The Harmony of Blending

Ugly Employees Are Targets of Abuse at Work

Posted on 2013/09/302014/01/16 by Jason Hensel

Looks shouldn’t matter, but they do, especially in the workplace. That’s the conclusion two researchers came to in a study about counterproductive work behavior (CWB), defined as “behavior intended to hurt the organization or other members of the organization.” They wanted to know why particular employees are targets of abuse.

“Over the years, much attention has been devoted to understanding CWB and its related concepts,” wrote Brent A. Scott and Timothy A. Judge in “Beauty, Personality, and Affect as Antecedents of Counterproductive Work Behavior Receipt.” “We tested a model that positioned CWB receipt as a function of employees’ personality (neuroticism, agreeableness), their appearance (physical attractiveness) and the negative emotions felt toward those employees by their coworkers.”

Two studies showed that disagreeable and physically unattractive employees received more abuse from their coworkers, coworker negative emotion felt toward employees was associated with CWB receipt, and the relationship between employee agreeableness and CWB receipt was due, in part, to coworker negative emotion, the authors write.

“For managers, knowing who the targets of harmful behaviors such as CWB are likely to be may help them to monitor susceptible employees to prevent them from becoming victims or to provide counseling and social support if prevention attempts fail,” Scott and Judge wrote. “For employees, although it is difficult to alter one’s physical attractiveness and, presumably, one’s level of agreeableness, employees should realize that, whether fair or unfair, appearances and personality matter in the workplace.”

(Image via Flickr: Lin Pernille Kristensen/Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle

What Change Are You Trying to Make In People?

When to Avoid Face-to-Face Meetings

Nom nom nom. Eating peanuts at my desk by slworking2

5 Foods to Improve Brainpower and Productivity

What's Your Motivation? by opensource.com

How Do You Define Good Leadership?

Do You Know What’s Expected of You at Work?

Posted on 2013/02/252013/02/26 by Jason Hensel

A new study from Florida State University shows that less than 20 percent of employees feel certain they know what is expected of them at work. The majority of respondents reported different levels of accountability, anywhere from “some” to “complete” ambiguity.

Assessing more than 750 blue- and white-collar workers in a variety of jobs, the researchers asked first how many employees don’t know what they’re accountable for, and second, what work was like for those who knew what was expected of them compared to those who didn’t. There were considerable differences between those who knew and those who didn’t.

For example, employees uncertain of work expectations reported:

60 percent higher levels of mistrust with leadership as it relates to communication.
50 percent higher levels of overall work frustration.
45 percent less control regarding the best way to complete their work.
40 percent higher levels of work overload.
35 percent fewer work accomplishments to the organization.
33 percent less social and resource support from one’s immediate supervisor.
33 percent greater likelihood of searching for a new job within the next year.
25 percent more job neglect (slacking off, slowing down).

“When employees aren’t sure what’s expected of them, the results simply just cannot be positive, especially when the complexity of work and the pace of change is taken into consideration,” said research associate Allison Batterton.

The reason workers don’t understand what’s expected of them is because of management’s failure to be forthcoming and proactive with communication, most employees say.

“It seems the more that communication is needed, the less likely it is provided — no wonder so many employees feel completely lost at work these days,” said Wayne Hochwarter, the Jim Moran Professor of Business Administration in Florida State University’s College of Business.

The researchers offered four tips to deal with accountability issues:

Set up a formal communication system using the most current and user-friendly technology, and make sure all employees are able to use it effectively.
Make employee accountability part of both the supervisor’s and employee’s performance evaluation.
Develop informal accountability networks (i.e., buddy system) that allow employees real-time access to information needed to effectively focus attention on tasks considered most important for that particular day (or hour).
Make accountability proactive rather than reactive.

“Most employees want to do a good job and contribute to their organization,” Hochwarter said. “Perhaps it’s overly simplistic, but this can only take place when employees know what’s expected. Sadly, many do not, and the situation appears to be getting worse rather than better.”

Do you know what’s expected of you at work?

(Story materials from Florida State University/Barbara Ash. Image via Flickr: DailyM/Creative Commons.)

Send to Kindle

Adaptability Linked to Staff Retention

Posted on 2013/02/222013/02/22 by Jason Hensel

Interests change over the course of a career. What you’re passionate about now, you may hate a year later. This change of focus shouldn’t be viewed negatively, though. It’s actually a sign of adaptability, and it should be considered in job evaluations, according to a study from the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management and published in Human Performance.

The study looked at statistics from professional basketball players for its data and conclusions.

