We have Choice and We Tell the Truth.

We have choice and we tell the truth. That has pretty much been my mantra over the past few years, ever since I attended a Will Schutz workshop called ‘The Human Element’ back in the UK in 2007.

Schutz, an American Psychologist, was a real maverick who believed that if someone is to realise their full potential they need to work on the development of healthier self-concepts, self-determination, and openness. He died in 2002 and his son Ethan now continues his work on the Human Element on a global scale.

A core belief of Schutz’s work is that everything that happens between people is a result of the choices each person has made – both consciously and unconsciously. Each of us is 100% responsible for ourselves and our situation and no one else is to blame.

Another belief is that secrets are poison. The more an individual, a team or an organisation tells the whole truth, the healthier and more productive they are. People are better able to handle the truth than they are given credit for. Truth can free us up from all that rubbish that gets in the way of how we operate together. It’s not about disclosing our deepest and darkest secrets, it’s quite simply about being authentic with each other.

Relationships make our world go around (and around and around). Our relationships with our family, friends, work colleagues, suppliers, business partners, bosses and the call centre operator all significantly affect our happiness and effectiveness. We have choices about whether we want that relationship to be different, how we want to interact, how much truth we want to share and how we want to share it.

It irks me when people say “I’m going out tonight with a friend who is so negative, I am dreading it”. Or “I’m not going to tell my boss about my problem with her, she never listens, I’ll just deal with it”. Or “My colleague is really annoying me in the office, I don’t know how much more I can take”.

Why? We have choices, we are responsible and no-one else is to blame. So tell the truth, share with someone how you feeling, ask them in return, give your perspective. You know what? Like I said earlier, people are better able to handle the truth than they are given credit for. Try it, usually the relationship is so much deeper and richer for both parties. It might be a quick result,  it might take some time, but you have lost nothing and gained so much.

The New Year is about New Beginnings. One of the OPRA values is that we value long-term relationships that are built on open communication, trust and mutual respect. So why not have a think and start with one relationship that you’d like to make even better this year, wherever it might exist in your life.

Happy New Year.

New Year – New Resolutions

Like many of us, for me, 2012 started with new ideas and new goals. Many people I knew had nice simple goals – go to the gym more, eat less chocolate, drink more water. All things that people can keep an active eye on in order to ensure goal achievement. Sounds simple right? In reality, most peoples’ New Year’s resolutions are missing several key components. I’m sure many of you have heard of SMART goals; goals that should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time-bound in order to increase goal achievement. So based on this formula, not only should we strive to eat less chocolate, but we should in fact strive to eat, say, only one chocolate bar per week for the rest of 2012. Great, so that’s certainly measurable, most likely achievable, potentially realistic depending on the quantity consumed in 2011, and timely. So, that’ll work, right….?

My guess would be no. Sure this goal ticks all the SMART goal boxes, but like many New Year’s resolutions, it lacks the why factor. What will eating less chocolate achieve? Is it actually something that you really want to do, or feel you should do? Research has shown that the extent to which a goal reflects one’s own personal interests and values (as opposed to something that you feel obligated to do) significantly impacts on the likelihood that you will successfully progress towards your goals and New Year’s resolutions. Further, planning when and how to perform behaviours can also increase the odds of achieving our goals (Koestner, Lekes, Powers and Chicoine, 2002, p 231).

New Year’s resolutions have the potential to lead to real behaviour change both in our personal lives, and in the workplace. However, to achieve this, we need to not only ensure that our goals adhere to the SMART goal model, but also that they reflect our own personal values and interests, rather than something we feel guilty about, or compelled to do. This time of the year provides us with many opportunities to reflect, refresh, and re-start the year with sound aspirations and goals in mind. So why not try to maximise this? Can you think of a goal that you would really like to achieve in 2012? Then go for it, there’s no time like the present!

Koestner, R., Lekes, N., Powers, T.A. & Chicoine, E. Attaining personal goals: self-concorance plus implementation intentions equals success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 231-244.

