not on site to look over everyone’s shoulder 24/7.”

Fact is, though, what you do is a far cry from that. You are providing that level of service the owner selected to satisfy the owner’s desire to assess whether or not a constructor is fulfilling its QC obligation to achieve certain specified conditions. I believe “in general accordance with project plans and specifications” creates an unwarranted sense of security and, therefore, is something you should not be saying. And why are you making that assessment when, in reality, it is the client who should draw the conclusions, because the client specified the extent of security it wants?

I believe a better statement might be:

“Our [observation and/or testing], as documented via the daily field reports included in Appendix A, indicate that the specific work portion we [observed and/or tested] met specifications of the contract. Please recognize that construction observation and testing conducted for quality-assurance purposes customarily involves direct observation and/or testing of less than one percent of the overall work that the observation and testing data are applied to evaluate. As such, you must base your conclusions about the overall work’s compliance with specifications on inferences you draw from the data we have developed, in accordance with the scope of service you authorized. If you believe the data we have developed are insufficient, we will be pleased to recommend and conduct additional observation and/or testing.”

Bearing in mind that I am not an attorney, Tim, this may be enough to get the point across. The conclusions to be reached should be reached by the client, not you. You’re there to provide data. The client has restricted the amount of data it wants, based on its own risk/cost evaluation. If you say “general compliance” and it’s not in compliance – general or otherwise – I believe you would be creating a risk for yourself that doesn’t really belong to you.

To which Tim responded…

Thanks for your thoughts on this topic, John, I agree with you that trying to defend that phrase on the witness stand would be uncomfortable, to say the least. Often, both the local municipality and the owner are looking to us for confirmation that the work was completed according to plans and specifications. If we put in too many limiting phrases, it’s likely the municipality would balk and direct us to complete enough field observation to be able to make a conclusive statement. We’ll need to talk about this internally and see how we can more accurately portray our work. Thanks for taking the time to get back to me.

John then offered…

Hi, Tim. Feasibly you could try something like what follows. It’s shorter but still explains the risks involved; i.e., you are doing what doctors do when they obtain informed consent from a patient. Your clients need to know that they DO NOT want you to say anything stronger, because that could make you liable for the contractor’s work, something for which you are not insured.

“Based upon inferences we have drawn from our [observation and/or testing], as documented by the daily field reports included in Appendix A, it is our professional opinion that the constructor is achieving specified conditions. Please recognize that construction observation and testing are sampling functions that involve direct observation and/or testing of less than one percent of the overall work that the observation and testing data are applied to evaluate.”

Dear Sir:

I read your article in the July/August NewsLog promoting the newly released PowerPoint template focusing on the value of geoprofessional services. Here at TTL, the geotechnical-engineering side of the house has used this PowerPoint with some success. We have given our adaptation of the presentation four times over the last year, twice to client representatives and once each at ASCE and AIA meetings. At each of these, we were well received and sparked interest that led to some healthy conversations.

As in any endeavor, we learn as we go. I have a few tips to share with those who use this resource going forward:

• Address the value you provide in the beginning. Often, linear-thinking engineers and scientists bury the lead, thinking we must give all the background first and then reveal the outcome. Not so: Make your value statements first and say them with strength.
• Put your best presenter on this, one that engages and connects easily with people and speaks authoritatively from a position of leadership. This may not be your ace technical guru. No matter, your technical gurus can go along should questions arise outside the presenter’s expertise.
• Practice, both alone and in front of your staff. Also, take time to predict questions and come up with possible answers to prepare for this portion of your talk.
• Offer PDHs and AIA credit (this takes having your version of the presentation vetted through AIA). If you offer CEUs, you’ll always have groups wanting you to present.
• Finally, success will live and die in follow-up. Always reconnect later to capitalize on solid opportunities to prove your value, putting your words into action.
• Thanks for making these resources available. Best of luck to the member firms that put them to good use.

Richard D. Heckel, P.E.
C.O.O.
TTL, Inc.

Good times just have to be around the corner and, when they hit, your number-one need is going to be employees whom you can trust to get the job done well. But why settle for good when you can have extraordinary? The problem is finding them, of course. As it so happens, you can make that problem far less severe by taking some of the advice offered at a recent leadership conference summarized by Geoffrey James in Inc. Online.

Define “Extraordinary”

Among your own employees and others’ you know, who’s extraordinary? And more to the point, why? What are they able to do that makes them so special? Which of their attributes make them that way? Are they perfectionists? Are they focused on pleasing others, including client representatives and coworkers? Are they good “schmoozers”? Is it all of the above and then some? Figure it out! Write it down. And then identify observational methods that help you spot the traits you’re looking for. And be sure to also develop interview questions that may reveal what you need to know about a candidate’s attributes that might comprise or at least lead to the creation of “extraordinary.”

Develop a Candidate Pool

Mr. or Ms. Right is not likely to walk in the front door ten minutes after you tack a “position available” sign to it. That’s why you should make it clear that your firm is always on the look-out for top talent. Use your website, social media, newsletter, blog, and person-to-person contact to encourage people to learn more about your company and possibly come in for an “informational interview” at any time, whether or not you have a position open. If the interview makes you believe that “this is a person I want on our team as soon as we have a position open,” then you can bet the individual is extraordinary. Use the same types of tools – social media, et al. – to stay in touch with the person. Then, when the time is right….

Hire for Attitude

Experience can be overrated, especially because it may have involved methods you’re not too keen on. Besides, experience may not be all that valuable when your work environment is subject to change or when the next few years may bring an individual opportunities that will require development of new skills. Developing new attitudes is far more difficult, of course, and it’s attitude that truly makes people extraordinary. What is a person’s attitude? Does the individual possess the traits you’ve already identified as extraordinary?

Ask Extraordinary Questions

You’re not likely to learn a whole heckuva lot about a person’s traits or find extraordinary candidates by asking ordinary questions during an interview. You need to ask questions that folks cannot easily prepare for and that reveal character. Here’s an approach we really like: Rather than asking people about their greatest achievements, ask them to write down their two greatest achievements from grade school, two from high school, two from college, and two post-college, with at least one related to business. Then ask the candidate to identify the one that is the source of greatest satisfaction. This should give you a glimpse into what makes a prospective hire tick.

Look for Resiliency

No matter what the job, it will entail frustrations and disappointments. Extraordinary workers typically are able to learn from these and move forward. The not-so-extraordinary decide to move on. “What are some of the biggest disappointments you’ve ever experienced?” may be a good question, with follow-ups designed to indicate to what extent candidates were able to dust themselves off and move forward. “How’d you overcome that? How long did it take?”

Look for Self-Motivation

Extraordinary employees don’t need constant motivation the way some top performers do. While, certainly, that doesn’t mean you should withhold frequent “attaboys,” it does mean that you shouldn’t have to constantly oversee a person, hold the person’s hand, and so on.

Speak with Real References

Plenty of people are likable and that trait can encourage others to give them a good reference. “She’s just a heckuva great gal” is encouraging, of course, but how likely is it that a candidate would identify references who may say negative things? Don’t limit your references to those identified on a candidate’s resume. Dig about a bit. For example, if a person worked on a certain project whose design team included a person or two you know, call them and ask about interactions they had with the candidate. When you hear “Great. I wish I had an opening for him,” then you know you have a winner, even if you don’t happen to have a spot just now.

We’ve written about the difference between “which” and “that”; how “which” tends to be more specific than “that,” but “that” usually works well and is easy. But what about the difference between “that” and “who”?

In fact, the two pronouns are not interchangeable at all, given that “who” refers to people and “that” refers to everything else (except for those folks who like to invest humanity in their pets, like Boston Terriers).

It seems to me that people would rather say “The lying, hired-gun expert that angry geoprofessionals virtually beat to a pulp” rather than “The lying, hired-gun expert whom angry geoprofessionals virtually beat to a pulp” because “that” doesn’t impose the quandary, “Is it ‘who’ or ‘whom’?”

The fact is, though, that “who” and “whom” are for people, and “that” isn’t. And as for “who vs. whom,” bear in mind that “whom” is merely the objective form of “who,” to be used as the object of a transitive verb or the object of a preposition.