Researchers assessed data on more than 700 members of the NBA to see how players shifted their focus on different on-court skills and tasks over several years. A player displaying high performance scoring baskets in one season might show a shift in focus towards rebounding missed shots in another season. That could be because they were responding to a shift in their team’s needs and/or a change in their coach’s instructions.

Researchers found that about 10 percent of players refocused their efforts over time and were more likely to play again for the league in the next season. The findings support the idea that refocusing among job tasks is an important component of employee adaptability and should be a part of overall performance assessments. As well, they suggest that adaptability is linked to staff retention.

“Our paper is drawing attention to the measurement of performance, that refocusing is something that’s important in the workplace, exists in the workplace, and for organizations to think about it as part of the job, ” said Maria Rotundo, a professor at the Rotman School.

Rotundo is aware of the differences between sports and workplaces.

But “there are parallels,” too, she says, including the fact that NBA athletes are focused on a goal and must work together as a team to achieve it as they confront the different opponents. In the same way, employees in a company must work together to face market competitors and achieve their company’s goals. And just like basketball players who go through changes in their team’s make-up, many workplace staff must adapt to changes brought on by restructuring or the adoption of new technologies, requiring a refocus in their job’s tasks.

How easily do you adapt to changes in the workplace? Does your focus change year over year?

(Story materials from University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management. Image via Flickr: Keith Allison / Creative Commons.)

Send to Kindle

Are You a But Leader?

Posted on 2013/01/212013/01/23 by Jason Hensel

The first rule of improv is “yes and.” There are other rules, or rather guidelines, however “yes and” is the one and only rule that truly matters. Without agreeing to the reality presented to you, progress trips over itself, and you and your co-performer are left staring at each other.

Much like improv performers, company leaders and managers should learn the “yes and” rule and stick it in their hearts. I’m flabbergasted at the number of times over the years I’ve experienced a “yes but” manager. Maybe there’s a “yes but” class at MBA schools, or maybe mentors train managers in the art of “yes but.”

Stop the “yes but” cycle of abuse, I say!

No one likes to have an idea agreed to with conditions. When you do that, you stop progress. The employee starts immediately placing restrictions on ideas. It’s more fruitful to agree and add to the proposal.

Of the following examples, tell me which is better:

Employee: “I plan to recycle all the aluminum cans in the break room.”
Manager: “Great, but that’s a lot of cans and you’ll have to do it all yourself.”

Employee: “I plan to recycle all the aluminum cans in the break room.”
Manager: “Great, and I know a place you can take them that offers the most money.”

If you’re truly a leader, or want to be one, you’ll see the benefit of contributing to an idea and moving forward rather than holding back and letting fear, doubt, or pessimism dictate your decisions.

The great improv teacher Del Close once said to “follow the fear.” What he meant by that is you should go toward what makes you uncomfortable, do things that scare you. For a lot of leaders, agreeing to an idea wholeheartedly scares the snot out of them. That’s exactly what they should do, though. Agreement isn’t the endgame, however. You have to add to the conversation, move it forward.

Do me a favor. This week, with everyone you interact with, make “yes and” a part of every conversation. It will seem uncomfortable and forced at first. Over time, though, it will become instinctual. After the week is over, reflect and let me know if you feel happier with your decisions and that life is moving forward.

If you’re creating an atmosphere of agreement, I can guarantee that your employees will agree to follow you. If you’re a but leader, though, employees will find any excuse to counter your decisions. Don’t be a “yes but” leader. Be a “yes and” leader.

(Image via Flickr: visualpun.ch / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle

Five Ways to Have Happy Employees

Posted on 2013/01/152013/01/15 by Jason Hensel

Fast Company recently published an article by Lydia Dishman titled “The Secrets of America’s Happiest Companies.” Dishman covers a lot of ground about the ways different companies keep employees happy. For those that like bullet lists, though, she broke it down to five good best practices.

Variety: Happy employees experience different roles within the company, which can create a feeling of improvement.
Meaning: Employees want to feel like they’re making a difference in the world, or at least for their company.
Praise: Employees like regular praise and public acknowledgement for a great job.
Individual: A people-first policy will go a long way in keeping employees happy. No more widget makers. They want recognition as humans.
Integration: The term “work-life balance” is no longer applicable in the 21st century. Focus on how to reasonably integrate work and life within an employee’s daily activities.

Check out the full article for more about how to keep employees happy, and let me know in the comments what makes you happy at work.

(Image via Flickr: Dice.com / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle

You’re More Creative When Bored at Work

Posted on 2013/01/092013/01/10 by Jason Hensel

I would never say I’m bored at work (hey, boss!), but I will say that there are times when my productivity voyage encounters the horse latitudes.