Bad Jobs versus Unemployment

The fact that having a job provides us with an income, social contact, security, and a sense of purpose is undeniable. Furthermore, having a job has also been shown to be related to increased health and wellbeing. However, a paper published by the National Centre for Health at the Australian National University suggests that some jobs are better for us than others, with the “quality” of a job being pivotal to determining whether it is harmful or beneficial to our health. Jobs that are poorly organised, where there is excessive demand, an employee has little control over what one’s work involves, and where employees are concerned about the security of future employment, can be as harmful to one’s health as having no job at all.

What’s interesting is that the effects of these work stressors are not confined to any specific level of job, and in fact they operate independently of job status and income. Work stressors can have a harmful impact at all levels, including managerial and professional roles. This doesn’t mean that anyone who feels a little under pressure at times should throw in the towel and quit their job, but this research got me thinking about working conditions. Why do people stay in poor quality jobs? For some, it may be a matter of deciding which is the lesser evil, a poor quality job or unemployment?

In the last quarter of 2011, the unemployment rate in New Zealand was at 6.6%.  But this research suggests that people in poorly organised roles, jobs lacking control, and in which they feel insecure, are likely to be just as badly off (in terms of their health) as that 6.6% of unemployed individuals.  With the current state of the economy and the rising cost of living expenses, I’m guessing that a lot of people may be willing to put up with significantly more negative factors in their current roles, than they might during better economic times. Some people may also be putting up with poor working conditions in their job as it is a stepping stone to another, more desirable role. Others may not be aware of the impact that their job is having on their health and wellbeing, or may not realise another role may be more fulfilling.

While unemployment is an important statistic, do we also need to consider the quality of work that is being offered? What proportion of Kiwis are working in poor quality jobs and what impact does this have on their lives? What responsibilities rest on the shoulders of employers in terms of improving the quality of work? 

Christmas Madness

Did you know that Christmas is a dead end? The finishing point? The last stop at the station? Forget the New Year, or the many months stretching out into the future. Christmas is the deadline. We must get everything done before December 25.

Why do we put this pressure on ourselves every year? We make ourselves elaborate “To-do” lists, including Christmas shopping, Christmas cards, Christmas cooking and catching up with everyone before Christmas day. Why? Does everyone suddenly disappear in a puff of smoke on December 26? It’s no better at work. We run around trying to get everything done before the holiday season begins. For some people however, working hard to have a clean desk by Christmas Eve means that it’s easier to relax while on holiday. By doing this, we know that when we come back we can have a clean start to the New Year.

Although you may feel the pressure is on right now, it’s a time to be realistic about what we can achieve. Try to find a balance between feeling satisfied with what you have accomplished and burning yourself out. Take a step back, a deep breath and be sensible. Say NO to unrealistic demands. In line with this be reasonable about what others can achieve and don’t pressure them to get unnecessary things done. After all, the work will still be there after Christmas because sadly work never completely disappears for most people.

And to get the most out of your well deserved holiday…

1. While you are on holiday have email free days. Avoid obsessive checking of emails and refuse work-related calls.
2. Enjoy your last days of holiday. If you can, compartmentalize. Do not start thinking or worrying about work until you are there.

 What other tips do you have for making the most out of your summer holiday?

Leadership: Introverted does not mean ineffective

People often say that employees don’t leave jobs, they leave managers. While there could be some truth in this, is this phrase more reflective of the difficulty in finding the right “fit” between a leader and their team? What are the qualities of a good manager? How do these differ depending on the team? One of the Big Five personality factors that HR and I/O  practitioners often look to for answers on leadership “fit” is Introversion-Extroversion.  For those of us who are less familiar with these terms, introverts and extroverts draw their energy from different sources, either internally from reflection, or externally from other people (respectively). People from all walks of life can be either introverts or extroverts, and both styles have an equal proportion of strengths, and development areas.  Historically, Western society tends to favour extroversion, with a US study finding that 65% of Senior Corporate Executives perceive introversion to be a barrier to effective leadership (Grant, Gino and Hoffman 2010). Furthermore, there appears to be more individuals describing themselves as highly extroverted in executive level roles (60%), than in supervisory level roles (30%) (Ones and Dilchert 2009). Regardless of this social bias, every working style has strengths it can bring to leadership, as well as potential barriers to performance. There are situations where introverted leaders can make good bosses and can be more effective than their extroverted peers. 

Grant and colleagues (2010) suggest that while extroverts may be good at leading conversations, they may also strive to be the centre of attention and may dominate a discussion with their ideas. On the other hand, introverted leaders tend to be more skilled at managing the engagement of proactive or vocal teams as they tend to display more active listening skills and are more receptive to suggestions (Grant et al. 2010). Recent research by these authors assessed the impact leadership style (introversion/extroversion) and employee working style had on profits across a franchised organisation. They found that when employees weren’t proactive, extroverted leadership was associated with 16% higher profits compared to the franchise average. However, when employees are autonomous, or provide their own ideas, introverted leadership is associated with 14% higher profits than the franchise average.

These findings suggest that introverted leadership can directly influence bottom line outcomes, which contradicts the notion that only extroverts can be good leaders. It may indicate that introverted leadership is actually more of a competitive advantage than extroverted leadership in organisations relying on creative, proactive, and driven employees.   An introverted leadership style may encourage employees to provide their opinions and ideas for innovation. With a greater preference for listening and reflecting, introverted leaders may also make good coaches and may develop greater connections with employees by listening to their concerns, hopes and dreams. Their more reserved style may also suit more independent employees who like the autonomy to make their own decisions. While an extroverted leadership style has its benefits, developing innovation, assertiveness and accountability may be best facilitated by a more introverted style.  Introverts can rejoice (quietly of course!), that their introspective nature can be a competitive advantage!

What strengths do you think introverted leaders bring to the table? Given the choice, what leadership style would you prefer?

 

Grant, A. M., Gino, F., and Hofmann, D. A., (2010). The hidden advantages of a quiet boss. Harvard Business Review, Dec 2010.

Onez, D., Dilchert, S., (2009). How special are Executives? Industrial Organisational Psychology, 2009.

The Online Job Market

It would be hard to deny that the internet has forever changed how we live our lives, how we do business, and not surprisingly how we look for jobs and recruit staff. A recent global report showed that 26% of job seekers found their latest job through online job sites*. Interestingly, another 22% of jobs were found based on word of mouth, 17% through recruitment agencies, 17% from a direct approach by an employer, 10% by other methods, and only 7% through print media. At the lowest level were social media sites, with a mere 1%. However, roughly a quarter of people across the globe reported using social networking sites to look for work, so surely the number of people finding their jobs through these sites is bound to increase.

The fact that almost a quarter of job seekers are still finding their positions through word of mouth indicates to me that online tools have by no means taken over the job market yet. In fact, with almost 40% of jobs being found through networking and direct approaches, the importance of networking and face to face contact is clearly apparent. However, surely the role that the internet plays in this networking will only continue to increase with time, and thus online job sites and social media will start to play a bigger role in recruitment. So, what does this mean for individuals and organisations?

Online job sites offer individuals the ability to passively keep an eye on the job market without committing to the selection process. It also allows them to keep an eye on companies or individuals they would like to work with in case vacancies do come up. For organisations, the internet must lead to a wider talent pool than would have traditionally been available. It also means that organisations can keep an eye on potential employees. So, are there any disadvantages to the use of online job sites and social media in the job market?

Honestly I’m struggling to think of any. I can certainly see that for individuals the internet probably makes it harder to pick and chose what potential employers can find out about you.  From an employer’s perspective, the ease of use of such sites could potentially lead to a significant increase in the number of poor or non-relevant job applications. Also, organisations will need to think about how they can respond to this shift, and whether they need to get their own processes up to date. But mostly I would say that the benefits would far outweigh the disadvantages. What are your thoughts?

*2011 Kelly Global Workforce Index

Health and Wellbeing at Work: More Than Just “An Apple a Day”

A substantial proportion of our waking life is spent working, so it’s not entirely surprising that wellbeing at work has become an increasing area of interest for many individuals. However, organisations may be unwilling to invest in interventions or programmes  that promote such wellbeing, unless it is going to impact on their bottom line.

A number of studies provide evidence to support the idea that participation in organisational wellness programs can result in reduced stress levels, lower absenteeism, higher job satisfaction and increased productivity (Parks & Steelman, 2008).  However, most of the programmes reported are focused on physical health (e.g. gym memberships, health and fitness groups) and education (e.g. nutritional information).

My thoughts are that while physical health is important to overall wellbeing, this is only one piece of the puzzle.

The World Health Organisation’s definition of health, and New Zealand’s own Health and Safety legislation, extends beyond physical health to also include mental and social health. However, there appears to be little research linking specific organisational practices and interventions to mental and social wellbeing.  Nevertheless, many consulting companies and organisations offer a range of wellness programmes addressing the more psychological and emotional aspects of wellbeing. These offerings are designed to aid employees’ ability to cope with stress and bounce back from adversity, for example resilience training and stress management programmes. These types of interventions have the potential to not only assist employees in coping with pressure at work, but also teach people transferable skills that can help them cope with pressure in other aspects of their lives as well.

As I/O and HR researchers and practitioners we need to provide evidence to support these interventions and link them to individual and organisational outcomes; otherwise many organisations may not consider the value the programmes can contribute to individual mental health and organisational outcomes.  

So, how do we measure the effectiveness of these interventions and where do we start?

The Art of Productivity at Work

I find that I can be the most productive at work during my ‘witching’ hours. That hour or so at the very beginning or end of the day when I am not interrupted, when my focus can be completely on the task at hand and I am working on the ‘big’ tasks. Unfortunately, this prime environment for productivity cannot be maintained and eventually the interruptions and distractions begin. It is also not feasible to begin work a few hours earlier and finish a few hours later everyday as that would extend the working day to about 12 hours. So, how can I recreate this environment to ensure that my time at work is spent being productive?

Peter Bregman the author of 18 minutes: Find your Focus, Master Distraction, and Get the Right Things Done (2011) believes that little rituals everyday can help you improve and maintain your productivity at work. Rituals such as

• “Spending five minutes in the morning to place your most important work onto your calendar;
•  Stopping every hour to ask yourself whether you’re sticking to your plan;
• Spending five minutes in the evening to learn from your successes and failures;
• Answering your emails in chunks at predetermined times during the day instead of whenever they come in;
• And never letting anything stay on your to do list for more than three days (after which either do it immediately, schedule it in your calendar, or delete it).”

Bergman states that if you consistently practice these rituals, or whichever pattern works for you, then it won’t take long for your rituals to become habitual.  Once these rituals become habits they become your identity and then, you become a productive person.  

So often at the end of a day I reflect on what I have achieved and find that I have spent my day being re-active to emails, phone calls and interacting with my colleagues (all important parts of the job), but the ‘big’ tasks, the pro-active tasks are often left on my to do list.  I am hoping however, through sticking to Bergman’s few simple rituals I can turn those rare ‘witching’ hours into extended hours, without actually having to work longer days.

Bergman, P. (2011). 18 Minutes: Find Your Focus, Master Distraction, And Get The Right Things Done.  Business Plus: Warner Books.

The Importance of Mindsets

What does failure mean to you?  Is it an indication that you lack talent, are dumb, or otherwise incapable?  Or does it suggest an opportunity for growth and development?  Carol Dweck has devoted a lot of time and research to exploring these different mindsets and their associated outcomes.  The former reflects a fixed mindset and is defined by an underlying belief that human qualities are carved in stone.  The latter reflects what Dweck calls a growth mindset and hinges upon the assumption that human qualities can be changed by effort. 

The growth mindset’s belief that success comes from hard work and dedication helps people to conceptualise failure as an opportunity for growth and development.  Alternatively, the fixed mindset’s assumption that success is an indication of innate brilliance creates expectations that talented people shouldn’t have to work hard for success.  This in turn leads to an aversion to challenge, a constant need for external validation, and the avoidance or denial of anything that could result in perceptions of failure. 

There are lots of examples of the disastrous consequences of fixed “talent” mindsets in organisations.  Bethany McLean and Peter Elkind’s account of Enron provides a great example (The Smartest Guys in the Room).  Enron’s leadership created a culture that worshipped talent.  This led Enron “stars” to constantly feel the need to prove how great they were.  It also led them to be more concerned about appearing deficient than actually addressing shortfalls or questioning their decisions.  We all know how that story ended. 

To see examples of where a growth mindset takes companies you just have to study the success stories in Jim Collin’s book Good to Great.  The manner in which Jack Welch took General Electric from a $14 billion dollar company to a $490 billion one exemplifies the power of the growth mindset.  Welch saw himself as a guide of others, not a judge.  He selected people for their mindset rather than their pedigrees.  He wasted no time communicating his message to GE employees: This Company is not about self-importance, it is about growth.  And he walked the talk.

So what can you do to foster a growth mindset within your organisation?  According to Dweck there are a few steps that really make a difference.  One is to stop thinking and talking about talent in terms of “naturals”, but instead start thinking and talking in terms of potential.  Another is to praise the process that led to success, not ascribe it to innate qualities.  In other words, praising hard work and dedication rather than brilliance or intelligence.  So…good to great, or Enron, the choice is yours.

Collins, J. (2001).  Good to great: Why some companies make the leap…and others don’t.  New York: HarperCollins.
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success.  New York: Random House.
Dweck, C., Chiu, C., & Hong Y. (1995). Implicit Theories and Their Role in Judgments and Reactions: A World from Two Perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267-285.
McLean, B., & Elkind, P. (2003).  The smartest guys in the room: The amazing rise and scandalous fall of Enron.  New York: Penguin Group.     
Welch, J., & Welch, S. (2005).  Winning.  New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

Take-home Technology: Is it the Scapegoat for Reduced Work-Life Balance?

It may be obvious for those reading this blog from a laptop/Blackberry in front of the TV or in the airport departure lounge, but using work technology out of office hours (take-home technology) can impact work-life balance.  A recent study by Park, Fritz and Jex (2011) suggests that using take-home technology impacts an individual’s ability to detach from work and consequently their wellbeing. Countless studies and anecdotal evidence also indicate a relationship between low work-life balance and fatigue, less positive work experiences, and lower overall life satisfaction. Does this mean we should be banning take-home technology to improve our work-life balance?

Not just yet say Park et al. (2011). Take-home technology appears to be just one contributor to the increasing lack of work-life balance. Other contributing factors like work-home segmentation preference and workplace segmentation culture may actually have a bigger impact on work-life balance.  Work-home segmentation is the degree to which people prefer their work and home lives to operate separately. Some people have a strong need/motivation for this, while others may be comfortable blurring the boundaries between work and home life. Workplace segmentation culture is the expectation (implicit or explicit) set in place by the organisation around acceptable work-life balance. These norms convey how expected or appropriate it is to work from home, attend evening functions or to call colleagues at home or work weekends.

Park et al. (2011) expected take-home technology to be a major factor in lack of work-life balance. However, work-home segmentation and workplace segmentation culture had the greatest impact on detachment from work, with take-home technology just exacerbating this relationship. For those who prefer to separate work and home life and/or those who feel they are expected to work from home, technology may make their existing feelings of low work detachment appear more prominent.

So, if banning technology isn’t the answer to work-life balance, what is? Park et al. (2011) suggest that identifying and addressing an individual’s work preferences may be part of the puzzle. Identifying those who prefer to keep work and home separate and helping them to physically and mentally detach from work may be valuable. This could include making changes to role design and workload. Addressing an individual’s ability to deal with ruminating thoughts, develop end of the day rituals, establish boundaries and take an action-focused approach to problems may also help.

Exploring the culture operating within a workplace may help gauge how appropriate it is for employees to detach from work. By understanding the organisation’s philosophy around take-home technology and asking the following questions, the value of a segmentation culture can be ascertained.

1)      Is this expectation of work-life balance required of everyone?

2)      What message is this level of work-life balance sending?  To current employees? To future employees?

3)      Is it contributing to business effectiveness (remembering that lack of work-life balance can impact on engagement and satisfaction as well as hard costs like turnover and absenteeism)

4)      Can we strike a balance between effectiveness and wellbeing for those who need to use take-home technology?

Improving work-life balance isn’t as simple as putting take-home technology on a “black list”. It involves exploring each individual’s workplace needs, understanding organisational culture and developing targeted solutions to enable people to “switch off” from work. However, “switching off” from technology from time to time may not be a bad thing either!