I have recently been involved in the project “Talent Management in SMEs” which was carried out in different areas of Spain. The project was, inevitably, accompanied by the current climate of uncertainty which is forcing companies to really get the most out of their staff’s talents and is driving employees to give the best of themselves, to think proactively, and to work as a team.
Although the project was a lot of work, it was also extremely rewarding. For the consulting firms involved -InnoPersonas (where I work) and Gestiona- it was really motivating to be able to have an impact on the human resources policies of the small- and medium-sized companies who took part in the project. We met with people who were enthusiastic and great to be around, with a real desire to switch over to new ways of doing things, and implement more flexible and open policies. A group of true professionals!
The project aimed to bring about a greater degree of professionalism in management practices, reinforce leadership, and kickstart innovation. It comprised the following phases:
An analysis of the key factors in the SMEs related to talent management (all the staff took part in this). In order to carry out this analysis, we looked at various aspects of innovation and the development of talent, such as: diversity, co-creation, collaboration and horizontal structures, participation, transparency, self-management, freedom, recognition in the workplace, and an orientation to innovation. We also considered policies to attract and develop talent, commitment to the job and personal motivation. We used a questionnaire consisting of 25 questions, with a choice of answers which didn’t allow respondents to sit on the fence. The combined results of the 18 companies which took part in the project were as follows (marks out of 10):
-Factors which favour talent: leadership (6.81), climate (6.91), company culture (6.93), strategy/innovation (6.88).
-Structural factors relating to talent: remuneration (5.14) and overall organization/interdepartmental organization (5.74).
Talent management workshops, identification of opportunities for innovation with the board of directors, and a follow-up analysis of the feasibility of implementing these opportunities. A summary of the best practices which were identified in the project was communicated to the SMEs. We looked at eminently practical concerns, such as: the “why” of talent management, an analysis of the diversity present in teams, an overall analysis of the role of talent in the business world: I want/I can/action; facilitating factors, obstacles and catalysts for talent; individual and collective feelings, and the nature of the talent currently available in the companies; and an overall diagnosis of each company, etc. We also worked on having a vision of the future, the appropriate behaviour to harness talent, progressing from having talented individuals to having talented teams, etc. All the workshops were very much hands-on and highly practical.
We supported the whole process through counselling sessions. The information obtained from the questionnaires and workshops enabled us to shape these sessions. (There were three sessions in all, most of the time broken down into one face-to-face session and two over the phone.) The sessions focused on help which was tailor-made to the needs of each person in order to bolster a change in their habits, consolidate what had been learnt in the workshops, and determine a future plan of action.
As part of the project we developed a 2.0 collaborative platform focused on sharing the best practices. All the users could write their own blog and had their own inbox to receive messages. They also had their own personal profile, and the chance to take part in online forums and discussions, set up their own debates, and upload and manage documents and their own social network. Throughout the project InnoPersonas kept the platform fresh and lively by posting articles and a wide range of information about talent management. Conclusions
- It is not easy for the SMEs who took part in the project to introduce major changes in their organizational structure or implement significant improvements in their human resources policies: most of the companies we worked with are stretched to the limit and simply do not have the time to implement far-ranging changes. When we examined the viability of introducing talent management policies in SMEs, we realised that this objective was too ambitious; before contemplating the implementation of such policies, SMEs need to have developed a genuine 2.0 human resources environment. In short, as a necessary first step SMEs need to improve their overall human resource policies and adapt them to the needs of the company.
- In view of the current low level of job rotation in the marketplace, it is almost impossible to ascertain whether the companies who took part in the project are retaining staff because of improvements brought about by the project, or merely because of the general (un)employment situation.
- Communication is the standout area for improvement in all the SMEs who took part in the project; also very high on the list of “could be better” is the management of conflicts between departments, and innovation in processes, systems and structures.
- The areas where employees feel most satisfied are the flexibility given to them, the atmosphere at work, and the equality of opportunities which they enjoy.
Fear cloaks itself in many different disguises, and some of them are very difficult to penetrate, such as stress, “respect” or not feeling at one with the world. What’s more, tracking fear down from behind its various masks often requires you to become your own personal Sherlock Holmes. You should never run yourself down because you feel afraid, and start telling yourself that you are a coward or something worse. This is completely counterproductive and pointless. Rather, you need to be positive and proactive: the really interesting thing about fear is that it can provide a path to help you get to the bottom of what lies behind it. Asking yourself questions can help you along this path, questions such as What am I afraid of losing? or What good is fear doing me? When you’re concerned about your health, your loved ones or your belongings, answering these questions is simple: you are striving to protect yourself from pain and loss to ensure your basic survival in areas such as your health, work, house or money. As a curious aside, research carried out at University College, London has demonstrated that when we lose money, areas of our brain related to aggression or frustration are activated. Just think of the last time you couldn’t find your wallet or purse and you’ll immediately see the real-life confirmation of this research!
The problem of fear becomes more serious when its root cause is more subtle and difficult to pin down. Behind our fear of rejection (what will people say?), failure (not living up to your own or others’ expectations) or loss of power or status (position in the company, having a particular make of car), lies the fear of losing a mask or a role. This mask can take many forms, for example: being popular, always appearing to be on top of things, being the personification of success, etc. Moreover, if you dig a bit deeper, you come to realize that this mask is what gives you the security of feeling appreciated by others and is also very often what gives you your own sense of self-worth. And therein lies the trap. For example, when they’ve had a project go down the tubes at work, many people are more affected by their wounded pride than by the strictly work-related consequences. And this is bound up with their self-image and the role which they have assigned themselves.
If you are able to pinpoint what lies behind your fear and whether your fear is actually doing you any good, you’ll have made great strides in any process of personal change; because change is only possible once all the masks have fallen to the ground.
“Old age has two advantages: you neither have toothache nor do you hear the rubbish which those around you are spouting.”
So said the writer George Bernard Shaw. However, despite these undoubted advantages, we all struggle against the process of growing old. We look for eternal youth in the form of creams which promise us the impossible, and fill up our supermarket trolleys with products prefixed by the magic words organic, diet or macrobiotic; and when we think that this is no longer enough, we pay a visit to the plastic surgeon’s. In Spain 800 plastic surgery operations are carried out every day, and it’s a business which generates a turnover of 900 million euros a year in Spain alone … which puts the country firmly in the number one spot in the European Union and third in the entire world (according to figures provided by the Spanish Organisation of Plastic Surgery). This desire for eternal youth is rooted in our own fears and insecurities; and possibly one of our deepest fears is not being accepted or loved. As the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer put it:
“Man’s social instinct is not based on love of others but on fear of finding himself alone.”
The need to be accepted in modern-day society is bound up with notions of beauty and youth, the supreme values of today’s age. Looking middle-aged or old is definitely not the order of the day, especially in the case of women. A man with grey hair may be deemed to appear interesting; many women, on the other hand, try to hide the oncoming of greyness. This search for youth is at heart a striving for love and social recognition- but it comes, paradoxically, at a very high price to our happiness. Neither is it practical: trying to find satisfaction in something which, like it or not, has a sell-by date, is like betting on a horse that will lose the race, despite the forecasts of all the pundits to the contrary.
In a survey carried out in years ago in France, 89 per cent of the respondents thought that man needs to find meaning in his life. The psychiatrist Viktor Frankl posited that modern society’s collective neurosis is grounded in a sensation of existential meaninglessness. It is precisely to paper over this sensation that we pursue things which we are afraid of losing, whether it be youth, good looks, a house which is the envy of our neighbours, or a prestigious job. Deep down, we have come to believe that our identity and our own personal worth depend on what we have and not on who we are. And this is the source of all our fears. Although we can hardly lose who we are, we most definitely can lose what we possess- including our youth. Perhaps we have been trying to seek happiness where it is not to be found. As Daniel Gilbert, Professor of Psychology at the University of Harvard, puts it:
“While we as individuals want to be happy, society wants us to spend and consume”
If we try to think about the people who have been most important to us in our own lives, we are hardly likely to single out those who were the best-looking, but those who have loved us just as we are, warts and all … those who have made us feel important and unique. Antoine de Saint-Exupèry, the author of The Little Prince, put it this way:
“The most important things in life are invisible to our eyes.”
How right he was! Real beauty cannot be seen, and we can all aspire to it, regardless of our looks. The more we can accept and love ourselves as we are, the happier we will be. And isn’t happiness what we’re all looking for?
Is the overall performance of a team less than, the same as, or greater than the sum of its parts? Ringelman, a French agronomist, found the answer: less. He came to this conclusion after studying of a group of men who were pulling on a rope. According to the laws of physics, four people who pull on a rope will exert four times the force as one person. However, Ringelman’s study showed that in reality the force exerted by a group of four was only two and a half times bigger than the force exerted by a lone individual. And when the number of men was increased to eight, the force was less than four times bigger. The rules of physics won’t help us to solve this conundrum. However, if we consider the motivation of the men involved, we may be able to find an explanation for Ringelman’s thought-provoking findings. The combined efforts of large teams are diluted “as if by magic” by group dynamics. The greater the number of people in the group, the greater our tendency not to pull our weight (no pun intended) and to think: “The others are taking it easy, so why shouldn’t I?” Or, to put it in a company context, “Why should I work harder if I only earn the same as the others?”
At the moment there is a lot of talk about how we all need to make an effort, both in companies and in society at large. However, we would do well to bear in mind that many people may think: “Why should I make more of an effort if my neighbour is not?” In times such as these, it is especially important for companies to act coherently:
Leading by example. For instance, if you introduce strict new rules on the consumption of stationary in the office, you can forget about putting any slap-up lunches on the company credit card.
Recognizing teams’ performance. You can’t, on the other hand, demand more of a group of people without, on the other, giving them plaudits when they all pull together (with or without a rope) and meet their targets.
Acknowledging the contribution of individuals. Companies must develop systems which enable them to track individual performance and to reward those who contribute significant added value to the company.
If the current crisis is achieving one thing and nothing else, it’s bringing out the best in some people and, unfortunately, the worst in others. For example, only a few months ago the mantra in the business world was that talent and innovation were priority areas, and office walls were covered with slogans to that effect; however, now that things are getting more difficult, rather different attitudes are making an appearance. In many teams innovation has been shelved out of fear of failure, and the mere thought of questioning anything the boss says makes our hair stand on end, and any desire to be different from the rest of the crowd is discreetly buried.
“Why are companies in Spain not more competitive?” is a question I’ve often asked myself. I think it is partly due to our dislike of change, and partly to the fact that too many organisations are run by people who are afraid of talent, for all that their marketing departments try to sell exactly the opposite idea in Internet forums and on the company’s own website. Gary Hamel, in his book “The Future of Management” (which I highly recommend), explains that companies such as Google, Whole Foods (supermarkets that specialise in organic food), or Gore & Associates (the creators of Gore-Tex) are market leaders precisely because they have ground-breaking policies. For example, the remuneration of the teams in Whole Foods is based on their results relative to other stores in the same chain. This means that when teams take on new staff, they think about the person’s ability to help them win, in the same way that a football or basketball team would. In Gore & Associates the managing director is elected by the employees of the company; and Google has innovation policies that would put most European companies to shame.
Obviously, not all companies are the same, and neither are the managers that run them. Extraordinary companies and exemplary managers do exist. However, there is also a sombre reality (which we don’t always want to talk about) that many people have to live with on a daily basis, and which runs counter to the official pronouncements of managing directors and company chairmen. The sad fact of the matter is that there are many companies where employees merely try to maintain the status quo, keep on the right side of the boss, and avoid anyone having a bad opinion of them. Unfortunately, in the current very tough times, we are losing a golden opportunity to change obsolete systems based on power (without any added value) and/or fear (without a shred of talent). Transparency -by which I mean acknowledging who contributes what- is one of the best ways forward out of the current crisis, but it requires courage on the part managers to implement it. However, if we carry on with the opaque system prevalent in many companies today, we will continue to ignore the contribution of brilliant people, and even end up firing them (I have personal knowledge of several sad examples of this); and mediocrity, which does us so much harm both in the professional and social sphere, will still be king.
These are not good times for leaders: the economic crisis is bringing into sharp focus what Robert Sutton, professor at Stanford, refers to as the “toxic tandem” which is formed by bosses and subordinates. One half of the tandem consists of people with power who are not always in touch with the needs of those working for them; the other half is occupied by staff who tend to read too much into their bosses’ actions.
The explanation for this divide is provided by an experiment which has a biscuit as the protagonist … Three people are selected to participate as “guinea pigs”. Two of them are told to draw up a document, working on their own, while the third one is instructed to assess the work of the other two, and to decide how much each of them should be paid for their efforts; in other words, the third person takes on the role of the boss. Half an hour into the exercise, the researchers leave a plate with four tasty-looking biscuits behind the three participants. Each person eats one biscuit, but there’s still one left which all three of them want. Invariably, the person who is playing the role of the boss not only eats the remaining prized biscuit; he, or she, also makes a great show of doing so. The researchers reached several conclusions based on the experiment: having power is not just a pleasant sensation (this in itself is no great revelation); it can also insulate us from the needs of others and, in certain circumstances, can lead us to make a great show of ignoring their needs.
I’m sorry to say that the biscuit experiment’s ripple effects can be felt right through all areas of most companies. And the toxic tandem which it leaves in its wake become even more severe in times of crisis. Fortunately, Sutton provides a useful framework which allows bosses to focus on what their people most need from them: in situations where employees feel threatened, a good boss finds ways to provide more predictability, helps his/her staff understand the company’s decisions, empowers his staff to feel in control, and shows compassion. In his article “How to Be a Good Boss in a Bad Economy”, published in the Harvard Business Review, he explains how to do this:
Predictability. Give people as much information as you can about what will happen to them and when. Preparation will reduce their suffering, and they can relax in the meantime.
Understanding. Accompany any major change with an explanation of why it’s necessary and how it will affect routines. Internal communication should be simple, concrete, and repetitive.
Control. Don’t frame an obstacle as too big, too complex, or too difficult to overcome; people will be overwhelmed and freeze in their tracks. When it’s broken down into less-daunting components, they can tackle it with confidence.
Compassion. Tend to the emotional needs of people who are let go, and help them preserve their dignity. This is essential both for them and for their colleagues who survive the cuts.
In short, a manager who can provide predictability, understanding, control and compassion will avoid the toxic tandem and the biscuit’s possible ripple effects.
“Without friendship no one would want to live, even if they were to have all other possessions […]; for what is the point of prosperity if it is deprived of the ability to do good to one’s friends?”
Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics
Friendship makes life easier, as Aristotle affirmed over two thousand years ago; and friendship does not just exist between friends, it can also exist between parents and children, and within couples (although its presence in couples was only contemplated centuries after the philosopher’s death). Friendship rescues us from loneliness, which can become especially pernicious at times of great pain, as Bradburn demonstrated in 1969. In the United States, 26% of people admit to feeling lonely and being depressed and unhappy. In my own country, Spain, the figure is similar: in a survey carried out in 1991, 20% of people owned up to feeling unhappy.
Friendship is not just necessary if we want to avoid feeling lonely; it also enables us to share with others, to live a fuller and more authentic life … and even to increase our life expectancy! This is the finding of a research project carried out at Flinders University in Australia. Over the course of ten years, researchers there analyzed the social relationships maintained by almost 1,500 people over the age of 70, and established a correlation with how long they lived. Their conclusions are very revealing: the people who had more and better relationships had 22% more chance of surviving. Friendship, it would seem, is the elixir of youth. Friendship also lowers the risk of suffering a heart attack, according to research published in the journal Heart in the U.K.: people who have already suffered one heart attack are twice as likely to suffer another one within the space of two years if they don’t have a good friend, a family member, or a partner to confide in.
We might ask why the art of cultivating friends is not a compulsory subject on all school curricula. Friendship is possibly one of the most important sources of strength to help us overcome problems and to improve ourselvesas people. In myths and fables, all heroes can count on a friend; a guide may not cross their path, but a friend is always there. Friends are like a life raft at difficult times; they make you see that you are not alone and that you can share your pain. Sometimes you can experience this sense of comfort with people you least expect, or with someone who you only meet once in your life, but who is there for you just at the right time. Often it is unnecessary for the other person to say anything: the fact that they are there with you is enough to help heal your wounds. Such is the magic of friendship.
Our working life is increasingly going to resemble a relationship, or a marriage, with the odd separation thrown in for good measure; and this is going to happen, whether we like it or not. The world is changing, and our working lives will change in step with it. A few years ago, the management consulting firm, McKinsey, said that in 1990 a person would work on average for two companies throughout his/her working life, but that by 2010 the figure would rise to ten. This estimate now seems excessive in the light of the current economic crisis which has put a brake on people changing jobs (which makes the life of many human resources departments easier, and has conversely made life more difficult for the many people seeking new pastures). That being said, the pace of change is such that no manager can feel confident that he will hold down the same job all his working life. This has profound consequences both for companies and for employees.
As regards companies, the fact that they cannot guarantee a job for life is not a justification for playing on people’s fear of being dismissed. We all need a minimum degree of security to give the best of ourselves, and the constant threat of losing one’s job is harmful both to the company and to its staff. If a company cannot guarantee long-term job stability, it will need to implement strategies which increase its employees’ emotional commitment to the company, such as a good atmosphere at work, and innovation at all levels of leadership. I wonder how many companies are actually doing this…
As far as employees are concerned, they have no alternative but to manage their own careers. Sitting with our arms folded, waiting for the company to decide what is best for us, no longer cuts the ice. We have to take responsibility for our own training, and make ourselves as employable as possible. If you’re currently in a dead-end job, you have to take measures to get out by studying, looking for alternatives, etc., etc. You mustn’t lose sight of your ultimate professional goal: if you happen to be fired (or your job is excess to requirements, as the current euphemism goes), you must be employable elsewhere. Unfortunately, the current crisis has caught many people unawares, and they keep on blaming the system when for years they’ve been doing exactly the same job. Let’s hope that the difficult circumstances which pertain at the moment will help us all to realise that our future in the end lies in our own hands, and that we should only commit ourselves to things which are beneficial for our development, both personal and professional. The rules of the game have changed, and our way of understanding work will need to adapt to this new context.
There’s no evidence whatsoever that men are more rational than women. Both sexes seem to be equally irrational.
Albert Ellis, psychologist
Possibly, one of the clubs with the largest membership lists in the world is the club of people who’ve been sacked. Even so, we often find it difficult to tell even those close to us that we’ve been fired, and losing one’s job is usually a deeply painful experience. Albert Ellis, one of the most influential psychologists of the 20th century, explains why this is so. He says that our way of thinking follows an ABC pattern: A is the initial fact which sets our thoughts in motion; B is our mental maps; and C is our subsequent behaviour.
When faced with being dismissed, the break-up of a relationship, or any painful event (the A of Ellis’ formula), there are some people who might say to themselves (Ellis’ B): “I’ll never get another job”, while others might opine “my dismissal was completely unfair” or “I can’t stand this happening to me”. All these reactions will clearly lead to despair or to anger (stage C). When we are mad at the world, all this negative energy only serves to harm us and is really unbearable for those we come into contact with. However, the same event can be lived through differently if we think: “this is an unpleasant experience” or “unfortunately, I’m now one of the millions of unemployed”. The objective facts haven’t changed, but our way of experiencing them, and the time it takes us to get over the pain will be very different (to the relief those close to us). The key to this difference is the mental maps we use to interpret reality. This explains why two people see things quite differently when confronting the same situation. So, being laid off, or any kind of unpleasant occurrence, is something that we may not be able to avoid (A), but we can choose the mental maps we to use to view the event (B).
