Log in to your account
 
Industry Careers
  • Posted by Jason Hensel at
    12:00AM 02/14/2013 • 0 Comments

    How to Avoid Being BlindSided by Unexpected Challenges

    Not every company has an Iron Man, but many have a Tony Stark—a highly powerful, intensely-focused individual who often ignores risk in order to achieve his or her goals.

    That’s usually a good thing—as long as companies make sure to also hire a Pepper Potts to keep their powerful leaders grounded, according to new research co-authored by a Brigham Young University (BYU) business professor.

    Katie Liljenquist

    Katie Liljenquist

    “Organizations need to anticipate the tendency of their most powerful members to leap without looking,” said study co-author Katie Liljenquist, a professor of organizational leadership at BYU's Marriott School of Management. “The remedy is to surround them with people who can see other angles, or can play a devil’s advocate role to point out risk. Interestingly, it is the low-power members of the organization who are best equipped to do this.”

    The study, appearing online ahead of print in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, found that powerful people are less likely to see constraints in pursuing their goals. Meanwhile, their low-power counterparts are more aware of the risks around them.

    Liljenquist says the phenomenon mirrors the animal kingdom: Predators have evolved to have an extremely narrow eye focus for tracking prey, but this compromises their peripheral vision. Meanwhile, prey animals sacrifice such visual focus for more sensitive peripheral vision that tracks movement and potential threats in the surrounding environment.

    “In business settings you need both,” Liljenquist said. “You need the people with that unfettered confidence and optimism and the willingness to take big risks, but you need those low-power individuals who say, ‘Hey wait a second. Let’s identify the pitfalls.’”

    Donald Trump is a perfect example of a leader whose confidence guides business decisions. During the first season of his reality show, The Apprentice, Trump offered the winner a chance to manage the construction of the Trump Tower in Chicago—even though the tower hadn’t been fully approved yet.

    “Trump didn’t even have clearance to build that tower yet,” said study lead author Jennifer Whitson. “It was that incredible confidence. He didn’t have all his ducks in a row yet, but he acted—and it worked out for him.”

    Liljenquist says that failure to consider constraints can carry weighty repercussions, such as the housing market crises and bank failures of 2008 that caused the worst economic recession since the 1920s.

    “Although blindness to constraints may make the powerful more willing to pursue their goals, their willingness to leap before they look may also sow the seeds of their own fall and the fall of those who depend on them,” she said. “Power often perpetuates itself and can lead to great things, but when powerful people are blind-sided by unexpected challenges, they may crash and burn.” 

    The 1986 Challenger Space Shuttle disaster is a classic example of how power can be blinding. On that fateful day, powerful individuals doggedly pursued launch while ignoring the low-power employees who tried to be a voice of warning about the possibility of mechanical failures.

    The study was led by Whitson, an assistant professor of business at the University of Texas at Austin’s McCombs School of Business. Other contributing researchers are from Columbia University, New York University, Stanford University and the University of Colorado-Boulder.

    (Story materials and images from BYU.)



  • Posted by Jason Hensel at
    12:00AM 10/16/2012 • 2 Comments

    A Job is Valued if it Aligns With One's Signature Strengths

    Character strengths can be defined as morally positively valued attributes, such as self-control, teamwork and friendliness. Strengths that are peculiar to a person and frequently used by individuals are called signature strengths. Each person typically has three to seven. For the first time, Claudia Harzer and Willibald Ruch from the Department of Personality Psychology and Diagnostics at the University of Zurich have shown in two studies that a job is particularly valued if it aligns with one's signature strengths. In fact, employees will have a more positive work experience due to enjoyment, sense of purpose and satisfaction.

    In the first study, Harzer and Ruch surveyed more than 1,000 workers about the expression of their character strengths, whether they are able to apply these strengths at work and how positively they experience their work. In their second study, besides self-assessments the scientists also analyzed how the test subjects' colleagues rate the applicability of the character strengths.

    The degree of positive experiences increases with the number of signature strengths applied. In both studies, people who are able to apply four or more signature strengths at work have the highest values in terms of positive experience. They enjoy work more, are more wrapped up in it, perceive their work as more meaningful and are more satisfied with their job. These people also perceive their work more as a calling than people who are able to apply three signature strengths or fewer in the workplace.

    The researcher's findings provide insights that might be useful for the selection of personnel, human resources development and workplace design.

    "If it is clarified which character strengths are central for the job before a position is filled, a person can be recruited based on these strengths," Harzer said. "Employers and employees only stand to benefit from this.

    (Story materials via the University of Zurich and AlphaGalileo.)



  • Posted by Jason Hensel at
    12:00AM 08/10/2012 • 0 Comments

    Happiness is a Better Motivator than Money

    A sense of belonging and attachment to a group of co-workers is a better motivator for some employees than money, according to a new study by University of Iowa (UI) researchers.

    “We found that self-managing teams exhibit increased performance when they are highly cohesive,” said Greg Stewart, Henry B. Tippie Research Professor of Management and Organizations in the UI Tippie College of Business. “Peer pressure is a strong motivating force, and workers’ willingness to please people who mean something to them is often a stronger motivating force than financial rewards.”

    Stewart’s group studied how members of self-managed teams allotted pay raises for other members of their team. They studied 587 workers in 45 self-managing teams at three factories in Iowa. In each of the 45 teams, teammates were allowed varying degrees of input into how much their teammates should be compensated for their work, and the researchers studied those compensation decisions.

    Using questionnaires, they asked the workers about their level of attraction to the team and their compensation, and asked their supervisors about the productivity of both individuals and teams.

    “In high functioning teams the group takes over most of the management function themselves,” said Stephen Courtright, assistant professor at Texas A&M University who recently received his doctoral degree from UI and was a member of the research group. “They work with each other, they encourage and support each other, and they coordinate with outside teams. They collectively perform the role of a good manager.”

    He says it makes sense that the team would make sound compensation decisions because they’re the ones who work with their team members, after all, and are in the best position to observe their performance.

    Stewart says the study confirms what prior research has found, that pleasing other people is a powerful motivating factor. In other words, Courtright says peer pressure is an important social force beyond junior high school. In this case, workers don’t want to disappoint their team members, so appealing to team spirit is more effective even than money as a motivating tool.

    “We all have a social need to be accepted, to identify with a group and be a part of it,” Stewart said. “So much so that peer pressure from team members is more effective than money in prompting strong performances from workers.”

    However, this works only when team members get along. When they don’t, then self-managed teams perform worse than cohesive teams. When team members don’t much care for each other, Courtright says appealing to team spirit as a motivating factor won’t work because there is no team spirit to appeal to, so money becomes the primary motivating factor to improve productivity.

    “Teams perform better when there is social pressure from peers to perform well than when peers wave a carrot and stick,” Courtright said. “However, the carrot and stick method works pretty well when team members just can't get along.”

    (Story materials via the University of Iowa.)



  • Posted by Jason Hensel at
    12:00AM 08/06/2012 • 0 Comments

    The Workplace Arrogance Scale

    Much like the character Peter Gibbons in Office Space, you may be dealing with an arrogant boss. And much like this industry, you probably want a measurement tool. Have no fear, your wishes have been answered.  

    Developed by researchers at The University of Akron (UA) and Michigan State University, the Workplace Arrogance Scale (WARS)—interested acronym, by the way—can help organizations identify arrogant managers before they have a costly and damaging impact.

    Arrogance is characterized by a pattern of behavior that demeans others in an attempt to prove competence and superiority. Stanley Silverman—dean of UA's Summit College and University College and an industrial and organizational psychologist—says this behavior is correlated with lower intelligence scores and lower self-esteem when compared to managers who are not arrogant.

    "Does your boss demonstrate different behaviors with subordinates and supervisors?" Silverman asks. He says a yes answer could mean trouble. Silverman warns that yes replies to these other questions raise red flags and signal arrogance.

    • Does your boss put his/her personal agenda ahead of the organization's agenda?
    • Does the boss discredit others' ideas during meetings and often make them look bad?
    • Does your boss reject constructive feedback?
    • Does the boss exaggerate his/her superiority and make others feel inferior?

    It sounds to me that a yes answer to any of those questions means the person is much more than arrogant; that person's a jerk (and that's being polite).

    Silverman and his colleagues Russell Johnson, assistant professor of management at the Eli Broad College of Business at Michigan State University, and Nicole McConnell and Alison Carr, both Ph.D. students in The University of Akron's Industrial and Organizational Psychology program, published details of the Workplace Arrogance Scale in the July 2012 issue of The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist.

    Left unchecked, arrogant leaders can be a destructive force within an organization, Silverman says. With power over their employees' work assignments, promotion opportunities and performance reviews, arrogant bosses put subordinates in a helpless position. They do not mentor junior colleagues nor do they motivate a team to benefit the organization as a whole, contributing to a negative social workplace atmosphere.

    Silverman says that arrogance is less a personality trait than a series of behaviors, which can be addressed through coaching if the arrogant boss is willing to change. He recommends that organizations incorporate an assessment of arrogance into the employee review and performance management process.

    He also emphasizes that cultivating humility among leaders and promoting a learning-oriented work climate go far in reducing arrogance and increasing productive leadership and employee social interaction.

    The 16th-century English bishop John Jewel once said, "If we learn not humility, we learn nothing." I agree. Greatness starts by being humble. 

    (Story material via the University of Akron.)



  • Posted by Jason Hensel at
    12:00AM 04/24/2012 • 5 Comments

    Is Hospitality Management a Useless Major?

    The Daily Beast recently ran a story titled "The 13 Most Useless Majors, From Philosophy to Journalism." Guess which field came in at No. 10. That's right, hospitality management. 

    Here are the stats cited as to why it came in at that spot:

    Unemployment, recent grad: 9.1 percent
    Unemployment, experienced grad: 5.7 percent
    Earnings, recent grad: US$32,000
    Earnings, experienced grad: US$53,000
    Projected growth, 2010–2020: +8 percent
    Related occupation: Lodging manager

    "This year we started with new research (PDF) from Georgetown University—which drew from two years of census data to determine the prospects for myriad majors—to narrow down our list to more than three dozen popular college majors," The Daily Beast reported. "We also used data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, equally weighing the following categories to determine current and future employment and earnings potential for our final ranking: recent graduate employment, experienced graduate employment, recent graduate earnings, experienced graduate earnings and projected growth in total number of jobs, 2010-2020." 

    Obviously, we feel differently and believe that the hospitality industry greases the wheels of world production. So, to say that it's a useless major is short-sighted and ignorant of the industry's broad-reaching economic facts.

    We're sure you have some thoughts. Please let us know of them in the comments.  



  • Posted by Jason Hensel at
    12:00AM 03/21/2012 • 0 Comments

    Corporate Executive: Not a Desired Job Anymore

    We talk a lot about getting a seat at the table, being part of the C-suite, etc. However, maybe we should be talking more about how to be an entrepreneur or freelance worker. 

    According to a survey of more than 1,000 people, more than half aspired to be entrepreneurs or work as an independent, while not a single respondent aspired to be a corporate executive.

    The results of the Intelligent Office survey point to an evolution of work styles and the development of a different type of worker that is defined by a desire for mobility and flexibility typically found in the entrepreneur and/or independent business owner.

    “We believe there is a paradigm shift happening in our culture as it relates to work style,” said Tom Camplese, COO for Intelligent Office. “We have been watching this shift take place over the course of the last few years at Intelligent Office by talking with entrepreneurs, business owners, and mobile executives on a daily basis. The Work IQ survey put this into hard numbers.”

    Additional highlights include:

    • Nearly 65 percent of survey participants desire to work as an entrepreneur or independent
    • 61 percent of people surveyed desire more flexible work hours than the traditional 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    • People are looking for a new balance—work hard/play hard; Nearly half of the respondents want a work hard/play hard work-life balance
    • Technology remains an invaluable resource to more than 45 percent of the respondents
    • Overwhelmingly, people aspire to have more mobility in their work life
    • 66 percent responded that they aspire to have a laptop or tablet that affords them freedom and mobility

    “What we continue to hear from people is that they increasingly need and expect services that will help them grow and be more successful, but they want those services to match this new work style—flexible and mobile,” Camplese said. “Overall, they are seeking more balance and freedom in everything, including the services that support their business efforts.”

    Do you agree with these findings? Would you rather be an entrepreneur/independent than a member of the C-suite? Or maybe that decision isn't mutually exclusive? Please let us know in the comments.  



  • Posted by Jason Hensel at
    12:00AM 03/16/2012 • 2 Comments

    Collaboration Leads to an Increase in Overconfidence

    From the corporate boardroom to the kitchen table, important decisions are often made in collaboration. But are two—or three or five—heads better than one? Not always, according to new research from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. 

    “People who make judgments by working with someone else are more confident in those judgments. As a result they take less input from other people”—and this myopia wipes out any advantage a pair may have over an individual, says psychologist Julia A. Minson, who conducted the study with Jennifer S. Mueller. “The collaborative process itself is the problem.” 

    The findings appear in the journal Psychological Science, published by the Association for Psychological Science.

    To test the hypothesis that confidence born of collaboration takes a toll on the quality of judgment, Minson and Mueller asked 252 people to estimate nine quantities related to U.S. geography, demographics and commerce, either individually or in pairs after discussion. They were then offered the estimates of other individuals and pairs and allowed to revise their own; the final estimates therefore could come from the efforts of two to four people. To sweeten the pot, participants earned a US$30 bonus for each of two estimation rounds, but lost $1 for each percentage point their answer deviated from correct. Individuals also rated their confidence in their judgments.

    The results: People working with a partner were more confident in their estimates and significantly less willing to take outside advice. The pairs’ guesses were marginally more accurate than those of the individuals at first. But after revision (or lack thereof), that difference was gone. Even the combined judgments of four people yielded no better results than those of two or three. Finally, the researchers found that had the pairs yielded to outside input, their estimates would have been significantly more accurate. Their confidence was costly.

    So should we toss out teamwork? No, says Minson, but since collaboration is expensive and time consuming, managers should use it efficiently. For one thing, a group of 10 is not 10 times better. 

    “Mathematically, you get the biggest bang from the buck going from one decision-maker to two," Minson said. "For each additional person, that benefit drops off in a downward sloping curve.” 

    Most important is awareness of the costs of teamwork. 

    “If people become aware that collaboration leads to an increase in overconfidence, you can set up ways to mitigate it," Minson said. "Teams could be urged to consider and process each others’ inputs more thoroughly.”

    The same goes for a couple choosing a mortgage or a car, Minson says. 

    “Just because you make a decision with someone else and you feel good about it, don’t be so sure that you’ve solved the problem and you don’t need help from anybody else.”

    (Story materials provided by the Association for Psychological Science.)



  • Posted by Jason Hensel at
    12:00AM 03/07/2012 • 0 Comments

    Follow This Advice If You Want Unhappy Employees

    The Washington Post published an interesting story yesterday: "How to completely, utterly destroy an employee's work life." 

    Yesss...go on...

    Teresa Amabile, a professor and director of research at Harvard Business School, and Steven Kramer, a developmental psychologist and researcher, have studied for more than 15 years what makes people happy and engaged at work. In turn, they learned how to keep them unhappy. 

    The No. 1 way to make employees miserable is to keep them from making progress in meaningful work.

    "People want to make a valuable contribution, and feel great when they make progress toward doing so," Amabile and Kramer wrote. "Knowing this progress principle is the first step to knowing how to destroy an employee’s work life."  

    Another way to wreck an employee's work life is to block progress on projects. 

    "Every day, you’ll see dozens of ways to inhibit substantial forward movement on your subordinates’ most important efforts," Amabile and Kramer wrote. "Goal-setting is a great place to start. Give conflicting goals, change them as frequently as possible, and allow people no autonomy in meeting them."

    If you're truly devious and you want to destroy your employees' work lives, check out the story for more ways to do so. 

    Have you done these things to your employees (not on purpose, of course)? Have you had these things done to you? Please let us know in the comments.  



  • Posted by Jason Hensel at
    12:00AM 02/27/2012 • 0 Comments

    Many Employees Want More Involvement in Company Decisions

    Transparency was the flavor-of-the-month a few years ago until it got pushed out of the way by concepts like collaboration and innovation. Even though executives may not care as much about transparency, it's still important to lower-level employees. 

    In fact, many employees feel their organization’s workplace practices are ineffective—an assertion supported by 44 percent of a recent Fierce Inc. survey of more than 800 corporate executives, employees and educators across a wide variety of industries. Respondents claim that their company’s best practices actually hinder employee productivity and morale. Another 47 percent reported that their organization’s current practices consistently get in the way of desired results, rather than optimize the overall success of the business—a primary function that a company’s best practices are meant to fulfill.

    While these practices are established with the best intentions, it’s clear that most are missing the mark when it comes to supporting the needs of their workforce. When asked which practices hold their organization back, nearly 50 percent of respondents identified a lack of company-wide transparency and too little involvement in company decisions as key areas of concern. In addition, nearly half of survey respondents identified the most beneficial practices as those that encouraged accountability, development and individual empowerment within the organization. It’s clear that in order to implement practices that are beneficial to the individual—as well as the organization as a whole—companies must foster an environment where individual efficacy is encouraged and where communication is both elicited and valued.

    While the survey supports the notion that today’s employees are seeking transparency within their organization, it doesn’t stop there. The results also indicate a widespread desire for businesses to elicit diverse opinions from all members of the organization around which company practices need to be modified or adjusted, such as:

    • 70 percent of respondents said they would candidly approach decision-makers within their organization if they felt that a company practice needed to be re-evaluated or adjusted.
    • Among respondents who reported limited benefits from their organization’s current practices, less than one third felt that their company was willing to change practices based on employee input and feedback.

    “These widely accepted practices are not only ineffective, they are costing our companies billions of dollars, driving away our most valuable employees and customers, limiting performance and stalling careers,” said Halley Bock, CEO of Fierce Inc. “This survey should encourage managers to question the practices in place and actively engage their staff in creating new policies that are geared more toward transparency and employee empowerment.”

    Does your company promote transparency? How are employees empowered at your workplace? Please let us know in the comments. 



  • Posted by Jason Hensel at
    12:00AM 02/23/2012 • 2 Comments

    I Have This Great Idea! Are You Listening?

    I would say that I'm an ideas man. I have tons of them, and I'm not afraid to share my work-related ones with my boss. 

    Apparently, I'm not alone, because  most employees claim they regularly propose ideas to their boss, according to a survey by Right Management. Half of the survey respondents claim to make 20 or more suggestions each year and another quarter between 10 and 20. 

    The survey was conducted in January and February, and 497 North American workers responded to the question:

    How often do you offer suggestions to your boss at work?

    • 54 percent—More than 20 suggestions each year
    • 24 percent—Between 10 and 20 each year
    • 15 percent—Fewer than 10 each year
    • 7 percent—I don’t offer suggestions at work

    “Despite research that indicates workers are disengaged, on the whole they want to be helpful and have their say on issues or problems that arise in the workplace” said Monika Morrow, senior vice president of Career Management for Right Management, which provides talent, career and outplacement services to Fortune 500 companies. “We find again and again that employees want to contribute. By making suggestions they demonstrate that they’re thinking about getting the job done, and done well.”

    Morrow advises employers to take advantage of workers’ ideas. 

    “Of course, the boss has to judge which suggestions are worthwhile, but employee concern or enthusiasm should be encouraged and their willingness to participate in problem solving is the sign of a healthy workplace,” she said.

    At a time when many employees feel stifled in their job, it is even more important that employers show that they are listening. 

    “Make sure employees know they have a voice and a say in what happens at work," she said. "Be proactive in seeking their input and sharing ideas. It should be more than a gesture, but a genuine effort to reach out. Tap them for fresh ideas that could improve productivity or customer service.”

    The best employers know how to unleash the potential in people, Morrow says. 

    “This is a crucial management skill when talent so often is what provides a company with its competitive advantage,” she said.

    What about you? Do you offer up lots of ideas throughout the year? Do you feel that your ideas are listened to and seriously considered? What's the best idea you have for our industry? Please let us know in the comments. Thank you.



  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Next Page