“The mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains. The superior teacher demonstrates. The great teacher inspires.”

William A. Ward

A recent study suggests that there is a statistically significant link between CEO family deaths and the companies’ profitability over a decade¹. These researcher identified 6,753 deaths occuring to CEOs and family members–1,015 corresponded to CEOs, 282 to children, 733 to partners/spouses, 1,364 to in-laws and 3,061 to parents. A link between CEO family deaths and significant economic decline of the company (operating returns on assets) was statistically significant. The biggest effects were cases where the CEO had only a single child and the smallest effects were deaths of in-laws.

Are Leaders Who Spend for Luxury Good for Shareholders?

How does the personal spending of CEOs (real estate in particular) affect the economic performance of a company? Professors David Yermack and Crocker Liu studied major real estate purchases of just about every top executive in the Standard & Poor’s 500 index². They found pretty convincing statistical evidence that the financial performance of companies decreases when CEOs purchase large homes and real estate. They suggest that these purchases are related to “executive entrenchment”and “foreshadowing poor future stock performance.” The good news is that they didn’t find that buying a house near a golf course or the water have a statistically significant impact on financial performance.

Do MBA Professors Make Good Leaders?

Do MBA professors who teach about leadership and organizational development really understand how to manage talent in organizations? Sure, some consult and most publish but are they really a role model for leadership–or should they be?

A new study by Jiang & Murphy analyzed the performance of 215 executives who were former business school professors³. Their results suggested that companies with former business school professors now as executives demonstrated significantly higher financial performance than non-former professors as executives. They didn’t find any differences in company performance between executives who were professors in the highest ranked business schools compared to those in non-ranked schools.

I’m not sure what you can do to prevent family health problems of senior leaders but apparently you can impact the “bottom line” by recruiting relatively lower paid management faculty and putting them up in corporate apartments at least during their first 18 months of on-boarding……Be well…..

Technorati Tags: teaching, MBA, shareholder return, CEO success, Envisia Learning, Envisia Tools, coaching, leadership, talent management, kenneth nowack, ken nowack, nowack

1. Bennedsen, M., Perez-Ganzalez, F. & Wolfsenzon, D. (2007) Do CEO’s Matter? [↩]
2. Liu, C. & Yermack, D (2007). Where are the shareholder’s mansions? CEO’s home purchases, stock sales and subsequent company performance [↩]
3. Jiang, B. & Murphy, P. (2007). Do business school professors make good executive managers?. The Academy of Management Perspectives. 21, 29-50 [↩]

HOT READS FOR THE PRACTIONER

Title: Get Rid of the Performance Review!

Competencies: performance management, performance appraisal

Who benefits: managers/supervisors, employees, organization

Consultant Usage: organizational development and human resource development

What’s it about?  One of my least favorite authors has written a short article about one of my least favorite topics.  Oddly, the results are favorable.

The author is arrogant and presumptuous.  The topic is distasteful.  Yet the end result is something I have advocated for over three decades (yes arrogant author, you are far from the first to think of this topic).  

The topic is performance reviews/appraisals.  They don’t work.  Never have.  And at the risk of being labeled “lazy”, let me quote the author who nails it in this provocative paragraph:

“To my way of thinking, a one-side-accountable, boss-administered review is little more than a dysfunctional pretense. It’s a negative to corporate performance, an obstacle to straight-talk relationships, and a prime cause of low morale at work. Even the mere knowledge that such an event will take place damages daily communications and teamwork.”

He goes on to list a host of reasons why performance appraisals fail.  Most of his reasoning is valid, although he shows some real sloppiness when writes about “the contemporary performance-reviewing fad called ‘360-degree feedback’.”  Most folks who understand “360-degree feedback” know it works best as a developmental tool, not as an appraisal tool.  And “360” has been around for over 20 years, which is a lot of longevity for a “fad”.

His solution is a good one.  Performance previews.  Sit-downs to discuss the future and the mutual responsibilities both parties.  Focus on the future, which is, after all, the only time zone we can do anything about.  It is also the only place that both parties are likely to get a real mutual agreement.

If you like the concept of the article, there is an excellent book that has been around since 2000 called Abolishing Performance Appraisals: Why They Backfire and What to Do Instead, which is reasoned, thoughtful, and well researched.  I highly recommend it if you are interested in the topic.

If you read either, would be very interested in your thoughts.

Catch you later.

Technorati Tags: performance review, performance appraisal, performance management, feedback, coaching, performance previews, bill bradley, william bradley, bradley

“Stress is nothing more than a socially acceptable form of mental illness”

Richard Carlson

News alert (in case you might have not known already) — Work-related stress can be a direct cause of clinical depression and anxiety among employees.

In our own personal stress and health assessment called StressScan we measure the hard driving, competitive and achievement oriented Type A behavior as one of the major scales. The majority of working professionals composing our extensive norm group (62.7%) report they tend to be hard driving and competitive at work and play and 49.4% report they feel hurried and pressured for time all of the time or most of the time. Finally, 44.4% report that their activites and schedule push them to be as busy and active as possible stretching them to their limits of their energy and capacity most or all the time.

A recent finding in Psychological Medicine finding comes from the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, which has followed a group of 1000 children born in 1972-73 in Dunedin, New Zealand throughout their lives. The study subjects have been assessed at the ages of 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 26, and most recently at the age of 32, in 2004-05.

The study included 406 women and 485 men. All were asked at age 32 about their perceptions of work stress. In general, men reported higher psychological job demands, lower social support, and higher physical job demands than women.

High psychological job demands, such as long hours, heavy workload, or poor relations with one’s boss, were found to be significantly associated with clinical depression, anxiety, or both in both women and men.

It was found that women who reported high psychological job demands (using a standard approach to measuring work load and decisional control over things on the job), such as working long hours, working under pressure or without clear direction, were 75 per cent more likely to suffer from clinical depression or general anxiety disorder than women who reported the lowest level of psychological job demands.

Men with high psychological job demands were 80 per cent more likely to suffer from depression or anxiety disorders than men with lower demands. Men with low levels of social support at work were also found to be at increased risk of depression, anxiety or both.

This study shows that high levels of workplace stress may be an important contributor to common mental disorders, such as depression and anxiety. These disorders certainly contribute directly to employer costs for medical claims, absenteeis, presenteeism and disability.

It’s seems so easy to just suggest individually based remedies to help employees cope more effectively with stress on the job. However, a recent review of stress management interventions suggests that inidivudally based approaches, without targeting the organization, are unlikely to have sustain impact over time¹.

Looking for a place to start?

In his book Primal Leadership, Dan Goleman states “Roughly 50 to 70 percent of how employees perceive their organizational climate can be traced to the actions of one person: the leader. More than anyone else, the boss, creates the conditions that determine people’s ability to work well.”

If that doesn’t work, there is always the Serenity Prayer….Be well….

Technorati Tags: stress, burnout, job demands, anxiety, depression, workload, pressure, ken nowack, envisia, kenneth nowack, StressScan, Envisia Learining 

1. Nowack, K. (2000). Occupational stress management: Effective or not?. In P. Schnall, K. Belkie, P. Landensbergis, & D. Baker (Eds.), Occupational Medicine: State of the Art Reviews, Hanley and Belfus, Inc., Philadelphia, PA., Vol 15, No. 1, pp. 231-233 [↩]

“There’s a world of difference between truth and facts.  Facts can obscure the truth.”

Maya Angelou

The leadership and talent management “facts” just keep coming. In fact (no pun intended), thanks to some readers, I now have even more to share with you!  

1. Hay Group, a global management consulting firm in a recent study discovered that among 75 key components “trust and confidence in top leadership” was the single most reliable predictor of employee satisfaction.

2. A recent survey of more than 300 small businesses conducted by the management consulting firm Six Disciplines Corporation found that the number one characteristic setting apart high and low performing companies was the strength of the senior leadership.  The second most common trait shared by successful small businesses was the ability to attract and retain quality talent and keep those working satisfied.

3. Data from the 2006 market study “High Potential Leadership Selection and Development” Institute of Executive Development and RHR International Question #5 revealed: “Which of the following characteristics/abilities do you think are most important for your organization’s future leaders to posses?  1) Strategic Thinking/Ability to Develop Others 50%; 2) Business Acumen/Knowledge 38%; 3) Ability to Manage Organizational Change/Relationship Building 29%; 4) Cross Cultural/Cross National Understanding 18%; and 6) Ability to manage the performance of others 17%.

4. More than half of global executives wish they could start over in a different career according to a recent 2007 survey by search firm Korn/Ferry.  People define their work as a job, career or calling—we are lucky if what we wind up doing is truly our “calling.”

5. According to RHR International, 40% to 60% of high level corporate executives brought in from outside a company will fail within 2 years based on their 2006 analysis of clients.  Those who do fail most often derail quickly sometime between 7 to 9 months in the job.

6. Last year there were 28,058 executive turnovers including board members and executives from CEO down to VP a 68% increase over 2006 according to Liberum Research analysis of North American public companies—of those 44% of the positions were filled from outside the company.

7. At large companies, chief financial officers are turning over at a rate of 22% a year according to Russell Reynolds Associates because CFOs are under extreme pressure in the regime of Sarbanes-Oxley and they are the face of the company to Wall Street.

8. In a recent Gallup Management Journal, 59% of employees in the US reported “not being engaged” and 14% were “actively disengaged” which Gallup describes as “undermining what their engaged coworkers accomplish.”

9. ISR 2007 research study reported that five of the largest Asia-Pacific economies including Australia, China, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand were included in the study of more than 3,000 “top talent”.  The study revealed that the region is full of “talent at risk” staff and Malaysia has the largest proportion (47%) of employees that define themselves as either disillusioned or actively disengaged.  Singapore ranked second with 40% followed by the other countries above 30%.

10. In recent Gallup survey, 80% of British workers reported that they lack commitment to their jobs with 25% being disengaged compared to only 12% in France. In Singapore, 17% of the talent reported being “actively disengaged” at work.

10. ISR also found that 88% of at-risk staff in China indicated they would leave their current positions while 92% of Australians and 95% of Singapore’s talent at risk planned to leave.

11. 81% of executives consider employee retention an important business priority compared to 41% in 2007 (Annual emploee turnoversurvey of more than 600 organizations TalentKeepers Inc.

12. According to a recent 2008 survey of 16,237 U.S. workers by Marietta, Ga.-based consultancy Leadership IQ, 47% of high performers are actively looking for new jobs, by posting and submitting their resumes and even going to interviews. Compare that to only 18 percent of identified low performers who say they are looking for new jobs, and 25 percent of middle performers who are actively searching, according to the findings.

All in all, emotions and attitudes might be more important than “facts”….Be well….

Technorati Tags: talent management, succession planning, coaching, executive coaching, executive development, surveys, kenneth nowack, ken nowack, nowack

HOT READS FOR THE PRACTIONER

Title: Managing personal, professional and organizational change

Competencies: change management, self-development

Who benefits: individuals, managers and leaders, organizational consultants

Consultant Usage: coaching, training, intrapersonal reflection

What’s it about? I am writing this posting from Mexico, beachside, and I am not as current with recent events as I might be stateside.  But I heard a rumor that there are some big changes coming in the United States come January.  I have friends who are extremely happy about recent events leading to this change.  I have other friends who are not. 

Since change is in the air whether you wanted it or not, I thought this week’s topic ought to be about – you guessed it – change.

If you are interested in change personally, one of my favorite and inspiring authors, Bill Bridges has updated his well-known book with an Audio CD of the same name: Managing Transitions, 2nd Edition: Making the Most of Change.  He calls this CD “Your coach in a box”.  It is all about the human side of organizational change.  I suppose it is aimed slightly more at managers and leaders, but I have always found his work to be intrapersonally satisfying.  If you are an organizational consultant and have not read or heard of his work, this is a must read or listen.

If you prefer to make it real personal, try his 2001 book, The Way of Transition: Embracing Life’s Most Difficult Moments.