That’s not a bad thing, because according to a recent study, boredom at work can increase creativity since it gives us an opportunity to daydream.

Dr. Sandi Mann and Rebekah Cadman, both from the University of Central Lancashire, presented the study this week at the Annual Conference of the British Psychological Society Division of Occupational Psychology at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, Chester.

They conducted two studies. The first one asked 40 people to complete a boring task (transcribing numbers from a telephone book) for 15 minutes. They were then asked to complete another task (imagining various uses for a pair of Styrofoam cups). This second task evaluated their creativity.

The results showed that those who transcribed telephone numbers were more creative in their uses of the cups than a control group that just worked on the cups.

The second study investigated the role of daydreaming by adding a different boring job to a group. Thirty people transcribed telephone numbers; however, another group of 30 participants read the numbers rather than write them.

Mann and Cadman found that the reading group was more creative than those who had to write the numbers out. This raises the possibility that boring tasks, “like reading or perhaps attending meetings,” leads to more creativity.

“Boredom at work has always been seen as something to be eliminated, but perhaps we should be embracing it in order to enhance our creativity,” Mann said. “What we want to do next is to see what the practical implications of this finding are. Do people who are bored at work become more creative in other areas of their work–or do they go home and write novels?”

When I read all day at work, the last thing I want to do is go home and work with words more. That’s just that immediate day, though. During work lulls, I do come up with ideas that turn into writing projects at a later time, so maybe there is something to this study.

Are you more creative when you’re bored at work?

(Story materials from the British Psychological Society. Image via Flickr: eggmergency / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle

Greed Is More Often Paid Forward Than Generosity

Posted on 2013/01/022013/01/02 by Jason Hensel

Paying it forward is a great concept and one that should be practiced more often. However, it’s more common to find people repaying greed with greed.

“The idea of paying it forward is this cascade of goodwill will turn into a utopia with everyone helping everyone,” said lead researcher Kurt Gray, PhD. “Unfortunately, greed or looking out for ourselves is more powerful than true acts of generosity.”

The study, published online in the American Psychological Association’s Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, is the first of its kind to examine the notion of paying forward generosity, equality, or greed.

“The bulk of the scientific research on this concept has focused on good behavior, and we wondered what would happen when you looked at the entire gamut of human behaviors,” said Gray, an assistant professor of social psychology at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, who conducted the study with researchers at Harvard University.

According to the study:

In five experiments involving money or work, participants who received an act of generosity didn’t pay generosity forward any more than those who had been treated equally. But participants who had been the victims of greed were more likely to pay greed forward to a future recipient, creating a negative chain reaction. Women and men showed the same levels of generosity and greed in the study.

In one experiment, researchers recruited 100 people from subway stations and tourist areas in Cambridge, Mass., to play an economic game. They told participants that someone had split $6 with them and then gave them an envelope that contained the entire $6 for a generous split, $3 for an equal split, or nothing for a greedy split. The participants then received an additional $6 that they could split in another envelope with a future recipient, essentially paying it forward.

Receiving a generous split didn’t prompt any greater generosity than receiving equal treatment, but people who received nothing in the first envelope were more likely to put little or nothing in the second envelope, depriving future recipients because of the greed they had experienced. The average amount paid forward by participants who received a greedy split was $1.32, well below an equal split of $3.

The results confirmed the researchers’ hypothesis that greed would prevail because negative stimuli have more powerful effects on thoughts and actions than positive stimuli. Focusing on the negative may cause unhappiness, but it makes sense as an evolutionary survival skill, Gray said. “If there is a tiger nearby, you really have to take notice or you’ll get eaten,” he said. “If there is a beautiful sunset or delicious food, it’s not a life-or-death situation.”

The study also examined whether people would have similar reactions involving work rather than money. In one online experiment, researchers told 60 participants that four tasks needed to be completed, including two easy word association games and two boring, repetitive tasks that involved circling vowels in dense Italian text. They explained to the participants that someone had already split the work with them, leaving them the two fun tasks in a generous split, one fun task and one boring task in an equal split, or both boring tasks in a greedy split. The participants then had to complete those tasks and split an additional four tasks with a future recipient. The results were the same, with greed being paid forward more than generosity.

“We all like to think that being generous will influence others to treat someone nicely, but it doesn’t automatically create a chain of goodwill,” Gray said. “To create chains of positive behavior, people should focus less on performing random acts of generosity and more on treating others equally — while refraining from random acts of greed.”

(Story materials from the American Psychological Association. Image via Flickr: Scabeater / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle