It Takes More Than Practice

When to Avoid Face-to-Face Meetings

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

Cross Post: Just a Little Patience

Posted on 2012/10/302012/11/01 by Jason Hensel

If you didn’t know already, I also write for the Dallas Comedy House’s blog, The DCH Rimshot! Yesterday, I wrote something that, while it directed at improvisers, it can be applied to any one who feels like he or she has never been given a fair shot.

Here’s what I wrote:

The other day I was checking out the ol’ Tumblr and came across a post via Improv is Easy citing The Broken Record. The post was about famed improv instructor Mick Napier and a two-word phrase he uses to remind people that improv “is the least important thing we’ll ever do in our lives and that even the name ‘longform’ is imbued with undue importance that impedes our ability to be free and just play.”

The post’s author goes on to write that Napier’s two-word motto will be her two-word motto going forward. After reading it, I believe I’ll make it my motto as well. And you may want to consider it, also.

The part of her post that really hit home was this declaration: “I won’t compare myself to my peers and feel jealous or envious when good things happen to other talented people. I will be patient in my own progress.”

I’ve been involved with DCH for almost three years, and being patient with my progress is something I’ve struggled with. I’m sure many of you have, too. You may see your friends being asked to be part of troupes. You may see others creating cool videos. And you may be wondering why it isn’t “happening” for you.

But you see, everyone’s educational path is different. Some improvisers get it right from the start, while some need more time to grow. The one deciding factor for success, I promise you, is consistent commitment. If you’re serious about the art form and you want to succeed (your definition of success is your own), then don’t worry so much about how well others are doing. Yes, please support them and sincerely congratulate them–we’re all a family here–but stop comparing yourself so much to others. Work on yourself at the pace that is natural for you and your strengths will be noticed.

It’s not a competition at DCH. It’s a group effort toward success. And I know it may sound backwards to say this, but sometimes the best thing you can do for a group is to work on yourself first. You have to be good to help the group be good, and the group can only be as good as the individual members.

I think we can all use a motto that reminds us to just let it go, that some things in life aren’t worth worrying over. That’s something that has taken me many years to understand, and I’m finally getting it.

What’s your life’s motto?

Send to Kindle

How Men and Women Evaluate Glass Cliff Positions

Posted on 2012/10/282012/10/30 by Jason Hensel

Yahoo! hired Marissa Mayer as president and CEO this past summer. Before accepting the position, she was an executive at Google, a very successful company. Yahoo!, though, is experiencing some business pains. Did Mayer take the job because it would be challenging, or did Yahoo! seek her out because feminine leadership traits–such as tact and understanding–are preferred when a company is facing a crisis?

Psychological Science published a new study that answers that question and shows that it’s not the crisis positions that attract women leaders, it’s the social resources attached to the job positions.

The Association for Psychological Science has the rest of the story:

Psychological scientists Floor Rink and Janka Stoker (University of Groningen) and Michelle Ryan (University of Groningen and the University of Exeter) investigated how men and women evaluate these “glass-cliff” positions. The researchers speculated that, all else being equal, women wouldn’t be more attracted to a precarious position, but they would be more sensitive to certain aspects of the position.

Rink and her colleagues hypothesized that, following gender norms, women would be more attentive to communal aspects of precarious leadership roles, focusing on social resources, while men would attend to aspects related to authority and hierarchy, focusing on financial resources.

In the first study, Rink and colleagues asked Dutch business students to imagine working for a large company in financial crisis. They were offered a top leadership position at the hypothetical company, where they would be in charge of resolving the crisis. All of the students read a passage containing information about the social and financial resources that came with the position. One group read that they had employee support (social resources) and financial investment from management (financial resources), a second group read that they had financial investment but no employee support, and a third group read that they had employee support but no financial investment.

Comparing across genders, women generally seemed less likely than men to evaluate any of the positions positively. Yet comparing across the three scenarios, women were particularly less likely to accept the position that lacked social resources, while men were less inclined to accept the position that lacked financial resources, confirming the researchers’ hypotheses.

A second study suggests these findings may have been driven by internalized gender stereotypes about leadership. The researchers found that women viewed employee acceptance as a factor that would lead to influence, while men viewed influence as an attribute that would lead to employee acceptance.

“Since the discovery of the glass cliff, researchers and practitioners have questioned whether women are simply more likely than men to accept precarious leadership positions, thereby–albeit unintentionally–putting themselves at a disadvantage in their careers,” the researchers note. “Our findings make it clear that the glass cliff cannot be attributed to women’s failure to recognize the precariousness of glass-cliff positions.”

Taken together, the findings from the two studies suggest that societal expectations about gender and leadership play a key role in driving women’s and men’s evaluations of glass cliff positions.

The researchers argue that these findings may be useful for organizations searching for new leaders to guide them through crises.

“In order to get the right person for the right job, it is probably important for organizations to recognize which aspects of a crisis they want their future leader to solve and to give him or her the appropriate means with which to do so,” says Rink.

Send to Kindle

How to Ensure Your Baby is CEO Material

Posted on 2012/10/272012/10/29 by Jason Hensel

If I was to have a baby, I’d want the child to grow up to be a musician or a writer or anything in the arts. Sports would be cool, too. But some of you may want your child to grow up to be a CEO. If so, then make sure the baby is born in the spring.

In a study from the Sauder School of Business at the University of British Columbia, babies born in the summer are less likely to be CEOs.

“Our findings indicate that summer babies underperform in the ranks of CEOs as a result of the ‘birth-date effect,’ a phenomenon resulting from the way children are grouped by age in school,” said Sauder Finance Professor Maurice Levi, co-author of the study to appear in the December issue of the journal Economics Letters.

Using hockey as an example, Malcolm Gladwell addressed this same phenomenon in his book Outliers: The Story of Success, summarizing that the reason players are successful is due to the month in which they were born.

For the U.S., school admissions are open between September and January. The study’s researchers discovered that of the 375 CEOs sampled from S&P 500 companies, the ones born between June and July were the youngest in their class. Those born in March and April were the oldest.

“Older children within the same grade tend to do better than the youngest, who are less intellectually developed,” Levi said. “Early success is often rewarded with leadership roles and enriched learning opportunities, leading to future advantages that are magnified throughout life.

“Our study adds to the growing evidence that the way our education system groups students by age impacts their lifelong success,” Levi continued. “We could be excluding some of the business world’s best talent simply by enrolling them in school too early.”

(Story quotes from the University of British Columbia. Image via Flickr: opensourceway / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle

Flirtatious Women Score More

Posted on 2012/10/222012/10/23 by Jason Hensel

Jessie States wrote the following for another blog. I’m posting it on here, because I find that it’s a really interesting study. It’s one of those topics that is known to be true, but quietly ignored in the hopes that it will go away. It won’t go away, though, if it’s not discussed.

Flirtation is an effective way for women to gain negotiating mileage, according to a new study by Haas School of Business Professor Laura Kray. And the whole idea that it works kind of makes my stomach turn. But I get it.

“Women are uniquely confronted with a tradeoff in terms of being perceived as strong versus warm. Using feminine charm in negotiation is a technique that combines both,” said Kray, who holds the Warren E. and Carol Spieker Chair in Leadership at the Haas School.

The study, “Feminine Charm: An Experimental Analysis of its Costs and Benefits in Negotiations,” was published in October in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin and co-authored by Haas Ph.D. alumna Connson C. Locke of the London School of Economics and Haas Ph.D. candidate Alex B. Van Zant.

Flirtation that generates positive results, Kray says, is not overt sexual advances but authentic, engaging behavior without serious intent. In fact, the study found female flirtation signals attractive qualities such as confidence, which is considered essential to successful negotiators.