One of the best books on organizational change I ever read was the 1996 bestselling book Leading Change by John Kotter.  Still a good read if you ask me.  But I would like to stress his follow-up and just published book that expands on the first crucial step in his earlier formula: A Sense of Urgency.  It is about creating a sense of urgency to get people to actually see and feel the need for change. No urgency, no change!  Given the state of the world, the economy, the business impacts, it is a timely book.

And let me close with an oldie but goodie, my friend Terry Paulson (an oldie but goodie) wrote They Shoot Managers, Don’t They?: Managing Yourself and Leading Others in a Changing World  back in 1991.  It is filled with pithy advice that is just as good today as it was back then.  And it has a good dose of humor that may be just what is needed these days.

Catch you later.

Technorati Tags: transitions, change, change management, managing change, managing self, managing others, bill bradley, william bradley,   bradley

“It ain’t what they call you, it’s what you answer to.”

W.C. Fields

Not succeeding at some things in life is one or our great “stretch lessons” for all of us.  If you are a leader you can expect to fail a lot.

It has been estimated that 50% just flat out don’t succeed in their leadership role. Lack of success on a task, in a relationship or achieving important goals can really shape our sense of ourselves and how confident we are.

Self-confidence on the surface seems to be both a pretty easy concept to understand and one that would appear to be a strong factor predicting work/life success, emotional health and psychological well-being.  Self-esteem seems to be one of the “core self-evaluations” along with self-efficacy, sense of control, and emotional stability that appears to have a growing association with significant work and life outcomes¹.

People who have high self-esteem and are confident are actually more likely to fail in life because they are also more likely to take risks and pursue new opportunities.  It is true that such individuals might also set unachievable goals or even try to persist long after it is apparent that they can’t succeed.  In fact, those with high self-esteem take even greater risks, particularly under stress, that increase the likelihood of failure which is often called a “fatal flaw” for many derailed leaders and visionary entrepreneurs².

Current research suggests that self-esteem is actually very complicated and hard to measure. In fact, there appears to be three unique types:

• Stable Self-Esteem (True self-confidence)
• Defensive Self-Esteem (Self-deceptive confidence)
• Unstable Self-Esteem (Self-doubting and situational confidence)

Recent research suggests that people with “stable” self-confidence view failure as a challenge and those with either “unstable” or “defensive” self-confidence see it as a threat because failure feedback is very likely to trigger strong and persistent self-doubt.  These individuals appear to exhibit the lowest task engagement as a way to “save face” and to soften any potential failure. Interestingly, self-esteem is a major concept behind hardy and stress resistant individuals–those who truly believe in themselves are more insulated from the negative impact of negative work and life events and even unplanned changes and loss we all face.

Researchers can define and measure “unstable” self-confidence. These individuals are simply asked to report their level of general confidence in life over a short period of time and the differences are then calculated to determine the change in scores over the two time periods. When scores vary a lot over the two time periods it is apparent that self-confidence fluctuates and positive self-feelings are vulnerable to situational variables (e.g., whom I am dealing with or the type of task I am trying to accomplish).  In “unstable” self-confidence the facade of being confident appear to be a defense against underlying negative feelings about one’s self. Despite outward expressions of being confident, these individuals are actually full of self-doubt.

Individuals who express “defensive confidence” work really hard to convinced themselves, and others, that they come across without self-doubt. These individuals tend to score very high on measures of self-deception (social desirability) and expend tremendous energy try to create a set of positive impressions to themselves and others.  These individuals appear to possess an approach to coping called “repressive coping.” 

“Unstable” confidence might have some advantages in the short term to protect fragile egos and avoid the emotional reactions of loss, hurt and anger that goes with failure.  However, those expressing “defensive” confidence might actually be at risk for getting sick.  A growing body of research literature has convincingly shown that individuals high in defensiveness are more likely to experience increased cardiovascular risks, cancer proneness and other negative health conditions³.

Research on people who fail give us some insight about “lessons learned” that fall into three categories:

1. A stronger identification and recognition of core personal values
2. Reduction of true self-doubt about one’s ability to cope with work/life challenges (enhanced hardiness)
3. Enhanced commitment to developing signature strengths and competencies

We can all grow and learn from failure as a way to build our sense of confidence in ourselves.  Those of us who display a “positive explanatory style” of failure (it’s not just due to my own lack of ability, it’s not likely to be something to happen again, and it’s just one situation or event that isn’t really characteristic of my life) tend to rebound faster and in a healthier way. 

