“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”

Albert Einstein

How trusting are you?

Here is a quick quiz to test your level of trust:

1. I usually count the number of items in another person’s cart when I stand in the 10 item or less express lane at the grocery market.

True or False

2. I usually remove my automatic garage opener from my car when I valet park.

True or False

3. I always double check my bill at restaurants when it is given to me.

True or False

4. I always cut up and discard old credit cards after they have expired.

True or False

5. When colleagues at meetings are text messaging, I often think they are writing about me.

True and False

You probably want a scoring key right? In fact, you probably trusted me to provide you with some interpretation of how trusting you really are based on these questions. OK, your scores range from gulible to paranoid (if you also heard voices while taking this trust quiz please don’t contact me).

Trust involves numerous aspects of our daily lives, from work interactions, business dealings and interpersonal interactions with family and friends. Exactly why we trust some in certain instances but not others is really not understood very well. Surveys of trustworthiness show enormous differences across countries, from 3% in Brazil to 65% in Scandanavian countries such as Norway.

We trust leaders who create a compelling vision of a better future. We also tend to trust cult leaders, sociopaths and executives who seem to ultimately lack a moral compass. Why do some leaders play better with others?

Could there be a biological basis for trust?

In some absolutely fascinating research headed by Dr. Paul Zak who is founding Director of the Center for Neuroeconomics Studies and Professor of Economics at Claremont Graduate University these questions are being asked — and answered¹.

Zak has designed a series of studies to explore why some people are indeed more collaborative, cooperative and trusting of others. In his studies trust and trustworthiness are measured using a sequential anonymous “trust game” with monetary payoffs between participants. In his first set of studies Zak demonstrated that participants who were most interpersonal trusting had a significantly higher level of a pro-social peptide in their blood called oxytocin (the same hormone associated with the “tend and befriend” stress effect I wrote about in an earlier blog).

This is a wild finding but nothing compared to his second round of studies where he provided extraneous oxytocin to one group using nasal spray of the peptide (and verified through blood tests that it was indeed elevated) and a placebo to another group and had them repeat the “trust game.” In this study, the group with elevated oxytocin levels demonstrated signifcantly higher levels of collaboration compared to the placebo controls².

In the study, the participants were paired up, and one person in each pair was randomly assigned to play the role of an “investor” and the other to play the role of a “trustee.” Each participant received 12 tokens, valued at 32 cents each and redeemable at the end of the study.

The investor in each pair decided how many tokens to give to the trustee. Both participants, sitting face to face, knew that the experimenters would quadruple that investment. The trustee then determined whether to keep the entire, enhanced pot or give some portion of the proceeds —- whatever amount seemed fair back to the investor.

Among the investors who had inhaled oxytocin, about 50% gave all their tokens to trustees, and most of the rest contributed a majority of their tokens. In contrast, only 20% of investors who had inhaled a placebo spray gave up all their tokens. Oxytocin influenced only investors. Trustees returned comparable amounts of money after inhaling either spray.

We are collaborating with Paul in a new study exploring trust and resilience using a specific scale from our StressScan assessment called Cognitive Hardiness. This scale measures leaaders who perceive change as a challenge rather than a threat, feel a sense of control over the outcomes of their actions, have high self-esteem and are socially oriented. I will let you know in a future post what we learn.

For now, if I could find a way to create a cologne that emotionally incompetent leaders would smell, organizations might not only run with a lot less conflict but we might even enjoy working with those competent jerks a whole lot more….Be well….

Technorati Tags: pro-social peptide, trust, oxytocin, neurobiology of trust, immune system, health promotion programs, employee wellness, stress management, psychoneuroimmunology, collaboration, team work, neuroeconomics, altruism, kenneth nowack, ken nowack, nowack

1. Zak,P., Kurzban, R., and Matzner, W. (2005). HORMONES AND BEHAVIOR. 48, 522 – 527 [↩]
2. Zak,P., Kurzban, R., and Matzner, W. (2004). The Neurobiology of Trust. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1032: 224-227 (2004). doi: 10.1196/annals.1314.025 Copyright © 2004 by the New York Academy of Sciences 7 [↩]

HOT READS FOR THE PRACTITIONER

Title: Linkage Training Workshops

Competency: coaching

Who benefits: internal and external coaches, managers and supervisors as coaches

Consultant Usage: sharpen you coaching skills

What’s it about? I like Linkage Training programs.  I am not shooting for originality today, so I will just paste in what they write about themselves.  I will only add that in my experience it is a very accurate description:

“Every Linkage training program includes a set of proven and practical tools to increase your confidence level in specific skill-sets. You’ll learn from Linkage’s team of top-notch consultants on the latest techniques and approaches. And, to drive home the learning, all the programs offer a highly interactive forum with role playing, simulations, case studies, and action planning based on real-life business challenges.”

