Log in

Wal-Mart Associates
Anyone ever take the SLA (Supervisor leadership assessment)or TLA… 
15th-Mar-2008 04:30 am
Anyone ever take the SLA (Supervisor leadership assessment)or TLA (Tactical leadership assesment) tests on the wire? I took them twice when they were available and the first time I failed both, being non competitive and all.

This time, since both tests are similar, I answered the SLA questions like a caring person would. Failed with a non-competitive status. With the TLA, I answered it as a back stabbing, conniving, lying asshole and guess what? I passed the TLA with a competitive status... I laughed and if you see the irony in it you will too. >.>

Frankly, I don't see how they weed out bad managers with these tests, they seem more like a breeding ground for them. Oh well, I'm listed as qualified for entry level management now, go figure.
15th-Mar-2008 12:47 pm (UTC)
Lol, that's awesome because that's how I always imagined the test would be like. After all, you have to be a conniving bastard to get ahead. Look at politicians! Most politicians start off as businessmen or lawyers.

If I ever take the test I plan on answering the questions just like you did. Like I am a conniving, devious, powergrabbing bitch. I bet I'll become assistant.

How do you know when they become available or not?
15th-Mar-2008 07:34 pm (UTC)
If you haven't taken them in 6 months, they're available on the Wire in your career preference dashboard. When you are picking your current interests, pick either Supervisory positions or management positions, after that above where all the jobs you could add, is a button to take the SLA or TLA tests.

Keep in mind though, if you get a non competitive status, you have to wait 6 months. Though I gotta say, if you answer the test honestly, do they really believe in 6 months somebodies Morals or experience would have drastically changed? So you basically have to lie anyway >.>
16th-Mar-2008 01:23 am (UTC)
My department manager told me that he took the test and that he failed. He said one of the questions was if you were working and there was a bunch of people would you call someone in, transfer ppl from other departments, or work it yourself. He picked work it yourself and that was the wrong answer.

He also told personnel that it was the one test that he was glad he failed.
15th-Mar-2008 02:36 pm (UTC)
It just amazes me that you would want to become an asst manager with the views you have of the requirements.

"Back-stabbing and conniving" is how you look at it as an hourly that maybe gets into trouble for not following policy.

As an asst manager, it is your JOB to follow policy. When it comes down to you being coached or the person breaking the policy being coached....who will you pick?

Just from these posts, i dont feel that either of you are even close to being ready. Maybe thats why you are still hourly.... Surely your store mgr sees this too.

Just a little FYI

To be a leader in walmart, one should believe in walmarts values
15th-Mar-2008 02:56 pm (UTC)
I would take the test with the same expectations and interests that one does if they are taking online personality tests. I admit that I don't have what it takes to be management because I'm not a conniving bitch and I don't uphold walmart's values. I am not businesslike in that I don't sacrifice to make a buck.

But the above poster's thread just proves the type of people they want running the company and that you can easily lie to take the test and get that.

Which means if you lie on the test, you are already management material.
15th-Mar-2008 03:32 pm (UTC)
15th-Mar-2008 08:02 pm (UTC)
Your entire post shows you have not taken this test. It's questions basically give you 4 choices: Being lazy / Being Helpless / Being a nice person / Being a backstabbing and conniving twat. Most people, the first time they take the test will not pass simply because they answer like most people would and not how Walmart wants.

I say backstabbing and conniving because *drum roll* that is how the questions are worded. I can't post an actual question due to the possibility of Walmart suing my pants off but one of them gives you a situation like this;

A department next to yours is lacking in productivity what do you do?
A) Nothing, it's not your department
B) Help out in that department when you have time, like you were asked to by the department manager.
C) Sit down with the manager of that department and ask what can be done to help improve productivity. (This is the answer most people would pick.)
D) Inform an assistant or store manager that your neighboring department is lacking in productivity which is hurting your own department and ask the department manager why productivity has dropped. (essentially the backstabbing conniving answer)

There are many, many more questions where the Backstabbing conniving answers are much more blatant, but I'll leave it up to you to the test and see for yourself.