By truly acknowledging and moving through our emotions as we face life challenges and spending time on self-reflection of our unrealistic fears of failure we can help to build stronger self-confidence in all aspects of life.

So, just how confident are you?  As Mark Twain said, “Thousands of geniuses live and die undiscovered - either by themselves or by others”….Be well….

Technorati Tags: emotional intelligence, competent jerks, stress, job burnout, leadership, heart disease, talent management, engagement, productivity, bad bosses, kenneth nowack, ken nowack, nowack

1. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001b). Relationship of core self-evaluations, self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80–92 [↩]
2. Newton,N., Khanna, C. & Thompson, J. (2008).  Workplace failure: Mastering the last taboo.  Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60, 227-245 [↩]
3. Schwartz, G.E., Schwartz, J.I., Nowack, K.M., & Eichling, P.S. (1993). The hardiness and the negative affectivity confound as a function of a defensive coping style. University of Arizona and Canyon Ranch. Unpublished manuscript [↩]

HOT READS FOR THE PRACTIONER

Title: Psychometrics in Coaching

Competency: coaching

Who benefits: professional coaches and organizational consultants

Consultant Usage: various assessment tools for coaching

What’s it about? A psychologist tells his patient “I have completed my diagnosis and have determined that you are a psychoceramic.” “What in the world is a pyschoceramic” asks the patient?  The psychologist replies: “A crackpot.”

Groan if you must, but I have been waiting years to write that joke.  If you are not a professional coach or organizational consultant, I suggest you stop here.  Smile and get back to your work.  Today’s post is for those of you who make a living from coaching or consulting.

Personal disclosure: I am paid a miniscule amount intermittently by Envisia Learning who hosts this Blog site.  One of the principles has an article which appears in this book (and a mighty fine article it is, boss).

Psychometrics in Coaching: Using Psychological and Psychometric Tools for Development (2008) explains a variety of models and concepts for practitioners and how to use them in coaching practices.

Besides being a new book, it is an important book.  Coaching is more and more being recognized as an important profession and in need of professional standards.  Just saying you are coach and being a good listener does not make one a professional coach.  If you are not up on assessment instruments and good at using them as feedback in your practice, you are not coaching at a high professional level. 

There are 35 contributors, many of the names you are likely familiar with.  I urge you to have this valuable resource in your tool kit.  You can order the book from the original publishers in the United Kingdom, Kogan Page, Ltd. or from our friends in the USA at Amazon.com.

Catch you later.

Technorati Tags: psychometrics, assessments, feedback, coaching, tools for development, Association for Coaching, 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

A recent 2008 survey from Blessing White (The State of Employee Engagement) asked 7,500 employees on four continents about how much they trust their managers and senior managers.  The results suggested that 47% strongly disagreed, disagreed or had no opinion about their trust in senior leaders in their organization but only 15% reported the same level of indifference or mistrust with their manager.

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. It’s Not too Difficult to Fake Honesty Tests but Not Much Evidence Exists that Candidates Actually Do: One interesting finding in this review is that 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 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 typically 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. Newer generation personality inventories can be useful to evaluate other traits and qualities useful to predict performance, retention and postive citizenship behavior².

6. 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 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, Envisia Learning, Envisia, trust, trustworthiness

1. Berry, C., Sackett, P. & Wieman, S. (2007).  A review of recent developments in integrity test research.  Personnel Psychology, 60, 271-301 [↩]
2. Nowack, K. (1997). Personality Inventories: The Next Generation. Performance in Practice, American Society of Training and Development, Winter 1996/97 [↩]

HOT READS FOR THE PRACTIONER

Title: The Manager’s Conflict Resolution Handbook

Competency: conflict management

Who benefits: supervisors, managers, employees

Consultant Usage: handout for training classes, coaching others

What’s it about?  This booklet showed up in the mail about two weeks ago, a day or two after co-coaching a friend of mine who is having a terrible time with her boss.  This would have been a great give away to her. 

