Log in to your account
 
Industry Trends
  • 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.



  • Posted by Jason Hensel at
    12:00AM 09/16/2011 • 0 Comments

    Overconfidence is Good for You

    We recently shared with you news that ambition drives happiness. Now a new study shows that an inflated belief that we can easily meet challenges or win conflicts is actually good for us.

    Researchers have shown for the first time that overconfidence actually beats accurate assessments in a wide variety of situations, be it sport, business or even war.

    However, this bold approach also risks wreaking ever-greater havoc. The authors cite the 2008 financial crash and the 2003 Iraq war as just two examples of when extreme overconfidence backfired.

    A team from the University of Edinburgh and the University of California, San Diego used a mathematical model to simulate the effects of overconfidence over generations. It pitted overconfident, accurate and underconfident strategies against each other.

    A paper published in Nature shows that overconfidence frequently brings rewards, as long as spoils of conflict are sufficiently large compared with the costs of competing for them. In contrast, people with unbiased, accurate perceptions usually fare worse.

    The implications are that over a long period of time the evolutionary principal of natural selection is likely to have favoured a bias toward overconfidence.

    Therefore people with the mentality of someone such as boxer Muhammad Ali would have left more descendants than those with the mindset of film maker Woody Allen.

    The evolutionary model also showed that overconfidence becomes greatest in the face of high levels of uncertainty and risk. When we face unfamiliar enemies or new technologies, overconfidence becomes an even better strategy.

    Would you say you're an overconfident person? Has it helped or harmed you?

    (Story materials provided by the University of Edinburgh.)



  • Posted by Jason Hensel at
    12:00AM 08/30/2011 • 1 Comments

    Emotional Intelligence Valued More Than IQ

    With smaller staffs, higher stress levels and uncertainties around the economy, are employers changing what they look for in prospective employees? Thirty-four percent of hiring managers say they are placing greater emphasis on emotional intelligence when hiring and promoting employees post-recession, according to a new CareerBuilder survey. Seventy-one percent say they value emotional intelligence in an employee more than IQ.

    Emotional Intelligence (EI) is a general assessment of a person’s abilities to control emotions, to sense, understand and react to others’ emotions and manage relationships. The national survey of more than 2,600 hiring managers and human resource professionals reveals that EI is a critical characteristic for landing a job and advancing one’s career.

    Fifty-nine percent of employers would not hire someone who has a high IQ but low EI. For workers being considered for a promotion, the high EI candidate will beat out the high IQ candidate in most cases—75 percent say they’re more likely to promote the high EI worker.

    “The competitive job market allows employers to look more closely at the intangible qualities that pay dividends down the road—like skilled communicators and perceptive team players,” said Rosemary Haefner, vice president of human resources at CareerBuilder. “Technical competency and intelligence are important assets for every worker, but when it’s down to you and another candidate for a promotion or new job, dynamic interpersonal skills will set you apart. In a recovering economy, employers want people who can effectively make decisions in stressful situations and can empathize with the needs of their colleagues and clients to deliver the best results.”

    When asked why EI is more important than high IQ, employers say (in order of importance):

    • Employees [with high EI] are more likely to stay calm under pressure
    • Employees know how to resolve conflict effectively
    • Employees are empathetic to their team members and react accordingly
    • Employees lead by example
    • Employees tend to make more thoughtful business decisions

    HR managers and hiring managers assess their candidates’ and employees’ EI by observing a variety of behaviors and qualities. The top responses from the survey were:

    • They admit and learn from their mistakes
    • They can keep emotions in check and have thoughtful discussions on tough issues
    • They listen as much or more than they talk
    • They take criticism well
    • They show grace under pressure
    Would you say you have high EI?



  • Posted by Jason Hensel at
    12:00AM 08/29/2011 • 1 Comments

    Do You Have the Face of a CEO?

    Here's a report that has me looking in the mirror to see if I'm CEO material. According to a new study upcoming in Psychological Science, one thing that predicts how well a CEO’s company performs is the width of his face. CEOs with wider faces, such as Herb Kelleher, the former CEO of Southwest Airlines, have better-performing companies than CEOs like Dick Fuld, the long-faced final CEO of Lehman Brothers. 

    Elaine M. Wong at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and her colleagues study how top management teams work. But they have to do it in indirect ways. 

    “CEOs and top executives don’t typically have time to talk with researchers or take batteries of tests,” she said. “Our research has primarily been at a distance.” 

    In the past, they have analyzed the content of letters to shareholders and looked at things like how a CEO’s educational or personal background affects how well his or her company does. Wong and her colleagues, Margaret E. Ormiston of London Business School and Michael P. Haselhuhn of UWM, wanted to look at another aspect of CEOs—their faces.

    Looking at faces has precedence. Several studies have shown that the ratio of face width to face height is correlated with aggression. Hockey players with wider faces spend more time in the penalty box for fighting. Men with higher facial width are seen as less trustworthy, and they feel more powerful.

    “Most of these are seen as negative things, but power can have some positive effects,” Wong said. 

    People who feel powerful tend to look at the big picture rather than focusing on small details and are also better at staying on task. She and her colleagues thought that feeling of power might also be correlated with a company’s financial performance.

    Wong and her colleagues based their analyses on photos of 55 male CEOs of publicly-traded Fortune 500 organizations. They only used men because this relationship between face shape and behavior has only been found to apply to men; it’s thought to have something to do with testosterone levels. They also gathered information on the companies’ financial performance and analyzed shareholder letters to get a sense of the kind of thinking that goes on at those companies.

    CEOs with a wider face, relative to the face’s height, had much better firm financial performance than CEOs who had narrower faces. 

    “In our sample, the CEOs with the higher facial ratios actually achieved significantly greater firm financial performance than CEOs with the lower facial ratios,” Wong said.

    Don’t run out and invest in wide-faced CEOs’ companies, though. Wong and her colleagues also found that the way the top management team thinks, as reflected in their writings, can get in the way of this effect. Teams that take a simplistic view of the world, in which everything is black and white, are thought to be more deferential to authority. In these companies, the CEO’s face shape is more important. It’s less important in companies where the top managers see the world more in shades of gray.

    Quick! If your CEO is male, go look at his face. How many are more wide than narrow?

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



  • Posted by Jason Hensel at
    12:00AM 08/29/2011 • 0 Comments

    Facebook Enhances Customer Perception

    It appears that a Facebook page breeds confidence in a company's brand. According to a Polaris Marketing Research Inc. study of U.S. consumer usage of company Facebook pages, 25 percent of Internet users agree “strongly” with the statement, “If a company has a Facebook page, it means they are interested in what customers have to say.” Another 51 percent agreed “somewhat” with this statement.

    When asked how much they agreed with the statement “If a company has a Facebook page, I tend to think more highly of their products or services,” 9 percent of online Americans agreed “strongly” and another 33 percent agree “somewhat.”

    “Not only is Facebook a valuable tool for gaining feedback, it appears that simply having a Facebook page can enhance consumers’ perceptions of a company’s brand.” said Polaris President Jan Carlson.

    This finding, though, did not vary strongly across demographics. Only males and older respondents (50 years plus) were less likely to agree with the statement “If a company has a Facebook page, it means they are more interested in what customers have to say.” The statement “If a company has a Facebook page, I tend to think more highly of their products and services” showed no variation by respondent demographics.

    Fully 53 percent of online Americans claim to have “liked” a company’s Facebook page in the past 60 days. Conversely, only 15 percent of online Americans indicate that they have “unliked” a company’s Facebook page in the past 60 days.

    “Facebook is an important marketing tool for businesses," Carlson said. "In our survey, in addition to liking companies’ Facebook pages, 25 percent of online Americans had posted a comment to a company’s Facebook page, indicating that Facebook is a valuable source of consumer feedback as well."

    Company Facebook page activity also varied by demographics: 

    • Female respondents were significantly more likely to “like,” “unlike” and comment on a company Facebook page than their male respondent counterparts.
    • Respondents under the age of 35 were significantly more likely to give feedback to companies via their Facebook pages.
    • Income and ethnicity are not related to a respondents likelihood to “like,” “unlike” or comment on a company’s Facebook page.
    • Respondents in the Western U.S. were least likely to “like,” “unlike” or comment on a company’s Facebook page.


    Polaris conducted online surveys with a representative sample of 1,000 U.S. consumers during the week of July 18, 2011.



  • Posted by Jason Hensel at
    12:00AM 08/24/2011 • 0 Comments

    More Flexibility Sought in Workplaces

    Employees place such a high premium on workplace flexibility that 33 percent of them say they would seek employment elsewhere if it wasn't offered—57 percent would be less satisfied with their job, and 45 percent would feel less productive.

    The latest Mobile Workforce Report, published by iPass Inc., showed some other interesting (though, not surprising) results. Of the 3,100 employees surveyed worldwide, 75 percent of employees work more hours due to workshifting (flexible work schedules that enable employees to work wherever and whenever they want). More than half (55 percent) work at least 10 or more additional hours each week as a result of their more flexible schedules, and 12 percent work 20 or more additional hours.

    The report found that 38 percent of employees work before their commute, 25 percent work during their commute, 37 percent work during lunch and 37 percent work at night—each and every day.

    Workers reported that workshifting allows them to be more productive and efficient, with 79 percent reporting increased productivity and 78 percent reporting increased efficiency. In fact, 64 percent of mobile workers also reported improved work-life balance and more than half (51 percent) felt more relaxed because of flexible work.

    “Even though mobile workers are putting in more hours, we are starting to see the pendulum swing back to the center on disconnecting, with 68 percent of mobile workers disengaging from technology occasionally to spend time with their families,” said Barbara Nelson, chief technology officer at iPass. “It appears that the mobile workforce is getting a better hold on their work-life balance.”

    The report also found

    • 47 percent of mobile employees work from home daily, 99 percent at least occasionally. 88 percent of mobile workers report working from the road, 84 percent from a coffee shop and 77 percent outside using a city-mesh Wi-Fi at least on an occasional basis.
    • 40 percent would like a more flexible work environment—even with 95 percent of employees stating that their employers currently either encourage or tolerate workshifting.
    • During vacation, 97 percent of mobile workers stay connected to technology (up from 93 percent in 2010). Nearly all (94 percent) did so at least partly for work.
    • On vacation, 69 percent checked into work at least daily, while 93 percent checked in at least weekly. 41 percent checked in multiple times per day.
    • 52 percent connected during vacation to make sure they didn’t fall behind on work, weren’t overwhelmed upon return to work or to ensure completion of a work project.
    Does your workplace offer flexible work options? Are those kind of options important to you when you seek a job? 


  • Posted by Jason Hensel at
    12:00AM 08/24/2011 • 0 Comments

    Cyberloafing Enhances Work Engagement

    A friend of mine told me the other day that her company blocked employee access to Facebook. I thought, "What kind of Dark Ages is that company living in?!" 

    It's true that excessive Internet browsing at work can cut into your productivity; however, moderate amounts of browsing can actually increase productivity. This is something that we reported on in 2009, and now a new study supports the findings.

    There's a twist, though, via personal emailing.

    "Personal emailing puts employees in a double bind," said the study's authors, Don J. Q. Chen and Vivien K. G. Lim of the National University of Singapore. "First, the compelling need to reply to a received email impedes employees' psychological engagement by affecting their ability to concentrate. Second, when employees reply to these emails, they experience resource depletion, negative affect and workflow disruption."

    Chen and Lim warn employers against excessive monitoring and surveillance of workers' Internet access.

    "Rather than reducing cyberloafing, excessive monitoring increases its frequency, as employees invariably view such policies as a form of mistrust that the company has in them," they said. "In view of this, managers must recognize that blanket policies that prohibit all forms of personal Web usage are ineffective, and excessive monitoring is likely to be counterproductive. Instead, limited amount of personal Web use should be allowed, since it has salubrious impact on employees' productivity."

    The conclusions of the new report emerge from two separate studies, one an experiment with undergraduate management students and the other a survey of working adults.

    In the student experiment, 96 participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups—a control group, a rest-break group and a browsing-the-Internet group. All subjects were first assigned to spend 20 minutes highlighting as many letter e's as they could find in a text of 3,500 words. At the conclusion of this exercise, subjects spent 10 minutes in one of three ways: the control group was assigned a filler task that involved bundling sticks into groups of fives; the rest-break group was free to do anything they wanted except to use the Internet (their activities included visiting the washroom, making phone calls and text-messaging friends); and the third group was allowed 10 minutes to browse pre-selected Web sites including those offering news, social networking, online gaming, entertainment and hobby-related activities.

    Finally, all participants were instructed to spend 10 minutes highlighting as many letter a's as they could find in 2,000 words of text, this final assignment serving as a proxy for productivity. And, before being dismissed, the subjects were asked to complete a post-experimental questionnaire that measured their levels of mental exhaustion, boredom and psychological engagement.

    Chen and Lim reported that participants in the Internet-browsing group were significantly more productive than those in the other two groups, highlighting a mean of 316 letter a's, compared to 272 for the rest-break group and 227 for the control group; in other words, the Internet browsers were 16 percent more productive than the rest-break group and 39 percent more productive than the control group. In addition, compared to both of the other groups, the browsers reported significantly lower levels of mental exhaustion and boredom and significantly higher levels psychological engagement.

    In the second study, randomly selected alumni of a business school were surveyed by mail about their activities at work—specifically the amount of Internet browsing and emailing they did, their psychological engagement with their work and their positive and negative affect, or mental state, immediately after cyberloafing. One hundred ninety-one alumni, about one third of those solicited, mailed in surveys, which revealed the following:

    • Amount of Internet browsing is significantly and positively related to such upbeat mental states as excited, interested, alert and active, and inversely related to such negative mental states as distressed, fearful, hostile and jittery.
    • Amount of emailing activity, in distinct contrast, is significantly related to negative mental states but not to upbeat ones.


    The authors conclude that Internet browsing enhances psychological engagement with work—and possibly job creativity as well—whereas emails "negatively affect employees' ability to concentrate on work."

    Chen and Lim urge companies to "strike a middle ground between work and cyberloafing...allow[ing] for personal Web usage as long as it is in line with business objectives. In light of this study, an acceptable Internet use policy would allow for periodic Web browsing while limiting the access to personal emails."

    As for most things in life, striking a good balance is the key to long-term success. 

    Do you "cyberloaf" at work? How depressed to you get when answering emails? 

    (Story materials provided by the Academy of Management.)



  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Next Page