I know that a lot of you readers are in the coaching biz, either formally or informally, so I thought I would acquaint you with some of their coaching workshops.

Coaching for Business Leaders: “This program is specifically designed to train business directors and front-line managers on how to coach their direct reports and teams to high levels of performance to achieve critical business objectives.”  This program is coming soon to Chicago and Boston.

Coaching Leaders Certification Program: “During this intensive program, participants will learn the four stages of Linkage’s proven Coaching Leaders Model™. Throughout the program,coaches will learn how to use key tools to expedite and sustain the coaching process, along with exploring information-gathering techniques and assessments. A detailed coaching simulation on day three allows participants to apply their learnings to a live situation—all while gaining feedback from the Master Coach and peers.”

Advanced Coaching Skills Lab: “This program, led by Linkage’s Master Coaches, focuses on in-depth exercises to further improve critical coaching competencies. Throughout the program,advanced-level coaches engage in discussions on enabling your coachees to execute on their action plan and make the behavioral changes to get results. This program also includes a detailed coaching simulation that enables participants to gain feedback from the Master Coach and peers.”

In addition, there are some specialty and elearning programs that may be of interest to a more limited audience.  Check out the Title link above for more information.

Catch you later. 

Technorati Tags: coaching, executive coaching, coaching skills, advanced coaching skills, linkage, linkageinc, bill bradley, william bradley, bradley

“Honesty may be the best policy, but it’s important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.”

George Carlin

I think we can all agree that we’d like leaders (and all talent) to possess a high degree of trustworthiness, honesty and integrity. If only we could figure out the best way to measure and predict these traits in leaders!

A sizeable body of research has accumulated on honesty/integrity assessments and a fairly recent issue of Personnel Psychology contains the fifth in a series of comprehensive reviews on the “state of the art” of testing in this area¹.

In general, integrity and honesty tests can be “overt” (e.g., theft attitudes and admissions of wrongdoing) or “covert” (typically personality based assessments attempting to get at underlying traits and qualities that might predict dishonesty, counterproductive work behavior, etc.).

Four highlights of this wonderful update are worth noting:

1. Honesty/Integrity Assessments Do Predict Counterproductive Behavior: More research suggests that these tests do a pretty good job of predicting fraud, theft, stealing, absenteeism and even academic cheating.

2. Peers May Be Valuable at Predicting Integrity: Some recent research has found that peer reported integrity correlate with interview ratings of integrity (r = .28).

3. You Can Fake Honesty Tests But Not Much Evidence that Leaders Actually Do: One interesting finding in this review suggests that “coaching” someone to fake one of these assessments is really no more effective than asking a respondent to fake. Even more interesting are questions that are invasive in nature: items rated as more private and invasive are less fakable.

4. Integrity Assessments Tend to Engender More Negative Reactions Than Other Types (e.g., personality, interviews): In previous research even graphology (handwriting analysis) had a better image but as the authors point out this often cited study might be hard to generalize since it was based on “perceptions” of which selection approach was most favorable.

Implications for Leadership and Talent Management Selection:

1. Maybe more talent management/succession ratings should consider including peer ratings specific to “integrity” of future leaders.

2. Most unstructured interview processes don’t add much to predicting future leadership success–they have poor “incremental validity” beyond personality and intelligence (OK, I know everyone uses them anyway) so maybe more time should be spend trying to measure key relationship intelligence and collaboration factors that are negatively associated with counterproductive work behaviors.

3. Double check references and focus on peer ratings for supplementing data you have on “handicapping” leadership success and future performance.

4. Most of the current generation “five factor” personality inventories don’t explain much variance in predicting honesty so it’s best to use both an overt personality measure (e.g., “Big 5″ assessment) and covert honesty test to do a better job of predicting dishonesty and counterproductive behavior in applicants at all levels.

5. Get to know candidates outside the formal application process and work setting. The game of “mutual seduction” is pretty compelling and with the current leadership pipeline shortage everyone tells each other what they want to hear. You learn alot about a person outside the formal selection interviews so take a walk and head to lunch to learn more about their experiences, passions and signature strengths.

If you haven’t heard, a fairly recent study study for the Center for Academic Integrity at Duke University found 56 percent of MBA students acknowledged cheating, compared with 54 percent in engineering, 48 percent in education and 45 percent in law school. Maybe we need to start earlier in the honesty/integrity assessment process…..Be well….

Technorati Tags: interviews, integrity, honesty, counterproductive work behaviors, dishonesty, theft, cheating, absenteeism, performance, kenneth nowack, ken nowack, nowack

1. Berry, C., Sackett, P. & Wieman, S. (2007). A review of recent developments in integrity test research. Personnel Psychology, 60, 271-301 [↩]

 HOT READS FOR THE PRACTITIONER

Title: New Books from Jossey-Bass  

Competencies: achievement orientation, engenders trust, team/interpersonal support, building strategic relationships, self-development

Who benefits: individual employees, team leaders,

Consultant Usage: staying current in area of expertise

What’s it about? I love reading and am a sucker for new books.  Don’t really know if new books are any better than the oldies-but-goodies, but there is something about a new book that gets me genuinely jazzed.

I was browsing through the new book section of the well-respected Jossey-Bass catalog and came across one just out and three coming soon books that give me the urge to order sight unseen just based on the descriptions and the overall satisfaction I have had over the years with J-B books (I don’t know anyone at J-B, this is just a long held personal opinion).

I haven’t reviewed these but pass them on just in case they are in your area of interest.  Most of the descriptors for the books are taken from the prerelease summaries.

No More Excuses: The Five Accountabilities for Personal and Organizational Growth (January, 2010) – The author identifies the five accountabilities shared by all truly successful people and organizations.

    • Shows why accountability gives businesses and individuals the competitive edge
    • How to instill accountability throughout the enterprise
    • How the five accountabilities can support both values and strategic intent.
    • Includes interviews with 50 carefully chosen Accountability Masters from six continents and all walks of life—including academics, Fortune 500 CEOs, and Hall of Fame athletes.

Leading Outside the Lines: How to Mobilize the Informal Organization, Energize Your Team, and Get Better Results (April 2010) This book is about understanding how two distinct factions together form the bigger picture for how organizations actually work: the more defined “formal” organization of a company-the management structure, performance metrics, and processes-and the “informal”-the culture, social networks, and ad hoc communities that spring up naturally and can accelerate or hinder how the organization works.

Invaluable: The Secret to Becoming Irreplaceable (May 2010)  A business fable for anyone feeling overwhelmed, underpaid, and frustrated in their job — shows readers how to increase the value of the time they do spend working.

Well-Connected: An Unconventional Approach to Building Genuine, Effective Business Relationships to Achieve Success (July 2010)  Achieve your goals by selectively engaging the right people and connecting well with them.

Somewhere in those good books is a great read.  Hope you find it.

Catch you later.

Technorati Tags: personal accountability, leading teams, team building, personal growth, success factors, networking, connecting with others, business relationships, bill bradley, william bradley, bradley

“Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger.”

  Franklin B. Jones

At nine months of age, all guide dog puppies go in for their a formal evaluation.  It really is feedback to the volunteer puppy raisers about how we are doing–a form of 360 feedback.

Feedback can be really helpful  useful to improve our performance or it can be damaging. One of the most cited research studies on performance feedback is based on meta-analysis by Kluger and DeNisi who reviewed over 3,000 studies (607 effect sizes, 23,633 observations) on performance feedback¹. They found that although there was a significant effect for feedback interventions (d=.41), one third of all studies showed performance declines.

Indeed, if performance feedback was a drug many of us could be easily sued for malpractice.  Some new research has emerged which helps clarify ways to make feedback received more positively and constructively.

1. Ask the Right People for Feedback and Ask for the Right Type of Feedback

A new study by In-Sue Oh and colleagues suggests that feedback about interpersonal sensitivity, empathy and agreeableness might not be very useful for leaders².  Their research suggests that this “five factor” concept of “agreeableness might not always be a desirable trait for managers except in “getting along environments” (non-profits, community based organizations) so feedback on other task related behaviors might be more important.  Second, their study suggests that peer, and not directs reports, is more accurate in predicting actual performance.  It appears that raters have unique perspectives and each are utilizing different lenses to observe and evaluate behavior.

2. Be More Prescriptive In Interpreting Feedback for Others

A interesting study by Robert Hooijberg and colleagues looking at what makes coaching effective surveyed 232 managers from diverse organizations³.  One of their key questions asked, “What did your coach do that you found effective?” 

From the view of the client or participants, three major categories determined feedback success: 1) Interpreting results (34.8%), 2) Inspiring action (27.5%) and 3) Professionalism (23.3%).  The majority of clients thought the best coaches were those who analyzed strengths and weaknesses, helped assimilate feedback and make concrete developmental recommendations.

This study really seems to contradict much of the coaching literature and suggests that participants using 360 feedback expect and want their coach to take a more active role in interpreting their results and making developmental recommendations.  This finding IS consistent with the concept of “feedforward” by Marshall Goldsmith who suggests letting us know what we can be doing more, less or differently in the future to become better and more successful.

Well, our feedback report on Ajax our guide dog puppy in training was positive overall but highlighted a few areas we need to keep working on for him to move ahead in his developmental journey.  Back to work with him to help ensure he gets the best training from us to succeed….Be well….

Technorati Tags: guide dogs, seeing eye dogs, Guide Dogs of America, leadership, executive coaching, performance, layoff, social support, mastery, expertise, kenneth nowack, ken nowack, nowack, Envisia Learning, deliberate practice

1. Kluger, A. & DeNisi (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, meta-analysis and preliminary feedback theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-285 [↩]
2. Oh, I., & Berry, C. M. (2009). The five-factor model of personality and managerial performance: Validity gains through the use of 360 degree performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1498-1513 [↩]
3. Hooijberg, R. & Lane, N. (2009).  Using multisource feedback coaching effectively in executive education.  Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8, 483-493 [↩]

HOT READS FOR THE PRACTITIONER

Title: Business Best Sellers

Competency: self-development,

Who benefits: people who like to read as part of their development

Consultant Usage: background material

What’s it about? Points I will concede up front about today’s posting: (1) Professional Blogs are not supposed to be mushy; (2) I am over-the-top in sentimentality; (3) Nostalgia “ain’t” what it used to be.

With all that out of the way, as Valentine’s Day approaches I can’t help reminisce about my first true love and college girl friend, Marlene Turner … (Hi Marlene, if you are out there).  We had some great moments.  My favorite memory is Sunday mornings.  We would go out and get coffee, juice, pastries, The New York Times and the Washington Post.  We would return to the house I shared with 5 other guys and we would take over either the living room or the dining room table and for the remainder of the morning and early afternoon we totally escaped into the world as presented by those two newspapers.  

Both of us loved the book sections of the two papers.  Fortunately we had two papers and thus two book sections so we could both begin with our favorite part of the Sunday papers. 

There has been a lot of change over the ensuing years.  Joyfully, one can still purchase the New York Times Book Section as part of the Sunday Times or in some places, as a standalone.  And of course in these “modern times”, one can also look at most of it online.  Reading online loses something emotionally for those of us raised in an earlier time.  Still, it is most convenient.  It just doesn’t feel the same, but I suppose one can still get coffee, juice, pastries on Sunday morning and sit on the floor with that special someone.  Only difference is no messy newspapers, just laptops.

Less joyfully, or more precisely, sadly this Valentine’s Day marks the last publication of Book World, the Washington Post’s Sunday Book Section.  I suppose if there is to be a silver lining, the online version will continue.  And books will still be reviewed in the paper, just not as many and not in one convenient location.

If you are inclined to find the best selling NY Times list of business books, you would find on their latest list books like (1) Superfreakeconomics (the Freakeconomics sequel); (4) The Four-Hour Workweek (a personal growth book); and (9) How The Mighty Fall (Jim Collins tells how companies fail in stages, and how their decline can be detected and reversed).

The WP Book World does not have a section for business books.  One just has to scroll down recent reviews to see if there is anything of interest.  In the old days we would call it serendipitous or moments of whimsy.  Today we would call it “stumble”.  But the good news was that in my investigative research regarding the future of book reviews, I stumbled on a review of Your Flying Car Awaits, a serendipitous discovery about a whimsical book of future predictions that never happened – and a few outrageous predictions that did.  I am for sure ordering the book and perhaps I shall review it here … sometime in the future.

Meanwhile, don’t forget Valentine’s Day … and maybe give a loved one a great book!

Catch you later.

Technorati Tags: New York Times, New York Times book review, New York Times best sellers, Washington Post, Washington Post Book World, business best sellers, bill bradley, william bradley, bradley

“If you don’t know where you are going you might wind up somewhere else”
 
Yogi Berra

I just finished two 3.5 day developmental assessment centers with a large University medical center and another with a state university system for high potential leaders.  At the end of the assessment center, it was surprising to note that 10 to 15 percent of those attending confessed they really preferred to remain in independent contributor roles and that they were negatively challenged to be dealing with what is expected of those supervising, managing and leading others.
 
A five year study conducted by ConceptReserve (Colorado based consulting and training company) revealed that 86 percent of 2,600 managers have trouble transitioning from specialist/independent contributor roles into leadership roles. While this finding may not be a surprise, what is how often organizations tend to “tease” their best performing specialists to take leadership roles that many talent find to be poor fits for their interests and skills.

There appears to be some evidence that personality and propensity to move within leadership roles may even have a genetic predisposition to it.

Avery and colleagues, based on twin studies, estimate that about 33% of the variance in holding leadership roles is due to genetic factors¹. Findings from numerous studies of personality show that genetic effects account for approximately 50% of the variance in five factor domains².

If leaders truly understood the pre-wiring of the interests, values and motives of talent and tried to use this information to lead them more effectively they would be able to unlock some of the mystery surrounding effective leadership.

Understanding the “Wiring” of Specialists versus Leadership Oriented Individuals

SPECIALIST/INDEPENDENT CONTRIBUTOR CAREER PATH — This career path preference is best characterized by those interested in remaining in one career field or profession for much of their working life. Along the way, these specialists are able to highly refine their technical knowledge, skills and abilities. These individuals are less interested in moving up as they are in becoming the expert and having autonomy to do things their way.

LEADERSHIP CAREER PATH — This career path preference is best characterized by those interested in continually moving vertically up the organizational ladder into traditional supervisory and managerial positions with increasing spans of control, responsibility, power, and authority.

Typical career anchors and motives of these individuals include power, influence, leadership, control, task accomplishment, status, managerial competence, and directing others. Appropriate organizational rewards for these individuals might include: upward mobility, promotion, special perks, titles, and organizational symbols of success (e.g., profit sharing incentive plans, company car, stock options, financial planning, expense account, club memberships, etc.).

How to Avoid the Mistake of Moving Specialists into Leadership Roles

1. Conduct a “stay interview” and identify the signature strengths and activities that provide engagement and passion for all your talent (yep, just flat out ask if “leading” is interesting and stimulating).

2. Provide realistic job previews (e.g., managerial Inbasket simuations) that help talent understand the skills required to perform supervisory and leadership roles and where they have strengths to build on and areas to sharpen should they decide to move into leadership roles.

3. Ask managers to become better performance coaches and take time each appraisal to provide feedback on leadership skills that they see their direct reports do well and areas they can improve–whether or not they are specialists or currently supervisiing others.

4. During talent management/succession planning differentitate those interested in line management, project management and specialist type of roles/activities.

5. Create multiple career and compensation paths so specialists aren’t motivated organically to tweak into leadership roles to obtain the most updated Blackberries, increase their salary and take advantage of the management perks within your culture.

6. Identify, using employee engagement surveys, pockets of leadership incompetence and analyze if those in place are truly a good “fit” for the leadership role they are in.

 Not all transitions for those who are specialists end up badly when they are moved into leadership roles but enough do to be a strong warning to most organizations who tend to repeat this mistake far too often.  Maybe I should ask our 10-month year old guide dog puppy Ajax what he wants to be when he grows up….Be well….

Technorati Tags: career paths, specialists, project managers, interests, specialists, career anchors, independent contributors, entrepreneurial behavior, coaching, leadership, talent management, kenneth nowack, ken nowack, nowack

1. Avery, R.D., Zhang, Z. Avolio, B. & Kreuger, R.F. (2007).  Developmental and gentic determinants of leadership role occupancy among women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 693-706 [↩]
2. Bouchard, T.J. & Loehlin, J.C. (2001).  Genes, evolution and personality.  Behavior Genetics, 21, 243-273 [↩]

HOT READS FOR THE PRACTITIONER

Title: Improving worker performance in the US government

Competencies: leading, managing

Who benefits: leaders, managers, organizational consultants

Consultant Usage: general background material

What’s it about? February being a short month, today I begin with a short posting.  I just discovered an article that I found interesting, well-researched and provocative.  Can’t ask for much more than that.

The article addresses the age old debate of who performs better, workers in the private sector or public sector.  Some, of course, would say that is a “no-brainer”.  Turns out that the answer is like so many answers – it depends.

The article is the result of a study by the respected McKinsey&Company.  The research suggests that the private sector performs at higher levels in organizational-performance measures, such as fostering employee engagement, talent management, and accountability.

However, public sector employees out shine their private counterparts in understanding and embracing the direction and vision of their organizations and are “more motivated to make a difference”.

Much of the article focuses on how government can perform better, especially with talent management.  But in all fairness, someone could write a similar article about how big business could improve its performance. 

The article is very stimulating, especially if you happen to be a government employee. 

Please note that in order to read the whole article, you need to register on the site.  However, registration is free and you can come back to read other articles if you are so inclined.

Catch you later.

Technorati Tags: improving worker performance, talent management, motivation, motivation at work, making a difference at work, private sector employees, public sector employees, private vs. public, bill bradley, william bradley, bradley