To determine whether women who flirt are more effective in negotiating than men who flirt, the researchers asked 100 participants to evaluate to what extent they use social charm in negotiation on a one-to-seven scale. Earlier that week, the participants evaluated their partners’ negotiating effectiveness. Women who said they used more social charm were rated more effective by their partners. However, men who said they used more social charm were not regarded as more effective.

In the second experiment, the researchers asked subjects to imagine they were selling a car worth US$1,200 and asked for how much would they sell the car. Next, the subjects read one of two scenarios about a potential buyer named Sue.

The first group meets Sue, who shakes hands when she meets the seller, smiles, and says, “It’s a pleasure to meet you,” and then “What’s your best price?” in a serious tone. The second group reads an alternate scenario in which Sue greets the seller by smiling warmly, looking the seller up and down, touching the seller’s arm, and saying, “You’re even more charming than over email,” followed by a playful wink and asking, “What’s your best price?”

The result? Male sellers were willing to give the “playful Sue” more than $100 off the selling price whereas they weren’t as willing to negotiate with the “serious Sue.” Playful Sue’s behavior did not affect female car sellers. Kray says many of her students who are senior women executives admit they love to flirt and describe themselves as “big flirts.” Kray maintains flirting is not unprofessional if it remains playful and friendly.

“The key is to flirt with your own natural personality in mind. Be authentic. Have fun,” Kray said. “That will translate into confidence, which is a strong predictor of negotiation performance.”

Read the full paper here.

Send to Kindle

Review: Imagine

Posted on 2012/01/02 by Jason Hensel

There was much talk about innovation and creativity in 2011. In fact, I heard or saw the word innovation so much that its mention would bring on waves of hostility in me. Everyone talked about it, making it not, well, very innovative.

Most writers were telling you what to do to be innovative or creative. Rarely did you read why it happens. It’s as most people wanted to jump to instruction without knowing reason.

That’s where Imagine: How Creativity Works by Jonah Lehrer comes in. As with his previous book, How We Decide, Lehrer explores the basis of a brain function that everyone wants to know about. Yes, he does offer creativity advice, but he bases it in reason. You have to know the hows and whys before you can know the whats.

Lehrer leads readers through many examples of innovation and creativity, touching on everything from how Bob Dylan found his writing muse to how no-wrong-answers brainstorming doesn’t work in the long run to the benefits of living in a city. And he keeps your interest, because he’s a great storyteller who asserts authority. He doesn’t just report research; he guides with pristine narrative.

“The Power of Q” chapter is one of the more interesting sections. It’s about socialist Brian Uzzi and his study of Broadway musicals, about why some are successful and some are not. Uzzi found that successful productions needed a certain amount of people who have known each other for a long time and a certain amount who are new to the operation. In other words, a sweet spot of social intimacy is needed.

The reason I found this chapter interesting is because around the same time I was reading it, the Dallas Mavericks were restructuring their championship team, losing several players that helped them win it all last season. I’ve always been one that feels you don’t break up the house, you keep teams together for the long-term in order to ensure yearly success. After reading this chapter, though, I’m thinking differently about teams (sports or work). Perhaps it is best that the Mavericks shook things up, bringing in some new faces to play with a few of the old-timers. (However, maybe it’s not working; the Mavericks are 1-4 at the time of this review.)

What Lehrer suggests–and something he consistently suggests in his writings–is that you should know yourself best. Find what works for you, because for every piece of research saying one thing, there will be another saying the opposite. Maybe you work better getting away from a problem. Or maybe you work better with a group. However you work best, identify that and edge toward it. That is where you’ll find your creativity. For you see, science is primarily about paying attention, and until you pay attention to yourself first, nothing will change. Lehrer’s latest book is a great tool toward this needed self-consciousness in society.

(Houghton Mifflin Harcourt will publish Imagine: How Creativity Works by Jonah Lehrer in March 2012.)

Send to Kindle

Hit That Perfect Beat

Posted on 2011/12/202011/12/20 by Jason Hensel

A former band mate of mine once told me he would be happy to have a one-hit wonder. I thought he was crazy. I wanted a long life full of hits (and fame and groupies and all that comes with the rock-n-roll lifestyle). One-hit wonders seemed so fleeting and defining.

Besides, a musician doesn’t set out to write one hit song and then retire for life. If that happened, hit songs would be easy to craft and more people would do it.

But stop the record. A new study has found what it takes for a song to be a hit. University of Bristol researchers claim that predictions can be made using machine learning algorithms.

The team looked at the official U.K. top 40 singles chart over the past 50 years. Their aim was to distinguish the most popular (peak position top five) songs from less popular singles (peak position 30 to 40).

The researchers used musical features such as, tempo, time signature, song duration and loudness. They also computed more detailed summaries of the songs such as harmonic simplicity, how simple the chord sequence is, and non-harmonicity, how ‘noisy’ the song is.

A ‘hit potential equation’ that scores a song according to its audio features was devised. The equation works by looking at all the U.K. hits for a certain time and measuring their audio features. From this the researchers had a list of weights, telling then how important each of the 23 features was and allowing them to compute a score for a song.

The researchers classified songs as hits or not-hits based on their scores. The team had a 60 percent accuracy rate and noticed some interesting trends.

Before the 1980s, the danceability of a song was not very relevant to its hit potential. From then on, danceable songs were more likely to become a hit. Also the average danceability of all songs on the charts suddenly increased in the late 1970s.
In the 1980s, slower musical styles (tempo 70-89 beats per minute), such as ballads, were more likely to become a hit.
The prediction accuracy of the researchers’ hit potential equation varies over time. It was particularly difficult to predict hits around 1980. The equation performed best in the first half of the 1990s and from the year 2000. This suggests that the late 1970s and early 1980s were particularly creative and innovative periods of pop music.
Up until the early 1990s , hits were typically harmonically simpler than other songs of the era. On the other hand, from the 1990s onward hits more commonly have simpler, binary, rhythms such as 4/4 time.
On average, all songs on the chart are becoming louder. Additionally, the hits are relatively louder than the songs that dangle at the bottom of the charts, reflected by a strong weight for the loudness feature.

You can read more about the research at ScoreaAHit.

My favorite trend is the part about the late 1970s and early 1980s as periods of more creative and innovative music. I definitely agree with that.

Now, if you’ll pardon me, I have a hit song to write. The secret formula has been found.

(Photo via Flickr: Paul Townsend / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle

Real Leaders Embrace Dissension

Posted on 2011/10/21 by Jason Hensel

I’ve been thinking a lot about dissension and its role in business. It appears that most leaders avoid it at all costs, especially from customers. Or if we’re talking about associations, if you don’t march in time with the brand, you’re labeled a traitor.

However, as Howard Zinn, U.S. historian and activist, said, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”

So, why would leaders be afraid of those who offer contradictory opinions?

The answer is simple: Ego. Most leaders take to the notion that they’re “leading.” And by “leading,” that means their word is final, their roads in the woods the only ones to walk.

But what about the loyal customer or the long-time member who offers a different opinion? Shouldn’t she be listened to, as well?

Yes! More often than not, though, she is not listened to. That person is dismissed as a rebel rouser, someone out to undercut the business.

But what if that person has been a loyal customer or a renewing association member year after year? Maybe she is really out to help the company. Maybe that person put a lot of time and money into something she feels like she “owns”?

I think leaders are short-sighted to ignore these “owners.” They’re probably more invested in the company than managers or board members, who may be in the business for a quick buck or to pad their resumes.

Real leaders embrace contradictory opinions. They know how to engage. They build up rather than put down. If you’re afraid of a little criticism, you’re not a real leader.

(Photo credit via Flickr: Romain Rolland / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle

Practice May Not Be Perfect

Posted on 2011/10/17 by Jason Hensel

One of my goals this year is to write more so that I can become a better writer. If I’m not writing on 750words.com, then I’m doing my best to write at least 20 minutes a day.

Why do I do this? Well, I love writing; however, I also know that practice makes perfect. Or so I thought.

Now comes along Zach Hambrick from the University of Michigan. He says that working memory capacity may be what ultimately makes a person great.

“While the specialized knowledge that accumulates through practice is the most important ingredient to reach a very high level of skill, it’s not always sufficient,” said Hambrick, associate professor of psychology. “Working memory capacity can still predict performance in complex domains such as music, chess, science and maybe even in sports that have a substantial mental component such as golf.”

Hambrick says that when someone such as Malcolm Gladwell writes that practice is what separates those who are good and great, he’s wrong.

“The evidence is quite clear: A high level of intellectual ability puts a person at a measurable advantage–and the higher the better.”

However, it’s still not known if a person can improve his general intelligence, because a lot of it based in genetics and environments.

“We hold out hope that cognitive training of some sort may produce these benefits,” Hambrick said. “But we have yet to find the magic bullet.”

Until then, I’ll keep practicing.

Which do you find makes you greater in your chosen pursuit: intelligence or practice?

(Photo credit via Flicker: Alastair McDermott / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle

The Value of Quitting

Posted on 2011/10/05 by Jason Hensel

I love to read books. For the longest time, I would read five books at a time, switching among each one depending on my mood. Over time, though, I felt like I wasn’t reading as much (not true) or concentrating on each book as much (somewhat true). So, I decided to force myself to read one book at a time and give it my full attention.

I’ve been satisfied with this strategy for the most part. However, when I decide to read a book and I end up not liking it after 20 or so pages, I feel terrible about wanting to give up on it. I fall into the old trap that I should finish what I started, that winners never quit.

You should embrace quitting, though. Learning when to quit can make you more successful in the long run. Here’s Stephen J. Dubner, co-author of Freakonomics, on the upside of quitting.

So I hang out with a lot of economists. (I know, you’re envious.) But there are two things they love to talk about that will help us understand quitting. One is called “sunk cost” and the other is “opportunity cost.” “Sunk cost” is about the past — it’s the time, or money, or sweat equity that you’ve put into something, which makes it hard to abandon. “Opportunity cost” is about the future. It means that for every hour or dollar you spend on one thing, you’re giving up the opportunity to spend that hour or dollar on something else — something that might make your life better. If only you weren’t so worried about the sunk cost. If only you could quit.

The “sunk cost” is what hurts us most of the time. It’s living in the past instead of the now or the future. It’s a cause of most of our worries.

These past couple of weeks, I started three different books that looked great. Upon reading, they were real stinkers. I started to worry that maybe I was quitting too soon, that I wasn’t giving the book its due. That’s absurd on one level, because a book is an inanimate object. But it’s more absurd that I worried about quitting something that wasn’t making me happy. I found myself in a worry spiral, and the only way to get out of it was to quit.

Dubner goes on to say:

Of course it takes tremendous amounts of time and effort and, for lack of a more scientific word, stick-to-itiveness, to make any real progress in the world. But time and effort and even stick-to-itiveness are not in infinite supply. Remember the opportunity cost: every hour, every ounce of effort you spend here cannot be spent there. So let me counter Napoleon Hill’s phrase with another one, certainly not as well known. It’s something that Stella Adler, the great acting coach, used to say: Your choice is your talent. So choosing the right path, the right project, the right job or passion or religion — that’s where the treasure lies; that’s where the value lies. So if you realize that you’ve made a wrong choice — even if already you’ve sunk way too much cost into it — well, I’ve got one word to say to you, my friend. Quit.

Exactly. Why continue when you know you’re going to fail? Quit and move on to something that you know will be more successful. Myself, I started to read another book, The Harvard Psychedelic Club. It’s fun to read, interesting, and, more important, it makes me happy.

How easy is it for you to happily cut your loses and move on as quick as possible? Or do you have difficulty quitting things?

(Photo credit via Flickr: Frits Ahlefeldt-Laurvig / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle