“….Ain’t it good to know you’ve got a friend”

Carlole King

What exactly do relationships at work do for talent? Do close relationships with one’s boss and colleagues have any impact on engagement and productivity? Current research suggest strong relationships with one’s boss and direct reports are associated with:

1. Less inflammation measured as C-Reactive Protein¹.
2. Enhanced immunity².
3. Less burnout in professional working women–lower depersonalization and higher personal accomplishment³.
4. Decreased depression⁴.
5. Enhanced job satisfaction⁵.
6. Greater longevity and less illness during our life based on meta-analytics reviews of over 148 studies⁶.

Work Relationships and Job Burnout

A recent study by Claude Fernet at the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières explored the relationship between friendships at work and job burnout⁷.

A total of 533 college employees participated in this study. Data were collected at two time points, two years apart. Their prospective study suggests that high-quality relationships with coworkers are crucial to minimize job burnout (emotional exhaustion, cynicism/depersonalization and negative self-evaluation, and personal accomplishment). So, having strong relationships at work certainly seems associated with preventing psychological distress and enhancing our level of energy over time.

Work Relationships and Longevity

People who have a good peer support system at work may live longer than people who don’t have such a support system, according to new research⁸.

The researchers, at Tel Aviv University, looked at the medical records of 820 adults who were followed for 20 years, from 1988 to 2008. The workers were drawn from people who had been referred to an HMO’s screening center in Israel for routine examinations. (People who were referred because of suspected physical or mental health problems were excluded from the sample). The workers came from some of Israel’s largest firms in finance, insurance, public utilities, health care and manufacturing. They reported working on average 8.8 hours a day. One-third of them were women; 80 percent were married with children; and 45 percent had at least 12 years of formal education.

The researchers controlled for the physiological, behavioral and psychological risk factors of total cholesterol, triglycerides, glucose levels, blood pressure, body mass index, alcohol consumption, smoking, depressive symptoms, anxiety and past hospitalizations. They obtained the data on the control variables from each person’s periodic health examinations, including tests of physiological risk factors and a questionnaire completed during the examinations by all participants.

So, it appears that relationships with one’s boss can have direct and important associations with the physical health and psychological well-being of talent. 

Social support with other colleagues and non-work peers also talent affect health and we all know that we bring work stress home with us as well as transfer family problems back to our jobs (known as spillover effects).  We also know that gender plays a role in the relationship between social support and well-being.

For example, we have taken a look at some social support research results from our stress and health risk assessment called StressScan by analyzing availability, utility and satisfaction of social support by gender. We tested gender differences by using a statistical test called analysis of variance (ANOVA) and found some interesting differences in gender with a sample of almost 800 professional working men and women.

1. In general, women reported greater availability and use of their social support network (supervisor/boss, colleagues/co-workers, partner, family and friends) than their male counterparts (all p’s < .01).
2. Women reported using their boss or supervisor significantly more frequently than men which was surprising as research suggests that more successful women indicate that mentoring was less important to their career advancement than did less successful women.
3. Women reported significantly more availability, use and satisfaction with their friends compared to males. They also reported greater availability and use of their partners, families and friends (all p’s < .01) which is consistent to what Shelly Taylor, Ph.D. has suggested as part of the female “tend and befriend” response to coping with work and life stress⁹.

What else do we know about social relationships, psychological health and physical well-being?

So, it seems pretty convincing that support and friendships are independent risk factors for mental and physical health…..The bigger question, as the Beatles asked, is “Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I’m sixty four?”….Be well…..

1. Suarez, E. (2004). C Reactive Protein Is Associated With Psychological Risk Factors of Cardiovascular Disease in Apparently Healthy Adults. Psychosomatic Medicine 66:684-690
2. Schwartz, G.E., Schwartz, J.I., Nowack, K.M., & Eichling, P.S. (1992). Changes in perceived stress and social support over time are related to changes in immune function. University of Arizona and Canyon Ranch. Unpublished manuscript
3. Nowack, K. and Pentkowski, A. (1994). Lifestyle habits, substance use, and predictors of job burnout in professional working women. Work and Stress, 8, 19-35
4. Stroetzer, U. et al. (2006). Problematic interpersonal relationships at work and depression: A Swedish prospective cohort study. Journal of Occupational Health, 51, 144-151
5. Simon, L., Judge, T., & Halvorsen-Ganepola, M. (2010). In good company? A multi-level investigation of the effects of coworker relationships on well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 534-546
6. Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Layton JB (2010) Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-analytic Review. PLoS Med 7(7): e1000316. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316
7. Fernet, C. et al. (2010). When does quality of relationships with coworkers predict burnout over time? The moderating role of work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 1163–1180
8. Shirom, A. et al., (2011). Work-Based Predictors of Mortality: A 20-Year Follow-Up of Healthy Employees. Health Psychology, 30, No. 3
9. Taylor, S. E., Klein, L.C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., Gurung, R. A. R., & Updegraff, J. A. Behavioral Responses to Stress: Tend and Befriend, Not Fight or Flight” Psychological Review, 107(3):41-429

“Nearly 80% of people believe they are among the top 50% most emotionally intelligent people”

Peter Salovey

There are at least three distinct approaches to measuring EI and emotional and social competence representing different models.

The first, delineated by Reuven Bar-On, was influenced by his interest in the aspects of performance not linked to intelligence; the second, often tied to Daniel Goleman’s interpretation, approached EI through competencies; and the third, represented by Mayer and Salovey and colleagues, was influenced by their interest in the relationship between cognition and emotion.

These three approaches have led to diverse and non-overlapping measures of EI characterized as: 1) Personality oriented (e.g, Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory); 2) Competency or “Mixed” model oriented (e.g., Emotional Intelligence View 360); and 3) Ability or skill oriented (e.g., Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test; MSCEIT).

Issues with Ability Based Measures of Emotional Intelligence

• Independece from personality measures (e.g., five factor models)
• Weak convergent validity with other cognitive ability measures (i.e., they don’t highly correlate with IQ)
• Scoring issues (i.e., lack of agreement and some controversy on how these assessments are scored)
• Confounded with a measure of knowledge (i.e., they seem to be measuring what someone “knows” as well as emotional intelligence)

Problems wiht Self-Report (Mixed) Measures of Emotional Intelligence

• High correlations with five factor personality measures (i.e., the overlap is so high it suggests that some measures of EI are really nothing more than another personality inventory)
• Limitations of 360-feedback (e.g., inflated self-ratings, moderate correlations between and within rater groups)
• Limitations of self-report (how do you measure EI in people who lack emotional intelligence?)
• Tend to ignore context, situation and setting (EI is not a useful predictor of performance in jobs that don’t have high emotional labor or are socially demanding)

Our own “mixed measure” of ESC called Emotional Intelligence View 360 based on the Goleman construct has some strengths and limitations as all measures. Our EIV360 appears to be statistically unique from ability based measures (very low correlations with the MSCEIT), correlated with the most popular measures of transformational leadership and predictive of both academic and work performance.

In a review by Joseph and Newman (2010), they found a negative association between measures of EI and work performance when jobs do not require strong social skills. Although the sample sizes for this analysis were rather low (N = 220 and N =223, respectively) it does suggest that EI is important for positions like sales, customer service and leadership and less important in predicting performance and success when high levels of interpersonal interaction are required¹.

A newer 2010 meta-analysis by O’Boyle et al. included 65% more studies and twice the sample size to estimate EI and job performance outcomes².

Their findings extent those of Newman (2010) and suggest that trait, personality and mixed measures demonstrated corrected correlations ranging from 0.24 to 0.30 with job performance. Their research also shows that all measures show incremental validity over cognitive ability and personality measures.

Measurement of emotional intelligence (ability based) is most likely different from other approaches (personality and mixed) but all techniques tend to significantly predict job performance, health and social competence particularly in roles and positions requiring high interpersonal interaction. So, depending on your purpose (e.g., selection versus development of talent) some approaches to measuring EI might be better than others.

The one big lesson from the confusion in the measurement of emotional intelligence is that “it’s not HOW smart you are that counts, but how you are smart…Be well….

1. Joseph, D. & Newman, D. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 54-78
2. O’Boyle, E., Humphrey, R., Pollack, Hawver, T. & Story, P. (2010). The relationship between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10.1002/job.714

“I visualize things in my mind before I have to do them. It’s like having a mental workshop”
Jack Youngblood

As a kid, I played baseball and probably made over 1,000 double plays successfully–at least in my mind. I used to visualize every moment of receiving the ball from the shortstop to avoiding the slide from the base runner to get the runner out. In games, I actually did a great job of quickly turning the pivot and getting both runners out.

I’ve always wondered if my mental practice made a difference and now it seems I might actually be “wired” in my brain to be more successful than many people (hear that Brian Saebean?).

We have known for many years that mental rehearsal is almost equivalent to physical rehearsal in terms of enhancing skills and performance.

In 1995, a Harvard neuroscientist named Alvaro Pascual-Leone conducted an incredible study¹. He divided volunteers into two groups with the first practicing a five-finger piano exercise for five days for two hours. At the end of each session they measured neural activation using transcranial-magnetic-stimulation (TMS) and they noticed that even after one week of practice, a stretch of the motor cortex in the brain related to finger movements took over surrounding areas demonstrating new neural circuits being established.

Pascual-Leone also asked a second group to only imagine playing the same piano piece mentally and again his research team found that the mere mental rehearsal of doing something like playing the piano altered the physical structure and function of our brain. Performance between the two groups was almost identical when both groups were tested after the two week period demonstrating for the first time the real power of mental practice.

Additional research has also demonstrated how meditation over time actually causes a significant reduction of brain activity in an area of the brain associated with sensations of pain. In a new study, researchers took 15 healthy volunteers who had never meditated and had them practice a 20 minute class just four times. The participants in the study reported a 40 percent reduction in pain intensity and 57 percent reduction in pain unpleasantness in response to a pain inducing heat device was placed on their legs. Mental practice in the form of meditation produced a greater reduction in pain than even morphine which typically reduces pain by 25 percent².

In another widely reported study, eight weeks of 27 minutes per day of mental rehearsal of mindfulness meditation results in measurable changes in brain regions associated wtih empathy and stress³. None of these changes were seen in the control group, indicating that they had not resulted merely from the passage of time.

Visualize Becoming a More Effective Leader

Each day you can mentally rehearse being more effective as a leader by:

1. See yourself allowing others to complete their thoughts and ideas before you share your recommendations, suggestions and ideas.
2. Visualize yourself speaking to a group and commanding a high degree of attention, respect and agreement with your message.
3. Rehearse and visualize yourself maintaining emotional control and being poised under interpersonal pressure and conflict (being non-defensive and open minded).
4. See yourself in a positive mood that rubs off on other talent and results in enhanced engagement and commitment to their job and tasks.
5. Mentally practice soliciting and seeking feedback from others and welcoming this as a gift to continuously improve.
6. Imagine using more participative leadership styles and involving more of your talent in problem solving, decision making and planning processes.
7. Focus on your peers saying to each other about how they would like to “follow” someone like you, believe you are always candid and direct with them and work in a collaborative, rather than, competitive manner.

So, maybe you can actually practice becoming a better leader just by deliberately practicing it in your mind. As Robert Collier said, “See things as you would have them be instead of as they are”….Be well….

1. Pascual-Leone, A. Nguyet, D.,Cohen, L., Brasil-Neto, J.,Cammarota, A.; & Hallett. M. (1995). Modulation of muscle responses evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation during the acquisition of new fine motor skills. Journal of Neurophysiology, 74, 1037-1045
2. 1.F. Zeidan, K. T. Martucci, R. A. Kraft, N. S. Gordon, J. G. McHaffie, R. C. Coghill. Brain Mechanisms Supporting the Modulation of Pain by Mindfulness Meditation. Journal of Neuroscience, 2011; 31 (14): 5540 DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5791-10.2011
3. Britta K. Hölzel, James Carmody, Mark Vangel, Christina Congleton, Sita M. Yerramsetti, Tim Gard, Sara W. Lazar. Mindfulness practice leads to increases in regional brain graymatter density. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 2011; 191 (1): 36 DOI: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2010.08.006

Statistics are like bikinis.  What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. 

Aaron Levenstein

Another edition of leadership and talent management “facts” from all over the world.  Some intuitive and some not….what do you think?

1. According to a late 2010 survey by CareerBuilder.com (2,482 U.S. managers and 3,910 full-time employees in the private sector), only 58 percent of managers said they ever received any formal management training to help them make the transition into leadership roles but nearly 60 percent think they are doing just fine. The most common problems they experienced included:

• Handling employee conflicts (25%)
• Motivating teams (22%)
• Performance reviews (15%)
• Finding resources for staff (15%)
• Creating career paths (12%)

2. In this same Careerbuilder.com survey, regardless of age or experience, 20 percent of the managers were rated as having poor leadership skills. The biggest complaints included:

• Doesn’t listen to employees or address morale issues (40%)
• Not enough transparency (33%)
• Major changes without warning (30%) and unreasonable workloads/demands (27%)

3. Based on the Global Information Technology Report 2010-2011, Transformations 2.0, World Economic Forum the U.S. is ranked fifth out of 138 countries for its use of communications technology and computers.  The top countries included Sweden, Singapore, Finland and Switzerland.

4. A July 2010 Pew Internet & American Life Project study found that 55 percent of U.S. mobile web users go online from their phones and mobile devices on a daily basis (up from 24 percent in 2009). 

5. According to the Thomson Reuters Workforce Wellness Index (March 2011), unhealthy behaviors of U.S. workers cost employers an average of $670 per employee annually. High body mass indices contributed to $400 of the overall per-employee cost.

6. A 2010 Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) survey found that 44% of employers offered telecommuting options on an ad hoc basis, 34% on a part-time basis and only 17% on a full-time basis. 

7. A May 2011 SHRM poll asking about whether one’s organization had a formal succession planning in place.  Results suggested that 38 percent had no formal succession plan in place and 17 percent don’t with no plan by leaders in the organization to develop a plan.

8.  Some findings from the DDI Global Leadership Forecast 2011 of 12,423 leaders and 1,897 HR professional representing 74 countries:

• Organizations whose employees rate their current leadership as high were 13 times more likely to outperform their competition on key metrics such as financial performance
• Only 38 percent of the 12,423 leaders in the study were rated as good or excellent with nearly 25 percent rated as poor or fair
• Both leaders and HR rated leadership quality highest in North America (52% rated it highly) and lowest in Europe and Asia (33% rated it highly)
• Approximately 33 percent of HR and leaders rated their leadership development programs as being effective
• The most critical skills required from leaders included driving change (48%), Identifying and coaching talent (36%), Fostering innovation/creativity (35%), Coaching and developing talent (32%) and executing strategy (32%).  When asked to rate the ineffectiveness of leaders in these areas, the ranges were from 40% to 50% on each
• 68 percent of organizations use managers as coaches (63% rate it as effective) and 27% use external coaches often (37% rate it as effective)
• The iPad generation desire to learn from others and coaching and the older generation appears to favor classroom training and special projects
• The range of effectiveness for leadership selection, succession planning, performance management and development programs ranged from 22 percent to 33 percent by HR respondents

9. According to an online survey of more than 500 senior managers and executives conducted by AMA Enterprise, one-quarter of employees in the U.S. and Canada tend to regard talent development programs as less than equitable.  Participants were asked, “How is the high potential program perceived by your organization’s employees?” They responded:

• Impartial and even-handed (12 percent)
• Flawed, but well-intentioned (27 percent)
• Unfair and political (24 percent)
• Don’t know (37 percent)

10. A 2011 survey by Addeco (“Workplace Outlook Study”) found that the most important thing(s) to job seekers now are:

• Job security (21%)
• Health benefits (20%)
• Salary/compensation (14%)
• Work/life balance (14%)
• Retirement benefits (11%)
• Vacation/days off (5%)
• Company culture (4%)
• Company perks (1%)

The largest fraction of Americans looking for jobs consisted of 18-34 year-olds.  And 28% of Americans are starting a new job in 2011 compared to only 14% in 2010.

Back to research some new talent development facts….Be well….

“You can observe a lot by watching.”
Yogi Berra

What factors are most important to an individual’s career success and how do they contribute to it?

A recent study tried to answer this question in an unusual way — by analyzing the speeches of baseball stars when they are inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame¹. The study’s findings are based on all available speeches, 62 in total, made by former Major League position players inducted into the Hall of Fame between 1956 and 2005.  Some of the speeches quoted were those of Joe Morgan, Reggie Jackson, Stan Musial, Carl Yastrzemski, Dave Winfield, Hank Greenberg, Ernie Banks, Wade Boggs, George Kell, Robin Yount, Frank Robinson, Paul Molitor, and Mike Schmidt.

It is important to note that these researchers studied professionals that achieved extraordinary career success that largely required physical and not cognitive skills.

Hall of Famers’ words of appreciation were mostly for individuals who had provided psychological and social support as opposed to those who gave practical career assistance.

About 63% of all of the thanks from inductees in their speeches were for things like emotional support, inspiration, motivation or friendship. Slightly more than one third (about 37%) were for coaching or other specific instructions on technical skills. Families accounted for about two thirds of that emotional support and the second largest type of contribution cited by the Hall of Famers was friendship (mostly other Major league teammates and then role modeling from others).  The final category was coaching–mostly by Major league managers and coaches, rather than, players.

The authors make an interesting observation and suggestion that “Employers, for their part, benefit from evaluating workers not simply on the basis of performance but on their developmental networks — whom they relate to in the company and beyond and whom they might benefit from relating to. Performance appraisals, in other words, should focus not just on the what but on the who.”

Well, this study focused only on men so it is worth asking how much social support do women report and how satisfied are they with their sources of social support.

Gender and Emotional and Social Support

We took a look at some results from our stress and health risk assessment called StressScan by analyzing availability, utility and satisfaction of social support by gender.  We tested gender differences by using a statistical test called Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and found some interesting differences in gender with a sample of almost 800 professional working men and women.

1. In general, women reported greater availability and use of their social support network (supervisor/boss, colleagues/co-workers, partner, family and friends) then their male counterparts (all p’s < .01).

2.  Women reported using their boss or supervisor significantly more frequently than men.  This is somewhat surprising as research suggests that successful women have indicated that mentoring is less important to their career advancement than did less successful women.  Perhaps in our sample we have a mix of both “successful” and “unsuccessful” women or that using one’s boss is different from internal or external use of mentors for job and career success.

3. Women reported significantly more availability, use and satisfaction with their friends compared to males.  They also reported greater availability and use of their partners, families and friends (all p’s < .01) which is consistent to what Shelly Taylor, Ph.D. has suggested is central to the female “tend and befriend” response to coping with work and life stress².

In our statistical analysis of social support for professional men and women we were able to determine the relative amount of dissatisfaction with specific sources of social support. Men and women (N= 785) rated they were either “Not at All” or only “Slightly” satisfied with the following sources to meet their emotional and direct support needs:

• Boss/Supervisor 31.0%
• Colleagues/Co-Workers 16.8%
• Family 13.0%
• Partners/Significant Others 9.9%
• Friends 8.3%

Men and women in our sample who reported higher overall social support also reported significantly:

• Lower Stress (correlation r = .35, p < .01)
• Greater Resilience/Hardiness (correlation r = .47, p < .01)
• Greater Happiness (correlation r = .58, p < .01)

Even if you are not research oriented it is important to note that the magnitude of these correlations are impressive ranging from moderate to moderately high which is not always found in psychology research studies.

If you want to see how strong your own social support is, just contact me at ken@envisiaonline.com and we can make our research measure called StressScan available to you for free.

So, not only is psychological and social support important for our health it appears to be a pretty important key to career success….Be well…

1. Cotton, R., Shen, Y., Livne-Tarandach, R. (2011).  On Becoming Extraordinary: The Content and Structure of the Developmental Networks of Major League Baseball Hall of Famers. The Academy of Management, 54, 15-46
2. Taylor, 2006. Tend and Befriend: Biobehavioral Bases of Affiliation Under Stress. Current Directions in Psychological Science December 2006 vol. 15 no. 6 273-277

“Too bad you can’t buy a voodoo globe so that you could make the earth spin real fast and freak everybody out.”

Jack Handy

Sometimes we just have to blow off steam to deal with work and life challenges. Surprisingly, only about 30 percent of individuals experiencing severe life trauma and pain experience post traumatic distress (PTSD) or are unable to cope effectively.

In our own research with our stress/resilience tool StressScan, we have found the following associations between coping styles (trait) and a variety of health outcomes:

• People who utilize negative appraisal coping (i.e., high self-blame and self-criticism) report significantly higher levels of psychological distress (e.g., depression).
• People who utilize high levels of threat minimization coping (i.e., feel and express emotions but are able to let go and move on) experience less job burnout, absenteeism and adverse physical health.
• People who use positive appraisal coping tend to report the highest levels of happiness or psychological well-being.
• People who use problem solving coping respond better to psychoeducational interventions aimed to enhance well-being and resilience¹.

We know that expression of emotions (particularly behavioral in the form of writing) is significantly associated with improved physical and psychological health. The largest recent meta-analyses show that emotional expressive writing has about the same effect size as those produced by other psychological interventions–shorter intervals between writing sessions produce larger overall effect sizes and males seem to benefit even more than females².

In general those who write and use more positive emotional words than negative tend to improve (negative emotion use is curvilinear with the greatest benefit coming from those who don’t use either a very small or very large amount). Overall, the greatest benefit seems to come with a focus on positive thoughts and feelings about the situation causing pain, trauma or stress for individuals. When individuals write about the positive aspects and express positive feelings regarding a distressing situation it seems to produce favorable therapeutic effects including post traumatic growth³.

Stick it to the Man (or Women) Exercise

My wife recently took a trip to New Orleans.  I jokingly asked her to bring me back a voodoo doll — and she did. It came with an instruction book and was bigger than most “Happy Meal” toys. So, in the spirit (no pun intended) of the existing literature of the impact of emotional expression I offer the 5-minute “stick it to the man (or woman)” stress reliever technique:

1. Buy or make a “stick it to the man (or women)” voodoo doll
2. Visualize the toxic person at work or home that is creating stress, strain and/or unhappiness being the voodoo doll (it helps to place a small piece of paper with the name or image (e.g., face) on top of the voodoo doll.
3. Use or find a small needle, pin, paper clip or pruning shears and insert into a strategic location (or give to your pet who likes to shred stuffed animals).
4. Focus on the pleasurable feelings you have “sticking it to the man (or woman) and express a positive mantra (e.g., “I feel as much pleasure right now as smashing a Piñata and enjoying all the goodies that spill out”).
5. Repeat each day for one week (or until the toxic person improves their jerk behavior).

OK, now this technique has not been clinically tested in a rigorous manner or conducted in a placebo controlled double blind study but I’m guessing it can’t hurt (except for the man or woman you stick it to).

Even if you don’t find or appreciate the attempt at humor here, focusing on the positive and finding the benefit and blessings in tough situations or interpersonal interactions might actually make us stronger and happier.  Give it a try and let me know how it works for you (or just give me the needle about this Blog).

If you want to find out how resilient you are, just let me know at ken@envisiaonline.com  and I can set you up with a free trial of StressScan…..Be well….

1. Giesser, B., Coleman, L., Fisher, S., Guttry, M., Herlihy, E., Nonoguch, S., Nowack, D., Roberts, C. & Nowack, K. (2007). Living Well with Multiple Sclerosis: Lessons Learned from a 12-Week Community Based Quality of Life Program. Paper presented at 17th Annual Art & Science of Health Promotion Conference, March, 2007, San Francisco, CA
2. Frattaroli, J. (2006). Experimental disclosure and its moderators: A Meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 823-865
3. Tedeshi, R. & Calhoun, C. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 1-18

“Gratitude is fertilizer for well-being.”

Kenneth Nowack

If you want to change the world, have a lasting impact on your community, create a meaningful and psychological healthy workplace, develop a safe community, loving family or meaningful partnership–it all starts with you.

Several recent research studies have focused on the power of gratitude giving as a necessary condition for developing self esteem, enhanced social ties happiness and physical health.

Gratitude Research

Psychologist Martin Seligman and colleagues have focused on a variety of psychological interventions that increase individual happiness¹. In a 6-group, random-assignment, placebo-controlled Internet study, he tested 5 happiness interventions and one control exercise. They found that 3 of the interventions significantly increased happiness and decreased depressive symptoms–a few for as long as 6 months.

Two of the exercises (using signature strengths in a new way and writing about three good things that went well each day) increased happiness and decreased depressive symptoms for six months. Another exercise, the “gratitude visit” was associated with significant and positive mood changes for 30 days. The other tested exercises and the placebo control created positive but only transient effects on happiness and depressive symptoms.

Another psychologist, Robert Emmons, from US Davis and his colleagues have also extensively studied the impact of gratitude². In one study with adults with neuromuscular disorders, were asked to keep a gratitude journal every day for two weeks. They were asked to focus on several things each day that they were thankful about and to write about what things in their life they saw as positive and meaningful.

Participants in the “gratitude condition” showed significantly more optimism and life satisfaction than a control group. Interestingly, the researchers reported that spouses of study participants (i.e., people in the gratitude condition) seemed significantly happier than those in the control group. Not only did focusing on gratitude change attitudes, it also apparently changed behavior of those in the study.

Gratitude Exercises

Giving gratitude is something we can develop and make an automatic part of our day. Here are two evidenced-based gratitude exercises that have been proven by Seligman, Emmons and other researchers to enhance psychological well-being, social ties and life satisfaction.

1. Gratitude Journal: For two weeks, write down each day several things you are truly grateful for and explain why in your own person journal.

2. Gratitude Letter: Identify someone in your life you truly value that has contributed to your life success in some way. This person can be a family member, friend, teacher, or another person who has touched you in a positive and signifcant way and whom you have not probably acknowledged in a heart felt manner. Write a letter to this person describing what they have done to influence your life and why–mail it or deliver it in person.

3. Signature Strengths: Make a list of 3 things that you do well and you have a passion for. Actually schedule to do each during the next 30 days.

4. Be a Gift to Someone Else: Look for an opportunity to do something spontaneously positive to a stranger or someone you barely know (e.g., pay their toll on the freeway, purchase a coffee and something to eat for a homeless person asking for money outside your favorite coffee shop, cut a neighbor’s lawn that is difficult for them to do, drop off some groceries for someone who has a difficult time getting out of the house).  The recipient will appreciate your gesture and you will immediately feel a boost of the pleasure hormones that come with giving.

As Jack Buck says,”Things turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out“…..Be well….

1. Seligman, M., P, Steen, T., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410-421
2. Emmons, R.A., & McCullough, M.E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: Experimental studies of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377-38

Statistics are like bikinis.  What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. 

Aaron Levenstein

Another addition of leadership and talent management “facts” from all over the world.  Some intuitive and some not….what do you think?

1. In the latest APA Stress in America survey, 69% of employees are satisfied with their employer but only 44% are satisfied with opportunities for career growth and 46% reported being satisfied with the recognition practices of their employer.

2. For the past 6 years the American Psychological Association (APA) has been measuring aspects of psychologically healthy workplaces.  Here are some U.S. averages from 2011: Employee turnover (38%), Employees reporting chronic stress (36%), Employees intending to seek employment elsewhere (32%), Employees who would recommend their company to others as a “good place to work” (53%) and Overall employee satisfaction (69%).

3. The International Coach Federation (ICF) 2010 “Global Consumer Awareness Study” conducted in over 20 countries found that awareness of coaching was varied (only 20% in Germany to 92% in South Africa).  Of those who were coached, 83% reported high levels of satisfaction.

4. In the 2011 Blessing White “Employee Engagement Report“, only 31% of all employees reported feeling engaged at work and 17% considered themselves actively disengaged. Trust was higher of immediate managers versus senior managers–72% of North American respondents trust their managers compared to 52% who trust senior leaders.

5. In a recent online survey of 320 executives by the Institute for Executive Development and Alexel, 27% of the external hires had left the company they started with.  The number one reason given for the departure was lack of interpersonal/social competence (75%), structural problems/inconsistencies within the organization (28%), goal conflict between the executive and organization (23%) and poor assignment (23%). 

6. A study by Deloitte Consulting LLP, titled “Talent Edge 2020: Building the Recovery Together — What Talent Expects and How Leaders Are Responding,” found that not only are 65 percent of the employees surveyed actively testing the job market, but that “dissatisfied employees are transparent” with their executives and managers about “the most effective employee retention strategies” their companies could utilize to keep them.

7.  In the same Deloitte study mentioned above, when asked to list their top three retention incentives, 53 percent of respondents ranked promotion/job advancement first, followed by increased compensation (39 percent), and additional bonuses or other financial incentives (34 percent). Another 30 percent of those surveyed listed boosting employee support/recognition from their managers, a non-financial incentive, as an effective retention tactic.

