WorkPuzzle

You Can't Make Me Do That

I ran across an article in The Harvard Business Review last week that I found very intriguing.  The article was written by Dr. Samuel Bowles. 
 
Dr. Bowles is an Economics Professor at the University of Siena and he specializes in the study of how economic issues affect human behavior.  While the financial information is interesting (especially in today’s economic environment), what struck me was the human behavior side of his research.

Dr. Bowles sited two examples where incentives were supposed to produce a desired result, but backfired.  The first example concerned asking people to donate blood.  An English social researcher, Richard Titmuss, first hypothesized in the 1950's that if you offer to pay someone to give blood, the blood supply would be significantly reduced.

At the time, people thought he was crazy, but the research later proved him correct.  Studies have since shown that offering to pay people to give blood, in fact, decreases the number willing to donate by almost half.  In follow-up studies, the same clinics allowed the blood donors to contribute the payment to charity, and the trend was then reversed.

The lesson here is that motivation is a tricky thing to tap.  If you’re a manager or responsible for coaching someone, it is important to learn what motivates people.  What seems intuitive on the surface may not produce the anticipated result.

For this specific case, there is an underlying principle that explains this behavior.  Rather than give you the answer (which I learned by reading the HBR article), I thought I’d give you the opportunity to ponder the puzzle on your own... 

Tomorrow, I'll elaborate with a similar example and connect the dots.

---

Posting Comments:  Have you ever posted a comment on a blog?  If not, you should try it.  It’s a fun way to get involved in the discussion and find out what others are thinking.  If you’re a shy person or want to maintain a higher level of privacy, just use your first name or a screen name.  Your email address will not be visible under any circumstances.  We’ll all benefit from hearing your thoughts.  To post a comment, click the comments tab below this posting.  

The Flip Side of Panic

Do you feel somewhat paralyzed as a result of the current economic downturn?  If you’re an avid reader of this blog, you’re aware that this reaction is normal.  In previous discussions, we’ve addressed how to cope with the intense anxiety and despair that many are feeling due to the current state of affairs, lay-offs, etc.

Panic is designed to help us survive.  Unfortunately, our nervous systems weren’t designed to manage 24/7 media reminders of doom and gloom.  They were designed to help us run from Tigers!  As a result, panic can induce an “out-of-control” feeling in many of us.

What if I told you that you could learn to control panic?  An overwhelming feeling of panic/anxiety can actually be the beginning of a healthy coping process, rather than result in mounting feelings of helplessness.

How do you tame continuous feelings of panic/despair?  The answer comes in understanding that Panic and Reason are on opposite sides of the same continuum.  If you can get your mind to organize, reason, plan, and take action, you can control panic.

Take for instance the recent events on the Hudson River. Under extremely stressful conditions, Captain Sully Sullenberger managed to guide his plane to a safe water landing.

Is he really that different than the rest of us?  Lets take a look:

“It was the worst sickening pit of your stomach, falling through the floor feeling I’ve ever felt in my life.  I knew immediately it was very bad....My initial reaction was one of disbelief.  ‘I can’t believe this is happening. This doesn’t happen to me!' ". (Interview w/ Katie Couric on 60 Minutes)

Asked what he meant by that, Sullenberger said:

"I meant that I had this expectation that my career would be one in which I didn’t crash an airplane.”

So far he is exactly like you and me.  He first felt tremendous panic and disbelief.  If you’ve read my blogs on the Science of Survival, you know that everyone caught in stressful circumstances goes through the grief process.  The difference between those who survive and those who don’t, is how quickly they proceed through the stages.

Sullenberger went through them quickly.  He panicked, was then in Denial (“This isn’t happening to me!”), then Acceptance and finally Action.  He explains:

"The physiological reaction to this was very strong.  I had to force myself to use my training.  It took some concentration, but I forced calm.”

Sullenberger followed this up by telling Katie that he organized his thoughts and carried out action steps.

This is a good example of how the Panic/Reason Response works.  If you can get your mind to organize, plan, and execute, you’ll tip the seesaw toward the healthy side, feel a lot better as a result, and actually do something productive.  Helping your employees and clients learn to siphon through their panic will do you both wonders!  Take some action today rather than staring blindly at the Hudson.

"A Fool with a Plan"

Last week, I had the honor of speaking at the same venue as T. Boone Pickens and Ron Peltier, two very inspiring professionals.

Prudential California Realty (Home Services) hosted their Second Annual Conference in Palm Springs, California. The company’s top 150 agents converged with the intention of networking, sharing successful business practices, and conversing over how to address current challenges.

These high-end Realtors (with commissions over 1 million per year) proved to be a group of highly professional, inquisitive, and confident, yet humble individuals. They have clearly practiced the principles of Survival and Resilience in order to thrive as they have.

The kind of income they make is no accident. These diligent agents practice discipline in executing their well-thought-out business plans. They perform tasks hour-by-hour and day-by-day, to arrive at a successful end-result.

Highlights from listening to the other speakers include:

•T. Boone Pickens stated that “A fool with a plan is better than a genius without a plan.”  He was speaking primarily of a plan to get our country out of our dependence on foreign oil.  He has a great plan that deserves a good look.  You can check it out yourself at www.pickensplan.com

•Ron Pelteir reported that in his last meeting with Warren Buffett, Buffett stated, “We are in an economic Pearl Harbor.”  As a result, he sees valuable purchasing opportunities and has bought without worrying if we are “at a bottom”.  Plain and simple… “value is value”.

During the Q & A part of my own presentation, the discussion focused around my description of the Stages of the Grief Process.  I addressed how agents can help their clients move from the Denial, Pain, Anger and Depression Stages toward the Stage of Acceptance.

Only in the Acceptance Stage can clients make decisions to buy and sell without unnecessarily waiting for the most opportune time.  Clearly, many clients continue to refuse to accept the reality that their homes are not worth what they once were.  Through our discussion, the agents discovered the traits of people who survive and thrive difficult scenarios.

They also learned that educating clients about the Cycle of Grief can have a great benefit.  That is, if you can elicit a confession from the client regarding where they are in The Grief Cycle this might provide the motivation necessary to move beyond the stage they are in, and ultimately arrive at Acceptance.

The agents and I learned a lot from the speakers and from each other…there is so much more I could write about. Thank you to all the participants for inviting me to join you. I had a great time.

The Psychology of Being Laid-Off: Effort and Reward

As many of you know, we work with a lot of real estate companies.  More specifically, we help these companies design their hiring systems to significantly increase the number of candidates they are interfacing with on a weekly basis.

Companies hire us to do this work because, on the surface, it is difficult to successfully attract candidates into an industry that has been so battered and bruised in recent years.  To be successful, we must understand and apply the psychology of work. 

While there is some complexity to how this is done, one principle we observe continually is that people innately want a connection between the effort they put forth and the reward (compensation, recognition, perks, etc.) they receive for completing the job.

When the effort-reward connection is missing, talented people become frustrated and ultimately, dissatisfied with the companies they work for.  We constantly interface with people who have good jobs, excellent educations, and above average competencies, but are deeply frustrated that they are not rewarded for their efforts.

The real estate industry certainly attracts the people who most acutely feel this pain.  However, it should be a red flag to anyone who desires to preserve their job and grow their career.  Why?  Because businesses tend to value people they believe contribute directly to the organization’s success.  That value is communicated through a visible effort-reward relationship.

If you find yourself in a role where you don’t frequently get recognized (via compensation or otherwise), it is an indication that your contribution is not viewed as valuable.  This may lead to you being laid-off if your company needs to cut expenses.

To combat this situation, look for opportunities in your existing organization where your efforts can be noticed and rewarded.  Don’t wait for something to come your way—be proactive and seek out new responsibilities.  Like the principle of autonomy, this is a win-win for you and your employer.  Your personal sense of well-being will increase if you’re appropriately rewarded for your efforts.

If you’ve already been laid-off and you’re looking for a job, consider positions where there is a direct connection between effort and reward.  This may force you to look into some nontraditional areas of employment. 

If you’re willing to consider these nontraditional areas, there is a win-win here as well.  Lots of people shy away from jobs where their performance determines their paycheck.  This means there is less competition for these jobs.  If you’re motivated and “wired” to perform the tasks associated with the job, high performance in such a role can lead to job satisfaction beyond what you’ve experienced in the past.

The Psychologyof Being Laid-Off: Complexity

During any recession, there are a large number of people who “need” a job.  As Abraham Maslow taught us, when there’s a mortgage to pay and kids to feed, the goal of finding self-actualization at work gives way to the need for security.

An employer who is hiring during a time when there is a surplus of talented candidates may be tempted to select people who are exceptionally qualified for a position.  While this certainly makes sense on one level, it is important to understand the need individuals have for complexity in their work.

In past discussions, we’ve explored the principles that allow people to “tap into their best work”.  More specifically, we’ve addressed the concept of psychological flow and how it contributes to an individual’s sense of well-being.

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, the psychologist who studied and popularized the concept of flow, discovered that a balance must be struck between the challenge of a task and the skill of the performer.  If the task is too easy or too difficult, flow cannot occur: 

“A flow experience has to be challenging. Anything that is not up to par is going to be irritating or ignored.” (Interview with Wired Magazine)

It is difficult for a person who is above the "challenge level" of a job to remain engaged in their work over time.  The talented employee, who you thought was perfect for the job, may turn into someone who languishes. 

If you are a hiring manager planning to employ someone who is over-qualified, it would be wise to expand the scope of the new employee’s responsibilities to the place where he or she is experiencing a higher level of complexity.

This same principle applies if you have recently been laid-off and are among the masses of people seeking employment.  At some point, you may be offered a job that is not very challenging. There is a downside to accepting such a role—it won’t be long before you’re bored.

Certainly, there are situations where an individual can’t make the ideal choice.  If you need a job, paying the bills will take priority over landing a job that has the appropriate level of complexity and fulfillment. 

If you’re forced to take a job below your ability level, then quickly and proactively seek out ways to expand the job to your level of complexity.  While this will be good for you own well-being, it will also make you more valuable to your new organization.

Gratitude: What Does the Grinch Know About Work?

Did you know that the science of work has something to say about gratitude?  What your parents taught you about being thankful, has been shown to greatly impact the work environment. 

In the spirit of the season, I thought it appropriate to share the research that relates the benefits we can expect from being grateful.

Selfishness comes naturally to most people. Wishing for more rather than being thankful for what we have is a theme portrayed in nearly every classic holiday film or tale.  Ebenezer Scrooge in A Christmas Carole, George Bailey in It’s a Wonderful Life, and the Grinch in The Grinch who Stole Christmas were all finally saved from their selfish ambition to recognize and savor the smallest treasures of what they had.  

Gratitude can be simply defined  as the acknowledgement and pleasure in having received. For centuries, the topic was ignored by serious scientists because most believed the concept should be left to the realm of philosophers and theologians.

More recently, as serious researchers began studying gratitude in earnest, they found some surprising benefits for both organizations and individuals.

Gratitude is responsible for significant enhancement of mood,  and it increases prosocial behavior (i.e. being kind and doing things for others).

Researcher and professor Dr. Robert A Emmons writes in Positive Organizational Scholarship: The Foundations of a New Discipline:

"The cultivation of gratitude may be important in organizations not only because of the direct effects of improving organizational climate, but also because as a cognitive strategy, gratitude can improve individual well-being and lower toxic emotions in the workplace, such as resentment and envy.

…Studies have shown that employees’ happiness and well-being are associated positively with performance, morale, commitment, and can reduce absenteeism and staff turn-over. The techniques to improve gratitude, a key ingredient in positive emotion, could enhance individual and organizational well-being."

So, regardless of what has happened to our stock portfolios and our balance sheets, perhaps we can remember that the best way to instill well-being to our organizations is to recite the words of George Bailey,

“Hello, Bedford Falls! Merry Christmas, movie house! Merry Christmas, Emporium! Merry Christmas, you wonderful old Building and Loan! Hey! Merry Christmas, Mr. Potter!”

Resilience: Are You Able to Thrive Under Stressful Conditions?

How are you and the people you manage handling this economic downturn?

The research on resilience tells us there are two possible outcomes in responding to the current economic stressors. Either you’ll become stronger and more successful, or you’ll become weaker, less mentally healthy, and less likely to do great things in the future.

Which outcome will best describe you?  The answer to this question will depend on how you’re able to handle job-related stress and whether you can become a resilient person. 

Management consultants Salvatore Maddi and Deborah Khoshaba conducted a 12-year study of the Illinois Bell Telephone (IBT) company staff who were enduring almost constant organizational change during the de-regulation changes in the telephone industry.

Every year for 12 years, 450 IBT employees (including supervisors, managers and executives) were interviewed, evaluated, given psychological tests, and given medical examinations.  While everyone in the organization was feeling stress, almost 50% of those sampled lost their jobs. The purpose of the study was to research how people under job-related stress handled these difficult conditions. 

The research revealed that the employees reacted to the stress in two distinct ways:

• 65% of the employees suffered additional serious stress-related events in their lives such as divorce, heart attacks, depression, anxiety, and drug and alcohol abuse.

• 35% of the employees thrived under the stress.  If they stayed at IBT, they rose to the top of the heap.  If they left, they either started companies of their own or took strategically important employment in other companies.

When the data started to show a distinct difference between the two groups of employees,  the researchers then attempted to quantify what caused a person to be part of the second group. 

In their book, Resilience at Work, the researchers outlined their findings.  A “Resilient Person” is someone who possesses the following three attitudes: commitment, control, and challenge.

“As times get tough, if you hold these attitudes, you'll believe that it is best to stay involved with the people and events around you (commitment) rather than to pull out, to keep trying to influence the outcomes in which you are involved (control) rather than to give up, and to try to discover how you can grow through the stress (challenge) rather than to bemoan your fate.”

In short, their commitment allowed the resilient employees to engage more fully in the job at hand (or with a new opportunity for those who lost their jobs).   This helped them to understand and interpret the events that were having an impact on them.

Their sense of control empowered the resilient employees to consider ways that they could proactively influence the changes that were affecting them. Their less resilient colleagues tended to passively withdraw effort, believing there was little they could do to impact what they believed was their fate.

The resilient employees interpreted the stressors and changes as a challenge, and tended to look for the potential opportunities that change would bring about. They took the outlook that change is an inevitable part of life. It didn’t mean that these people enjoyed the stress, but the positive outlook they took positioned them to keep an eye open for new opportunities.

More tomorrow on how to apply this research to what you’re facing in your workplace...

Editor's Note: 

Much of the above research was accessed through the Center for Confidence and Well-Being.  This organization is a great resource on this topic if you care to learn more on your own.

 

Applying What We Know To Be True

One of the things that most parents attempt to teach their children is to respect the people around them.   Each human being innately possesses value and that value should be appropriately recognized regardless of the circumstances.

It is incriminating to recognize that the rules that seem so obvious in one area of life are easily overlooked in another.  This is true in the hiring process—especially as the economy slips deeper into recession and more people find themselves looking for jobs. 

Note what Business Week  recently reported:

"Advice to companies tempted to play hard ball with job applicants as unemployment rates rise: Think again. Employees who say they were mistreated during hiring feel less committed—for years. Researchers at Vanderbilt University’s Owen Graduate School of Management surveyed roughly 100 MBA graduates about how they were hired by their employers. Those who felt they had been treated unfairly were twice as likely to be looking for opportunities outside their company, says Vanderbilt management professor Ray Friedman, “even after five years.”

This research attaches a tangible result to mistreating people in the hiring process.  But, it also speaks to a broader principle:  violating the rules of human behavior has consequences.  And, these consequences can be both far reaching and long lasting.

We can obviously get ourselves in trouble by not knowing these rules of human behavior.     But even if we understand these rules, recognizing how to apply the rules to the situations we face in our daily lives requires experience, thought, and insight.

With some diligent study and effort, the previous two conditions can be met by most anyone.   But, that’s not the point the Vanderbilt  researchers are making.   He’s cautioning us against developing a disconnect between what we know to be right and the actions we display in the execution of our business activities. 

Finding Universal Rules

The best practices of managing, selling or running companies are often found in the most unlikely places. There’s a harmony in the way the universe is designed that makes a truth in one field transferable to another.

Earlier this year, I read  No Shortcuts to the Top written by one of the top mountaineers in the world, Ed Viesturs. Ed is one of a handful of climbers to have reached the summits of all fourteen 8,000-plus meter peaks, without supplemental oxygen, and lived to tell about it.

Many climbers have made it their goal to achieve the same feat and have either given up or died in the process. As I read his story, I was drawn to the principles by which he lived.  Some of these principles were consciously acknowledged by him and others more unconscious. Together all of them helped contribute to his remarkable success.  Here are some of the principles:

1.  He set goals that challenged the best of who he was. He was intrinsically motivated, following his talents and interests, even when they didn’t pay off financially, for decades.

2.  Instead of being overwhelmed by the apparent “impossibility” of his goal, he would break it down into manageable pieces. Even while on each mountain, he’d refuse to think about how far he had to go; instead he focused every bit of his attention on the next group of rocks, outcropping, or snow drift. Throughout his life, Ed was always doing something to reach his goal.

3.  He surrounded himself with talented people. He did his best to find driven, passionate, contributing, trustworthy individuals for each of the teams on each of his climbs.

4.  Early in his career he concluded that you can’t “conquer the mountain.” He said that those who get caught up in “summit fever” get so fixated on the end goal that  they become blind to signs of danger and refuse to re-assess the needs of the current conditions. Many of these climbers die alone on the summit. The universal truth seems obvious. When someone has the arrogance to place their goals above everyone and everything around them they’ll soon find themselves in a wrestling match with the world that they’re bound to lose. He said that by “listening to the mountain” (meaning conditions, weather, climbing partners health, etc) he has managed not only to survive but eventually reach his goals.

It’s a simple but powerful formula; each of us has an opportunity to apply these universal rules to ourselves and those we manage, in an attempt to try to accomplish something special. Whether you're setting recruiting goals or coaching people to raise their performance level, don’t settle for mediocrity, or accept carelessness. 

I’m currently studying the newest research on motivation and look forward to sharing the findings with you. As a preview, I can tell you that there are proven ways to help create the conditions for high performance. But for now, try to begin to set some high goals, break them down into manageable pieces, and then focus day-to-day on the next snow drift, not the peak.

Relationship Credibility and Recruiting

Recruiting is a tough job.  Without the ability to build credible relationships, it can be near impossible to be successful.

Dave’s comments about Relationship Credibility (yesterday’s blog : http://www.workpuzzle.com/workpuzzle/2008/12/simple-rules-of.html ) were confirmed by some comments from Peter Weddle this week.  Here is part of what Peter said in his newsletter:

“Recruiting is a profession that is most accurately defined as the art of forming honest connections with people so they can be persuaded to do what they don't want to do. Unlike a customer in sales, most of our prospects-and especially the most talented ones-aren't looking for what we have to sell. They are already employed and loath to experience the disruption and stress caused by changing employers. They don't want to "buy" our employer's value proposition, and recruiting techniques alone-even the best ones-won't change their minds. Let me explain what I mean.

The definition above has two parts. Both are essential to success:

•  One part, of course, involves the activity of persuasion. We have to present a compelling argument that our opening is (a) better than any other opening out there-the best talent, after all, has plenty of choices-and (b) that our opening is also worth the hassle of their making a change.

•  The second part involves the activity of forming of honest connections with our prospects. We have to convince them that we (a) understand and respect their unique values, goals and needs-what makes them the talented person they are-and (b) have their best interests at heart.
Good recruiters appreciate the first part of that definition and use Best Practices to execute it. The best recruiters, in contrast, are equally as able to accomplish the first part and devote considerable energy to accomplishing the second part, as well.”

Notice the “secret ingredient” that Peter attributes to great recruiters:  forming honest connections with our prospects.   

These honest connections are built on the what Dave called the “substance” of relationship credibility—learning about the other person’s story and then integrating what we have to offer as recruiters into the person’s big picture.

Of course, the process breaks down without honesty.  As a recruiter, do I really have an opportunity that has the candidate’s best interests at heart? 

If I don’t know the candidate’s story, I can’t honestly answer that question. 

If I put my own interests (just getting the job filled) above the candidate’s interests, then an affirmative answer is not an honest one.

This is difficult set of requirements—maybe that’s why Peter reserves it for “great recruiters.”