By the way, I never, ever said I WANTED to be a manager. I simply said I am able to APPLY to be an "In training" manager seeing as passing the TLA is a requirement for it. I'm well aware that managers follow policy and that is not relevant to my post. My post was about how answering the test like a trustworthy, dependable person makes you fail and answering like a dick passes you, but judging by your response you completely failed to get that.

Oh yes, us lowly hourly employees have intelligence. You don't have to have a degree in something to make you smart, just common sense really.

"To be a leader in walmart, one should believe in walmarts values"

No, that is not correct. To be a leader in Walmart, 2 of 4 things must happen.

1: Your nose is so far up someone's butt, the only thing preventing you from going all the way in is your shoulders.

2: You make Walmart money, a lot of money

3: You know somebody already in upper levels of management who wants you in management.

4: You have a degree in business management or 3 years of supervisory experience.

To be quite honest, your rhetoric is garbage and I could really care less about being a leader in Walmart. I'm quite happy in my position outside, in which I'm a de-facto leader of people who listen to what I say not because I have the powers to punish them, but because they respect me.

Again, your rhetoric is garbage. Good day.
15th-Mar-2008 08:10 pm (UTC)
By the way, the only time I've ever been in trouble "for not following policy" was a verbal on my 3rd day by violating the 5 hour limit.
(Deleted comment)
16th-Mar-2008 12:35 am (UTC)
Amen and ditto!!
16th-Mar-2008 06:51 am (UTC)
Then please, tell why being a general jerkoff manager, according to "policy" is more productive than one who would try to resolve situations passively?

You guys have interpreted this topic entirely wrong. It's not about hourly angst towards management, it's not about how people are qualified for it. It's about how the test to become a manager is structured in such a way only liars or assholes make it through.

Walmart, in itself, is a random policy generator and more than half of it's own policies are more of a "one time fix" that ends up never being enforced. For instance, when you go to work for the day, are you aware that there is a policy that states any employee cars not parked in the designated areas are subject to towing at the owner's expense? Probably not seeing as how hardly any stores enforce it.

Oh, here's a good one, there is also a policy that clocking in/out more than 5 minutes before your shift starts/ends can earn you up to a written coaching even if you've had no other problems. Want to guess why it hardly gets enforced in most stores?

There is a big difference between what this post was originally about and what it is now, but I suppose that's what happens when misinterpretation happens.
(Deleted comment)
16th-Mar-2008 06:47 pm (UTC)
I understand what you're saying and why you're saying it, but you still aren't understanding me.

It does make sense that walmart wants agressive people to lead rather than passive. But when I say passive I'm talking about a manager who would work WITH their subordinates rather than against. Most managers at my store are decent people, they're humans who understand it's not all about the almighty dollar all the time. The way I see it, being a manager at a single store is a tad different than being a district manager or corporate CEO. Both of which will lose their jobs if they sit around on their hands playing nice with everyone else. This isn't what I'm referring to in my original post.

Everybody lies, not everyone is willing to screw other people over for a buck, though I will say quite a few people will freely admit that they would.Contrary to whatever belief you may have about me, I don't clock in and get cheese to go with my whine at any stage in the day. I do my job and I make sure at least 4 other people do theirs and to be quite honest, if walmart suddenly said every policy they've ever mass produced needs to be enforced 100% of the time, no exceptions... Well most people I know wouldn't be too surprised and life would go on like it always does.

As for the parking issue, by what I've heard from the powers at my store. It's not only against a state law to tow employee cars without a warning, it's also grounds for a lawsuit. Any parking lot that doesn't have clear and visible areas staing "employee parking" can't have the employee cars towed for parking out of bounds. There's also a thing about the difference betweeen employee parking and employee only parking that also lays grounds for complication.