I remember thinking during and after the co-coaching sessions about “how high the emotions are”, “there is more here than just the issue being discussed” and “look at her body language”.  All three of my thoughts are central issues discussed in the booklet.

Let me be clear about this booklet.  It not a research-based, conclusions-reached study with credentials dripping from each page.  It is a simple booklet giving some practical suggestions on how to manage difficult situations.  Will the suggestions work?  Maybe.  Possibly.  But the booklet opens the door for positive outcome where none seemingly exists. 

I admit to being conflict aversive.  My three main tactics are (1) ignore, (2) run, and/or (3) hide.  But I know these tactics don’t serve me well.  And like me, many of us sometimes need simple reminders of what do in difficult situations: First do this, then do that.  This booklet serves that purpose very well.

There are a couple of really helpful tips for me.  There is a short chapter on what to do when you are confronted with a highly emotional response.  There is also a page devoted to why you should NEVER try to resolve a conflict by email.  Hmmm, and I thought that was my most clever avoidance tactic.

One thing that put me off a little bit about this booklet is the title suggests the content is for managers.  Clearly, the way it is written, a majority of the booklet is for anyone in an organization. 

If you are one who likes simple booklets on single work-issue topics, similar material can be found at http://www.cornerstoneleadership.com/Scripts/default.asp.

You know, if I really want to do a good deed today, I need to stop writing now and take this booklet over to my friend’s office.  I hope I am not too late.

Catch you next week.

Technorati Tags: managing conflict, conflict management, managing confrontations, assertiveness, bill bradley, william bradley,   bradley

“Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.”

Mark Twain

The leadership and talent management “facts” just don’t stop coming. In fact (no pun intended), thanks to some readers, I now have even more to share with you!

1.  42% of men compared to 34% of women say the definitely want to work beyond 65 years of age (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development Survey 2007).

2.  Only 25% of baby boomers expect to have a “traditional” retirement–71% of those surveyed said that the “perfect retirement” was to work in some capacity with 50% not planning on ever stopping work unless they are unable to (Merrill Lynch New Retirement Study).

3. The U.S. Department of Justice reports 25% of all employees will become victims of workplace violence. 20% of all women murdered at work are committed by their partners (Victim Services of New York).

4. The Octovber 2006 survey by the Bureau of Labor Statistics suggests that only 30% of all companies have a formal program or policy in place to deal with workplace violence despite the fact that 1 million days are lost each year due to workplace assaults.

5. 17% of all workplace fatalities involve family members.  The June 2003 Workplace Violence Study by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) suggested that verbal threats, verbal abuse, and inappropriate language were the most common workplace incidents reported by employees.

6. The SHRM report and other research from Mattman Security Management Consultants suggest that those most prone to cause workplace violence tend to: a) use threats or verbal abuse; 2) make suicidal comments; 3) demonstrate anger without obvious reasons; 4) express paranoid thoughts; and 5) experience increased family or home problems and challenges.

7. Executive coaching is often offered for various presenting problems.  The top reasons for coaching according to a recent survey of 2,556 human resources executives by Boston based Novations group suggested that 72% were to address performance problems, 69% to communicate performance standards and expectations, and 69% was to accelerate growth of high performers.

8. Ever wonder what executive coaches charge?  A recent survey from Sherpa Coachng suggests a range of less than $75.00 per hour to more than $500 per hour.  Approximately 41% charge between $150 to $299.00 per hour.

9. In a recent 2008 survey by Right Management of midlevel and senior leaders, the top reasons employees are leaving their jobs include: 30% for lack of new internal opportunities, 25% due to poor leadership, 22% because of poor relationships with their boss and 21% because they felt their efforts were not valued.

10. In the same Right Management survey, only 43% of those staying with their organization reported being engaged and commited to the company. 

“A statistician drowned while crossing a stream that was, on average 6 inches deep” so tread lightly with these “facts”….Be well….

Technorati Tags: talent management, succession planning, coaching, executive coaching, executive development, surveys, retentin, engagement, workplace violence, turnover, kenneth nowack, ken nowack, nowack