8. Employee burnout is one of the top issues for Canadian employers. According to research by talent and career-management firm Right Management, which surveyed more than 3,000, executives across Canada, 54 per cent of executives cited employee morale and burnout as their biggest business concern. Executive responses: 1). Employee morale and burnout: 54 per cent; 2) Risk of losing top talent: 51 per cent; 3) Not having the skills required: 31 per cent; 4) Lack of high potential leaders in the organization: 31 per cent; 5) Redeploying key talent: 25 per cent; 6) Ability to attract new talent: 25 per cent; and 7) Loss of intellectual capital due to recent downsizing 10 per cent.

9. Results from the 2011 State of Talent Management Survey that was conducted in March by the New Talent Management Network suggest the major finding: To make talent management successful, it’s all about active support by senior management and the CEO.

10.  A new research study by SBR Consulting found that 70 percent of Millennials say there is a possibility they will change jobs once the economy improves but despite the current economy 70 percent are positive about their future in general.  Only 9 percent reported they plan to open a business within the next 5 years even though 37 percent say they do not trust big businesses.

11. Professor David Finegold and Senior Research Scientist Susan Mohrman, at the Center for Effective Organizations at the University of Southern California, presented a paper in the Spring of 2001 at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland entitled: What Do Employees Really Want? The Perception vs. The Reality.  The four most important things were: 1) A clear and compelling strategy; 2)  An innovative environment low in bureaucracy; 3) Challenging work assignments that enable employees to grow their capabilities; and 4) Rewards based, in part, on how well the organization performs.

12. One third of employees believe they are overqualified for their current job according to a study commissioned by recruitment agency Randstad and conducted for them by Ipsos Public Affairs. At the same time, 38 percent reported their hard and soft skills perfectly developed for their role.

13. A new study by consulting firm McKinsey shows that 30 percent of U.S. employers are likely to drop health care benefits. Another done by Towers Watson and the National Business Group, that said that a bit less than four in 10 employers were confident they’d be able to offer health care benefits. That’s a sharp decrease from 2007 when nearly 3/4 of employers said they were confident they’d be able to offer health care benefits.

14. The HR software firm formerly known as StepStone Solutions: In the U.S., only 37 percent of men and 24 percent of women enjoy going to work every day.  In the survey, more men (73 percent) than women (59 percent) reported being confident their company will reward them for extra effort or taking on extra responsibilities.

Back to research some new talent development facts….Be well….

“Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me.”

Unknown

Remember this old saying from childhood?

No doubt someone was saying something to you that could have been emotionally hurtful. Well, it seems this old saying really doesn’t have any scientific merit at all. In fact, recent research suggests that indeed feeling emotional hurt, being given critical feedback from your boss, having your ideas rejected by other respected colleagues, being made fun of, or being verbally abused all seem to have the same negative impact on our health.

It seems that emotional pain and physical pain both follow the same neuro pathways in our brain and can both lead to the same outcomes of depression, immune suppression and fatigue. In a nifty study by Naomi Eisenberger and colleagues at UCLA, she was able to use the latest technology to peer into the inner workings of our brain called functional magnetic resonance (fMRI) while a team was involved in a social exercise designed to provoke feelings of social isolation and rejection.

She studied what part of the brain was activated while a group of subjects played a computer game with other individuals they did not know. She created two possibilities of being rejected–either actively or passively (she told them they could not continue because of some technical problems). Comparison of fMRI brain activity in the active exclusion group versus inclusion conditions revealed greater activity in the part of the brain that is associated with physical pain (anterior cingulate cortex). Additionally, the subjects who were rejected also reported feeling psychological distress based on self-report measures¹.

Four studies show that recall of past socially painful situations elicits greater pain than reliving a past physically painful event and has greater negative impact on cognitively demanding tasks². Maybe dying of a broken heart isn’t so crazy….

Have you ever had a 360-degree feedback experience that left you feeling a bit numb?  OK, how about a performance evaluation meeting that just plain left you dumbfounded about why your boss mentioned something that might have occurred 10 to 12 months ago but never bothered to mention it to you?

We all know that feedback is the key necessary (but not sufficient) condition to create awareness, insight and reflection to help us do things more, less or differently in the future–it really is the only way to enlighten those with the “no clue” gene. We also know the leaders in our lives that seemed to possess the emotional intelligence and skills to say just right thing in the right way to actually motivate us to want to change our behavior³.

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 feedback. They found that although there was a significant effect for feedback interventions (d=.41), one third of all studies showed performance declined⁴. Indeed, if performance feedback was a drug many of us could be easily sued for malpractice. Although older and probably in need of a revision, this study is still one of the most cited in the social psychology literature.

Although the authors speculated about many reasons why performance feedback led to actual performance declines in 33% of all studies they seemed to suggest that in most cases it leads to individuals feeling hurt, demotivated and emotionally upset. If Eisenberger and her UCLA researchers are correct in what they are finding it would appear that indeed feedback in some cases might actually be harmful to your health.

New Feedback Research

Everyone has experienced physical pain and one of the first things we often do is take a pain reliever, like acetaminophen (Tylenol). But physical pain isn’t the only kind of pain we might experience. Our feelings can also be hurt from feeling slighted, having our ideas rejected or even being given feedback we experience as evaluative. So, researchers wondered whether acetaminophen, which acts on the central nervous system, could blunt social pain, too. In one experiment, healthy college students were randomly assigned to take acetaminophen or a placebo twice a day for three weeks. Those who took acetaminophen reported experiencing significantly fewer hurt feelings.

In a second experiment, another set of healthy college students was randomly assigned to take acetaminophen or a placebo twice a day for three weeks. At the end of the three weeks, the students were scanned in an MRI machine while playing a virtual ball-tossing game with two other players. After a while, the other players stopped tossing the ball to the subject who reported social stress from being left out or socially rejected. Those who had taken the acetaminophen exhibited significantly less neural activity in areas of the brain previously associated with experiencing social and physical pain⁵.

So, when you feel upset about negative interactions with others, take two over the counter pain killers and call me in the morning….Be well….

1. Eisenberger, N., Lieberman, M. and Williams, K. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302, 290-292
2. Chen, Z., Williams, K., Fitness, J. & Newton, N. (2008). When hurt will not heal. Psychological Science, 19, 789-795
3. Nowack, K. (2010). Leveraging Multirater Feedback to Facilitate Successful Behavioral Change. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 61, 280-297
4. 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
5. DeWall, C. et al. (20010). Acetaminophen reduces social pain: Behavioral and neural evidence. Psychological Science, 21, 931-937

“The most important trip you may take in life is meeting people half way.”
Henry Boyle

In earlier Blogs I have written about the “pro-social peptide” oxytocin and how it seems to enhance trust and trustworthiness between individuals and teams.  Unfortunately, oxytocin can’t easily be increased artificially but experimentally when it is given to people, they are much more trusting and willing to collaborate and cooperate with others.

Based on some new research, we now have an evidence based way to positively influence and win negotiations with others even when we are blatantly unfair.  Furthermore, this technique even gets them to perceive it is OK. 

Curious about the steps?

Step 1:  Pick a “mark” (friend, colleague, family member, or customer) and schedule a lunch or dinner meeting to discuss an important business deal.

Step 2: Serve food and drink and at the beginning of the negotiation meeting “season” the food or drink with a common anti-anxiety drug such as such as valium, Xanax or klonopin.

Step 3: Eat, drink and be merry for about 60 minutes.

Step 4: Make an outrageous and unfair business offer (e.g., offer to purchase something at a ridiculous price, offer something stupid for an outlandish sacrifice by the other party, ask for the “moon” and promise to give nothing in return) and graciously accept when agreed to.

Step 5: Offer to split the bill on the meal (most likely, the other party will offer to pay for it). Tell the other party you enjoyed the meeting and hope to do more business with them soon.

Sound crazy right?  In a new study, both neural and behavioral responses to unfair proposals were able to be completely manipulated by a common anti-anxiety drug.

Winning Negotiations with Others Using Drugs

It is well-established that emotions influence decision making. One way of studying this relationship is the Ultimatum Game (a competitive game used by researchers to study conflict, cooperation and trustworthiness), which has revealed that subjects punish unfair behavior in others in spite of receiving a concomitant economic loss.

Kataruba Gospic and her colleagues from the Center of Integrative Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Sweden, recently designed a paradigm that allows the measure the activity of subcortical brain regions during decision making in the Ultimatum Game, while at the same time using a pharmacological approach that can suppress emotional responses and brain (amygdala) activity¹. The pharmacological treatment (a popular benziodiazpine called oxazepam–20 mg taken orally) made subjects punish unfair behavior less, and decreased brain activity in the amygdala in response to unfair proposals, without changing the subjects’ feeling of unfairness. In the control group, punishment was directly linked to an increase in amygdala activity.

How the Experiment Was Run

Thirty-five subjects were randomly assigned to either the control (placebo pill) or the treatment group (oxazepam, 20 mg orally). One hour after treatment subjects played the UG in the MRI scanner by watching 45 movie clips, each with a different human proposer. The proposals were fair, unfair, or neutral. All proposals had the exact same wording, and the proposer ended the sentence by stating the share that he/she would get. The fMRI onset time was defined as when the last word was spoken, i.e., when the fairness of the proposal could be judged. Subjects were instructed to respond either “yes” or “no” to the fair/unfair proposals and “no” to the neutral proposals. After scanning, subjects rated the fairness of the offers (scale 1–7) and likability of the proposers’ faces (scale 0–100).

Results

The functional MRI showed that unfair proposals elicited activity in a particular part of the brain (right insula) but that those taking the anti-anxiety medication showed lowered neural responses related to unfair proposals (i.e., less reaction) compared to a placebo.

• The participants in the anti-anxiety group showed decreased rejection rate to unfair proposals
• Males showed greater brain (amygdala) responses to unfair proposals compared to women in the placebo but not to the drug treatment group
• It is unclear if the drug leads to greater likability of the other negotiating partner or whether it alters the perception of unfairness

The authors state “We have demonstrated that an anxiolytic drug alters the balance between rapid emotional reactions and reflected-feeling-based decisions. The finding prompts an ethical discussion, as we showed that a commonly used drug influences core functions in the human brain that underlie individual autonomy and economic decision making.”

What has not been thoroughly tested is what happens when both parties take benzodiazepines in business negotiations….I think I will get a glass of wine and research the topic a bit further….Be well….

1. Gospic K, Mohlin E, Fransson P, Petrovic P, Johannesson M, et al. 2011 Limbic Justice—Amygdala Involvement in Immediate Rejection in the Ultimatum Game. PLoS Biol 9(5): e1001054. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001054

When:

 September 9, 2011

7:30 AM – 9:00 AM

New Location

Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, LLP
11377 West Olympic Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA  90064
West Tower, Rm. 1031

Warning: Feedback Might Be Dangerous to Your Health
Presented by Ken Nowack

Within 1/5th of a second, our brain can recognize harm and danger in social interactions with others. In recent research, one-third of all feedback interventions resulted in an actual decrease in job performance. Please join us for a provocative presentation and discussion about how feedback can be harmful to your health and the neurobiology of social pain by psychologist and researcher Ken Nowack. Learn the 5 social triggers for emotional (and physical) pain and practice a simple but powerful feedback technique to help get others to change their behavior.

About Ken Nowack

Dr. Kenneth M. Nowack is a licensed psychologist and President and Chief Research Officer of Envisia Learning, a leading provider of assessment, training and development tools and President of LifeHub Inc. a health promotion and wellness company (www.getlifehub.com).  Ken has conducted research and published extensively in the areas of 360° feedback systems, health psychology, survey research, and assessment and personnel testing. Ken currently serves as a member of the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations.  He received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Educational Psychology at the University of California, Davis, and his Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology from the University of California, Los Angeles where he is a guest lecturer in the Anderson School of Management. Ken is co-author of a new book called: “Clueless–Coaching people who just don’t get it.” To learn more about Ken, please visit his website at: www.envisialearning.com, follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/Envisia or Blog at www.results.envisialearning.com

About the ASTD Special Division

RSVP: Rachel Karu – rachel@RAEdevelopment. com
(310) 441-1104

Also, thanks for remembering the following:

• Please bring in books for our book exchange
• Please be discreet about bringing outside food or drink.
• The Whole Foods cafe opens at 7:00 a.m.
• Free Parking – Kindly park in the back of the parking lot

“Statistics are like bikinis.  What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.”

Aaron Levenstein

Another edition of leadership and talent management “facts” from all over the world.  Some intuitive and some not….what do you think?
1. Hooray for U.S. work ethics!  According to he Center for American progress in 2010, 86 percent of men and 67 percent of women work more than 40 hours per week.  The International Labour Organization has reported that American workers spend 260 more hours at the office than those in the UK and 499 more hours than the French.

2. Hooray for workaholics!  Mika Kivmaki and colleagues (University of London) examined the relationship between work hours and its ability to predict cardiovascular illness and death in 7,095 adults aged 39-62 working full-time and free from CHD at the beginning of the study.  Those employees working 11 hours or more per day had a 1.67 fold increase in heart disease compared to those working 7-8 hours during the 12-year follow up period. So, if you want to increase your chances of dying prematurely by about 67%, just keep returning those emails at all hours of the night.

3. Hooray for being healthy!  It apparently pays to be well–particularly for employers.  A study by the non-profit National Business Group on Health found that incentives for wellness provided by employers averaged $430 per employee in 2010 (65% increase from $260 in 2009).  These incentives included gift cards, cash and contributions to the employee’s health savings account.  Punitive efforts such as reducing employer contributions to these same health plans were increasing for those not motivated to participate in wellness programs.

4. Hooray for retirement parties!  The American Institute of certified Accountants survey in January of 2011 wasn’t great news for those planning on retiring.  Because of the economic downturn, Baby boomers planning on retiring now plan to wait an average of four years longer than their target dates.

5.  Hooray for salary increases!  A recent survey by Towers Watson of 381 large and mid-size employers in diverse industries found that corporate leaders were budgeting merit increases of 3% for 2011 compared to 2.7% overall in 2010.  Before the recent economic downturn the average merit increase was 3.5% to 4%.  Better not spend your increase just yet as inflation (e.g., gas prices, electric, health insurance) seems to be increasing at a faster rate.

6. Hooray for work spouses!  Nearly two-thirds of 640 adults surveyed in July 2011 by Captive Network reported to have had or currently have a “work spouse” (they could be single, married, have a significant other or be of the same sex).  So, what’s a “work spouse?”  Captive Network defined it as a relationship were you can be brutally blunt about appearance/hygiene, you know what the other individual eats for meals, you share inside jokes, you know as much about the person as their “real” partner and you can finish each other’s sentences.  No information was reported on whether any of these “work spouses” also had sex with each other.

7. Hooray for creativity!  A 2010 survey by IBM’s Institute for Business Value of 1,541 chief executive officers cited creativity as the most important trait for successful leadership (but see below!).

8. Hooray for quirky!  A recent study published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology by Jack Goncalo and colleagues of Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor relations.  They asked 55 employees at a multinational refinery to rate 291 colleagues (all working in a creative division) for their ability to come up with ideas and leadership potential.  The results showed a strong correlation between being creative and been seen as poor management potential. 

9. Hooray for job seekers! A 2011 survey by Addeco (“Workplace Outlook Study”) found that the most important thing to job seekers now are: job security (21%), health benefits (20%), salary/compensation (14%), work/life balance(14%), retirement benefits (11%), vacation/days off (5%), company culture (4%) and company perks (1%).  The largest fraction of Americans looking for jobs consisted of 18-34 year-olds.  And 28% of Americans are starting a new job in 2011 compared to only 14% in 2010.

10.  Hooray for Social Media Recruiting! The 2010 Jobvite survey(“Social Recruiting Survey”) revealed that the most popular social media used for corporate recruiting included: LinkedIn (78.3%), Facebook (54.6%), Twitter (44.8%), Blogs (18.7%), YouTube (137%), My Space (5.4%) and None (14.4%).

11. Hooray for critical organizational needs!  According to a recently released Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp) report called the “Critical Human Capital Issues of  2011“, the top issues identified by organizations as “most critical” included: Succession planning, coping with change, knowledge retention, talent management/coaching, leadership development, performance management, innovation/creativity, engagement, measuring human capital and managing a global workforce.  Since last year, measuring/rewarding results and workforce planning dropped of this annual survey (they have done it for 30 years) and innovation/creativity and coaching became part of the top 10 this year.

12.  Hooray for believing in organizational change efforts! According to a survey by PeopleNRG Inc. talent in the U.S and abroad are skeptical of change efforts by organizations and don’t easily buy in (78% were skeptical in the United States and 77% in other countries).  Leaders seem to communicate the benefits of change (61% in the US and 50% in other countries agreed that this is true) but only 26% of U.S. companies involve talent in change effort planning (23% in other countries).

Back to research some new talent development facts….Be well….

“Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success.”
Henry Ford

Have you ever worked on a team (e.g., task force or committee) that really worked effectively?

Just how well a group performs on a wide range of different tasks is a way to define and measure “collective group intelligence” or “C”.

Who Are Really the Leaders in Groups?

In two very recent studies by Cameron Anderson at UC Berkeley, dominant leaders appeared to achieve influence in their groups in part because they were seen as more competentby fellow group members¹.

To measure task competence, they included ratings of task expertise and general cognitive abilities. To measure social competence, they included ratings of leadership and verbal skills by observers.  They used a set of group exercises that was designed to be engaging and evoke a lot of discussion.  After all group sessions had been conducted, outside observers watched a videotape of the sessions and rated group members on the same dimensions on which group members rated each other.

Consistently, the group members who spoke up the most were rated the highest for such qualities as “general intelligence” and “dependable and self-disciplined.”  The ones who didn’t speak as much tended to score higher for less desirable traits, including “conventional and uncreative.”

These findings suggest that dominant individuals (social, talkative, confident) may emerge as early leaders in group settings by appearing helpful to the group’s overall success as opposed to aggressively grabbing power. It seems that dominance leads to influence at least in part because it entails more confident and initiative-taking behaviors. An overwhelming 94% of the time, the groups in the study used the first answer anyone shouted out — mostly ignoring the ideas of others even if they were actually better.

Anderson and his colleagues also designed a second study to evaluate if it was possible that people who talked more did so because they simply had more to contribute.  They found that people who spoke up more were again more likely to be described by other group members as “leaders” and likely to be rated as competent in the task they were working on.   Being more verbal and assertive seemed to signal “leadership presence” to the other group members initially.

Two longitudinal studies (7 weeks) explored leadership dynamics in unstructured groups in which participants were strangers. These individuals were subsequently rated negatively by the group as a result of arrogance and high-handedness at the end of the 7 week period².  These findings suggest that just acting confident and speaking up seem to be the initial ingredients for the emergence of leadership but fade in the end.

So, if being outgoing, energetic and socially oriented help to be viewed being a leader and being took talkative over time erodes the perception of effectiveness, will these qualities in all team members tell us what team emotional intelligence is all about?

What are the Ingredients for “Collective Intelligence” in Groups?”

Anita Williams Woolley (Carnegie Mellon) and her colleagues from Union College and MIT conducted two recent studies to see whether “collective intelligence” exists and what is associated with it³.  They conducted two studies with 699 people working in groups of two to five on a wide variety of tasks (visual puzzles, brainstorming, making collective moral judgments, negotiations, architectural design game).

Here are some of their findings:

• Overall, they found that individual intelligence was a significant predictor of performance when these tasks were performed individually but not a significant predictor of group performance
• When both individual intelligence and collective intelligence are compared, “C” was a significant predictor of group/team performance and general intelligence was not

What Predicts Group/Collective Intelligence and What Does Not

It seems intuitive that group cohesion, satisfaction with the team and engagement would be pretty important for collective intelligence.  However, none of these were significant predictors of high performance.  Here are three that were:

• Group intelligence was significantly correlated with the average social sensitivity of group’s members measured by a common social and emotional intelligence face recognition test (Reading of the Mind in the Eyes)
• Group intelligence was inversely correlated with having dominant group members who spoke a lot—smarter groups had more equal distribution of “conversational turn-taking” in speaking
• Team intelligence was significantly associated with the number of women in the group but the finding in this studies suggested it was mediated by social sensitivity (women scored as a group higher on this than their male team members)

How to Build High Collective Intelligent Groups

Based on reseach on team collective intelligence and performance, here are some tips and suggestions for building high performance teams:

1. Teach leaders to be better “process consultants” to foster and facilitate an equal participation of all group members.
2. Vote dominating group members “off the island” and create a more participative culture.
3. When selecting teams, look for personality factors of being extroverted (energetic, outgoing, positive affect) and emotionally and socially competent (e.g., interpersonal sensitivity, empathy).
4. Don’t be teased by hiring the “brightest” talent who scores high on traditional measures of general intelligence or “g”—remember, it’s not how smart you are that matters but how you smart.
5. If you want innovative and creative solutions, create groups that are more similar than different in terms of experience, stakeholder representation and background—only if you need the most “out of box” thinking should you create very teams composed of highly different experiences, disciplines and personalities.
6. Select, cultivate and retain high performance women for team based cultures—particularly if they are high on interpersonal sensitivity.
7. Teach team members group process skills as well as collaboration, negotiation, influence and communication skills to enhance collective intelligence.

Jack Welch once said, “The team with the best players wins” but given the research it is probably more accurate to say that “The team with the right players wins”….Be well….

1. Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. (2009). Why do dominant personalities attain influence in groups? A competence-signaling account of personality dominance. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 96, 491-503
2. Paulhaus, D. (1998).  Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A mixed blessing? Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 197-208
3. Williams Wolley, A et al. (2010).  Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups.  Science, 330, 686-688

“We are always more anxious to be distinguished for a talent which we do not possess, than to be praised for the fifteen which we do possess”

 Mark Twain
 

One of the things I’ve learned being a volunteer puppy raiser of guide dogs for the blind is about giving feedback.

With guide dog puppies, you really only need two things to effectively communicate with them: 1) Their name, and 2) The command (e.g., “Rocco, down”).  Any attempts at a real ”conversation” will most likely interpreted by the dog as ”blah, blah, blah” (e.g., “mom really wouldn’t appreciate you chewing on that”).

One of the other lessons in raising guide dogs is the importance of verbal praise.  The old classic book “The One Minute Manager” emphasized “catching them doing things right” and it is still one of the best simple techniques to reinforce behavior that you want to see repeated in others. 

This technique seems pretty well established for “behaviors” but how should we respond when we hear people sharing “good news” with us about an event that occurred on a particular day?  What is the best way to respond to “good news” and how does it affect the other person when we do?

How to Respond to Good News Expressed by Others

Four studies by Shelly Gable at UC Santa Barbara showed that communicating personal positive events with others is associated with increased daily positive affect and happiness beyond the positive event itself¹.
 
By studying hundreds of couples, she’s found that when partners disclose positive news about their day, how the other reacts matters — a lot to the emotional fabric of a relationship.   Gable found that when an individual responds actively and constructively (as opposed to passively and destructively) to someone experiencing and expressing a positive experience–attraction, feelings of friendship and positive affect significantly increases.
 
Positive reactions also magnify the uplifting effects of the good news for the partner who’s doing the sharing, she discovered.  A negative or semi-positive response to a partner’s good news, however, can undercut all the benefits derived from disclosing in the first place, such as fostering trust, intimacy, and satisfaction with the relationship.  In fact, it emotionally is interpreted that the other person is discounting and just not valuing the positive experience of the other in a relationship.

How do you typically react and respond when a partner, family member, friend or colleague shares with you something they experienced and are excited about?
 
The Four Ways to Respond
 
Your colleague announces they just heard they were promoted. You could react with:

1.  An Active Constructive response
 
“That’s awesome, you really have worked hard and made some great contributions to the organization” followed by questions.  This response demonstrates caring, support and a vote of confidence.

2.  A Passive Constructive response
 
“Well that’s great news” and then quickly change topics that are completely unrelated.  This response shows some degree of support but is much more passive and detached.
 
3.  An Active Destructive response
 
“It sounds like you will be on the road a lot more like the other partners so hope you will be able to find some time to have a life.”  This response is generally deflating as it seems to focus on the “negative” aspects of the great news (“cloud in the silver lining”).

4.  A Passive Destructive response
 
This can either be a response that is totally self-focused (“Well, great!  I can’t wait to tell you what happened to me” today”)  or irrelevant (“Hey, before you tell me more I wanted to ask about…..”). This response tends to ignore the situation or event altogether.
 
Her research suggests that reinforcing the good news of others may have very important intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits–telling others  about positive events seems to be related to both greater life satisfaction and positive feelings in others.  Receiving passive or even destructive responses wipes out the boost to mood that comes from sharing, and can make people feel worse than on days when no good things happen.

A non-supportive reaction to a another person’s positive news is a direct measure about the health of the relationship (and for those romantically involved it is actually predictive of its breakup) than whether the partner, colleague, friend or family member is supportive after bad news is experienced and shared.

So, the next time someone you care about shares something exciting and positive about their day with you, put down that remote control, get off your computer, stop texting and respond in a way that will raise your interpersonal stock in their eyes–focus on the positive and take an active interest in actually what is most meaningful to the person. 

I’m not sure this will be ideal for raising guide dog puppies for the blind but it likely better than the “mom won’t be happy with you doing that.”  Be well…..

1. Gable, S., Reis, H., Impett, E. & Asher, E. (2004). What do you do when things go right?  The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 228-245

“Nothing is more effective than sincere, accurate praise, and nothing is more lame than a cookie-cutter compliment”

Bill Walsh

What would you say to someone if you knew that your honest feedback to a person could influence and motivate this individual to make or not to make a $3 million gift or donation to a charity or non-profit organization?

Would you be brutally honest and share your opinion that the person has a long pattern of being a “competent jerk” and really needs to change their interpersonal approach with others or would you be politically correct and just assume your feedback really won’t make a difference in changing their leadership style? It is also possible that if the person feels overly criticized that they might be unwilling to “give back” to the organization in the form of a monetary gift.

Ahh…the dilemma of feedback!

Just how honest and candid should one be in giving feedback to others?

One question that comes up from raters in 360-degree feedback processes is whether they can be “totally honest” in completing the online questionnaires¹. I’m sure in the back of their minds they are also questioning just how much this feedback will really make a difference.

As a vendor of 360-degree feedback assessments it’s not atypical on any multi-rater project to get at least one participant or rater contacting us and asking just how “anonymous” and confidential their feedback will be. We try to explain that leaders don’t typically wake up each morning and spontaneously try out new behaviors and change for the sake of change.

We try to assure raters their comments and ratings will be bundled with others who have been invited by their leader for feedback and that without taking a risk to share their observations, suggestions and feedback what they will see is basically more of the same. We can actually confirm by watching our assessment administration system that some of the less paranoid hang up and complete the online questionnaires and the others choose not to.

Why do Some Raters Decide Not to Provide Feedback?

• Some raters don’t believe that leaders will change anyway (it doesn’t matter if the cause is motivation or ability–the outcome is the same)
• Some raters are justified in not participating knowing that their boss will actually try hard to identify them and if successful will punish them for their candor
• Some raters lack confidence about anonymity and confidentiality and don’t trust the 360-feedback process
• Some raters don’t ever get any follow up after they share feedback from so they see it as a waste of their time

Not long ago, the past chancellor of the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), said he and his family would no longer be considering donating a $3 million gift to the school when he planned on retiring after a regent’s negative comments in his job performance evaluation (this probably is another story my old UCLA dissertation chair, Samuel Culbert who is critical particularly of performance reviews would love!).

In a written evaluation by one of the regents who had a role to provide appraisal comments to the Chancellor, this regent wrote that the Chancellor’s claims of being “totally honest and known for his integrity” were false. The regent went on to write about the Chancellor that “he is known primarily as a self-absorbed, self-indulgent bully and tyrant, given to rashly going off at little or no provocation.”

Feedback, whether oral or written, can be either motivating or disengaging. In almost all 360-degree feedback assessments, there is a section for “open ended” questions that are typically reported back to participants verbatim. One dilemma in coaching when using 360-degree feedback is how to handle a situation in which the majority of written comments by raters are particularly skewed towards being critical, negative and judgmental. Ethically, what should you do knowing that the reaction on the part of your client might be received negatively?

Smither and Walker (2004) analyzed the impact of upward feedback ratings as well as narrative comments over a one-year period for 176 managers². They found that those who received a small number of unfavorable behaviorally based comments improved more than other managers but those who received a large number (relative to positive comments) significantly declined in performance more than other managers. These individuals were more disengaged and emotionally upset as a result of the 360-degree feedback process.

Newer neuroscience research sheds some interesting light on “why” perceived negative feedback is potentially emotionally harmful. Recent studies confirm that emotional hurt and rejection, whether part of social interactions (or poorly designed and delivered feedback interventions) can actually trigger the same neurophysiologic pathways associated with physical pain and suffering³.

As George Carlin once said, “Honesty may be the best policy, but it’s important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy”…..Be well….

1. Nowack, K. (2010). Leveraging Multirater Feedback to Facilitate Successful Behavioral Change. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 61, 280-297
2. Smither, J. & Walker, A.G. (2004). Are the characteristics of narrative comments related to improvement in multi-rater feedback ratings over time? Personnel Psychology, 89, 575-581
3. Eisenberger, N., Lieberman, M. & Williams, K. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302, 290-292