For the timeclock, it's a set in stone policy that never gets enforced because nine times out of ten, your department is understaffed and you are told to clock in as early as possible. We often get overtime because of this due to piss poor computer scheduling.

I've got nothing against you at all, in all I would prefer if a simple discussion of something I found to be ironic didn't get all twist turned upside-down into some heated debate. This community is where we should be able to come and vent whatever needs to be vented without taking it out on each other.
(Deleted comment)
16th-Mar-2008 08:38 pm (UTC)
Well I tried to be civil with respect to your arguments, but since you seem to want me to attack you personally or think that I have been, I suppose I have no choice but to oblige to your request.

If you are offended by what somebody has said on the internet (especially something that was not targeting specific individuals; IE: It was not my intention to call everyone who passed the test Liars and Assholes, just a bad generalization on my part) and then take it with you when you log out, that is more your problem than mine. The internet is no place for people who get offended at insignificant little things, especially in a community where venting about things such as management is all too common. It's not a play nice with others store meeting, it's a gathering of people on the internet who have common ideas and views and much unlike a store meeting, I don't HAVE to respect you or what you say, I choose to because I'd want the same respect from you.

I'm done with this conversation as well, I've tried to be nice and I've tried to respect your opinions but you're way too butt-hurt about something I said to see that. If your feelings get hurt so easily, stay off the internet buddy because it's not the place to be if you can't take an insult, especially an insult that wasn't specifically directed at you, especially an insult that wasn't intentional.

Good day.
17th-Mar-2008 02:43 am (UTC) - Pardon my long-windedness, but...
You still have yet to provide a rational explanation as to why answer D to that question is the "backstabbing, conniving" answer. That's purely your opinion, of course, but feel free to back it up somehow.

Here's my take on it: Salaried management has a vested interest in knowing why a particular department's productivity is decreasing. Why? They are the ones who take much of the heat from Market/Region-level management or Home Office if that is happening because it is *their* store that it is happening to. Department managers, not so much. Feel free to call bullshit on that or say whatever you want, but it's true.

On top of that, there is a better rationale behind going to upper management with concerns about a neighboring department. If you, as a department manager, notice that a DM in an area near yours is struggling to get things done, it is often assumed that you are going to go over to that area and help them out, regardless of how much of a workload you might have yourself. Suppose this becomes a pattern, and before you know it you spend more of your time working in that person's department than you do your own because they decide to start taking advantage of you. Don't tell me this can't happen because I've seen it happen myself at my old store. Long story short, the DM over fabrics/crafts was spending so much time working in domestics for no other reason than because the DM over there was a lazy piece of crap, and soon enough what needed to be done for crafts was getting neglected. And who did management come down on for that? The DM over crafts, of course. They didn't stop to think that her duties were being neglected because she was spending so much time helping out the DM in domestics. Perhaps if the crafts DM nipped the problem in the bud, so to speak, and went to management before things got so out of hand, a solution that could have benefited both departments might have been worked out.

Once again, I didn't make this up. Making sure that your department is being taken care of, whether you have to get upper management involved or not, is not backstabbing nor conniving. It's merely covering your ass. Not everyone is receptive to "Hidey-ho, neighbor! Say, would you mind trying to work a little harder to get your department done? I sure would appreciate it." Some folks just don't care, and if they can get someone else to do their work for them, why would they complain? (Yeah, in case it isn't obvious by now, I picked the last answer too. I don't consider myself a liar or asshole though; just one who thinks outside the box once in a while.)

As far as garbage rhetoric goes, the only kind I've seen here so far is your little "two out of these four is required to be a leader" scheme. I couldn't decide whether to laugh or piss my pants when I read that. Some of us who were chosen to be leaders did so on merit and work ethic alone, not by kissing ass or having a business degree.

By the way, I find it interesting, not to mention ironic, that someone who "could really care less about being a leader in Wal-Mart" and "is quite happy in their position" would not only take the the SLA/TLA but find the time to make a post about how awful they are. Sounds to me like you care about it a little more than you're willing to admit.

Okay, now this is where you come after me for "misunderstanding" your post and say that you really didn't intend to attack anyone, but I'm not buying into it. You let your thoughts be known when you not only called those who passed the SLA/TLA liars (yes, you did) and assholes but also when you decreed that those who do make it into leadership positions must fit your lame criteria. As for anyone having their head up anyone's butt, I'm in a good mood, and I'm going to let the golden opportunity to comment on that statement pass right on by.
17th-Mar-2008 07:14 am (UTC) - Pardon my long-windedness as well
I already stated that when I called those able to pass the tests liars or assholes, it was a bad sweeping generalization on my part, I admit that. To fulfill your prophecy, no, I did not intend to attack people in my original post.

I'm willing to also admit that a lot of what I've said is biased and based on an observation which at the time seemed 100% set in stone I have since been corrected and have not tried to reignite that which I was wrong about. I may be a little hot headed, but I've been around long enough to not fight about things that have been proven wrong.

Quite a lot of what I have said has also been thinly veiled sarcasm (IE: the 2 of 4 thing, only on the internet could sarcasm like that be taken as serious, give me some credit here.) I'm not bitter or stirring shit up just to get rises out of people, I'd much rather laugh and joke about how situation A ended in result C. Thing is, people came at me with claws out, choosing to be angry and hostile than constructive critics. I'm not one to let others walk over me (verbally or physically), so fought back, any person with half a spine would do the same.

Garbage rhetoric, by the way, is when somebody spouts off about "It's your job to follow policy and it's management's job to enforce it" and then basically says it's alright to not obey some policies [or] if they're inconveniences. We also call that hypocrisy and when knowingly used in an argument it becomes: Garbage rhetoric. When it's brought up the someone is being a hypocrite and it's not known to them (assuming the argument continues with fault being admitted), they call that: A good argument.

The sole reason I even took the SLA and TLA are because I was asked to. In the event of a supervisory or management position being available, our assistants tell those of us who are capable of supervising people (Even me, despite not having actual powers I still basically supervise a crew of 10 people, 2~5 at any given time.) to take the tests and open our preferences if we want the jobs. I took the tests because it was 30 minutes to go before my shift ended and my preferences are still closed even though I passed the TLA. I already said this; I'm fine where I am, I like my crew, I like my CSMS and I like my assistant and with the pay grade change there's no real need for me to move inside anymore.

I do have to say though, you did put it in a good perspective for me, I didn't really look at it that way, but then again, the entire original post wasn't meant to be some deep, well thought out argument and people just don't seem to get that. If I wanted to have a long argument about every topic I post, I'd go join a debate community.

I'm not sure I stated this in a previous post and I can't really go back and read it all due to time constraints, but I think somewhere in that mess I may have said I was wrong and if I didn't, then I'm saying it now. My definition of a "Lying, conniving, back stabbing asshole" may be completely and astronomically different than yours or the next persons, but if you read carefully, I said >I< answered like that. Meaning, I chose the answers that out of the 4 possible, seemed to me the most "Agressive" to me.

I stated it before and I will say it again. I'll treat you with respect if the same respect is given because I hold no grudges, no animosity towards people over the internet, doing so would prove futile in any and every way.

Again, I am done with this argument, thread, discussion and this is the last post I will make concerning it. I didn't even want to post this, but I felt it necessary to answer some questions and accusations. It's not worth my time and/or energy to defend a quirk post that (again) was not intended to be a deep, well though out debate and one I have already admitted I was wrong. If I would have known people's feelings were going to get hurt and one big unnecessary argument happen, one should think I would have shined it up a little, no? Or maybe kept my mouth shut? Because I stir shit up every thread I post in right? Aside from this fiasco, I'd say I've been quite docile. Feel free to reply, I'll read it of course, but I'm not going to reply. I'm moving on.
18th-Mar-2008 03:58 am (UTC) - Re: Pardon my long-windedness as well
I respect that. So what's this about a pay grade change? Are stockmen finally getting more money? (Looooong overdue, I might add.)
18th-Mar-2008 06:30 am (UTC) - Re: Pardon my long-windedness as well
Basically some time in 2nd or 3rd quarter, they will add a paygrade and move some jobs around in the paygrade scales. Maintenance, Stockmen and cashiers being the 3 I specifically heard about getting bumped up.

By what I understand, they're starting to look at how important the job is to the daily rituals of the store rather than how much skill it takes, which is what should have been done in the first place in my opinion. Granted everyone is important to the store running smoothly, if our cashiers, maintenance or stockmen are understaffed or don't show up, everything grinds to a halt because other associates have to cover those holes.
22nd-Mar-2008 11:28 pm (UTC) - Re: Pardon my long-windedness as well
Damn Nater, you not taking your meds again?
16th-Mar-2008 12:25 am (UTC)
Ok, that's a lot of bs if I ever heard it before, let me get the boots on, it's getting pretty deep here...
15th-Mar-2008 05:02 pm (UTC)
Lol you need to answer as Walmart would like you to, now how you would like to. :) That was the secret to passing the CSM test as well...

So you know, absorb your propaganda like a good sponge and pass that test! :D
15th-Mar-2008 05:24 pm (UTC)
this community should really disable anonymous posting. Too many hide behind it I think.
15th-Mar-2008 05:55 pm (UTC)
I took both tests and passed and they just seem like common sense questions to me. Nothing back stabbing or conniving about them. maybe your not a leader. I have no plans on going into management, I just wanted to see if I could pass.
15th-Mar-2008 08:07 pm (UTC)
I agree, but having people post anonymously only makes them easier targets to shut down seeing as how they have nothing but rhetoric to front for an argument.
16th-Mar-2008 04:48 am (UTC)
whats the diff if i post as anonymous or make up a name? you still dont know me
16th-Mar-2008 05:23 pm (UTC)
people seem to hide behind the anon option
24th-Mar-2008 09:23 pm (UTC)
Hummm, and they can't or don't hide behind the fake accounts fake names ??
24th-Mar-2008 09:19 pm (UTC)
a comment is a comment ,,, it has its own value - the content.

The comment is the object, not the poster.

Many of us post anom so you can rant about that too.

If anom post bother you so, DON'T READ EM.
15th-Mar-2008 11:27 pm (UTC)
Sorry dude, but thats how I passed both those test... Lying though my teeth.
17th-Mar-2008 04:48 pm (UTC)
Okay, last night at work I decided to take the test, persuaded by this post to try it out. First I took the test as a person who asks others opinions about things and gets feedback from coworkers before making any real changes. I failed it. I am noncompetitive. I suppose that I would be considering I was taking others' opinions into consideration. That's not very competitive of me.

So I took the other test as someone who works independently and requires minimal supervision. I answered about applying changes on my own and doing whatever it takes to get the job done by myself. I failed it that way too.

So from that test taking experience I can only guess that you are not supposed to take other's people's opinions or sit with them to talk about anything and that you are also not supposed to get your job done without a lot of supervision.

So next time the test rolls around I plan to take it as a needy person who has to have management tell them to do everything. I will also take it as someone who will crush the other departments and narc on them if I think their productivity is bad and holding me back instead of talking to them and helping them (which was my first answer)

These tests are kinda fun! It's like trying to get inside Wal Mart's head!

Lol, I know, that's the absolutely most horrible attitude to take, but then again, I work only weekends in the meat department for extra money while being a Stay At Home Mom. Why would I give up such a sweet deal for being a....manager???
This page was loaded Feb 22nd 2017, 1:02 pm GMT.