When we have come to a decision, any second thoughts, however well-founded, are not welcome. As a result, we amass all the reasons we can think of in order to plough ahead regardless. Festinger coined the phrase “cognitive dissonance” to describe this phenomenon. Cognitive dissonance is the avoidance of keeping in our heads two concepts which are contradictory, such as “smoking is bad for me” and “I like smoking”, or “I never vote for left-leaning political parties” and “I think the centre-left party has a more coherent programme”. This mental duality creates an inner conflict and, as we tend to avoid uncertainty or pain, we strive to eliminate contradictory thoughts with arguments of all stripes. Moreover, we are very good at finding a whole kaleidoscope of pseudo-arguments to choose from. To take the examples above, we might say to ourselves: “it’s not scientifically proven that smoking causes lung cancer” or “political parties never carry out their programmes”.
Our capacity for self-deception in order to justify ourselves can be observed in all areas of life. To take a work-related example, we might say, “When I presented the plan, people were too tired to pay attention”, when the fact of the matter is that the presentation was crushingly boring. Or again, this time in the realm of personal relationships, we could say, “I don’t care about what he said to me” when in reality you were very affected by his words. Unfortunately, cognitive dissonance can also undermine the very fabric of our lives: just think of the multitude of people who do not dare to question their own lives because doing so might imply taking potentially traumatic decisions, such as splitting up with their partner or radically changing their career path. The first step to avoiding cognitive dissonance is to be aware of its existence; we then need to take decisions based on a realistic appraisal of the situation and of our abilities.
We all have a tendency to deny reality because we want to avoid taking decisions which in the short term will prove to be painful. In addition, our brain is delighted to provide us with all sorts of reasons to avoid suffering, and to furnish us with a blinkered view of reality and a selective memory in order to avoid any kind of self-doubt. However, our need for a false sense of security makes us slaves to ourselves.
What lies in store for people management in the coming year? In this post, I’d like to share those ideas which I think will have the greatest impact on human resources management this year. Of course, some of these ideas will be more appropriate for some sectors than for others; and only time will tell if these predictions turn out to be prescient…
Leadership 2.0: A new style of people management, more open and less distant, is gradually making headway. The creation of this new culture is being helped by Web 2.0 applications that focus on cooperation, new ways of perceiving value in companies, and the presence of a digitally literate workforce. However, this culture change will not be achieved primarily because of technology, but because of a different conception of managing people; in particular, a more cooperative, transparent and less distant type of leadership. As happened with Internet at the beginning, some companies will be quick to embrace new styles of management facilitated by technological advances, while others will be mere passive observers. When we talk about a 2.0. approach, we do not just mean having a blog (!), but far more profound changes in management style.
Change and transformation management: Many companies are embarking on profound changes, and will need to implement a shift in the company culture for a variety of reasons: they are entering the 2.0 world, they will have to keep on downsizing their workforce, or they’re trying to recoverafter a bad 2009. No one knows what will happen in 2010, but one thing is for sure: we won’t go back to where we were before the crisis. Therefore, the need for change and transformation is inevitable.
A NoFear style of management: Many people are feeling dejected because of the crisis, and it will be a real challenge to manage them in such a way that they stay motivated. Unfortunately, fear is on the increase, and many managers who previously nurtured their staff’s talent are now returning to more coercive practices. However, such a management style is incompatible with creativity and with a state of mind which allows people to give the best of themselves.
Mentoring: Many less-experienced managers are finding the current exacting circumstances very difficult to negotiate. For this reason, companies such as Banesto are implementing talent development programmes which use more experienced members of staff as guides, or mentors.
Informal learning: A few years ago, one of the difficulties of e-learning was the lack of access to Internet, or people’s lack of ability to use it. This problem largely no longer exists, and we now have the opportunity, and the challenge, to provide cooperation-oriented resources which enable people to develop professionally.
A client-focused approach: Human resources departments need to fully understand they are at the service of external and internal clients; they should also think about using basic marketing skills in their communications with the rest of the company, as their internal image often leaves much to be desired. All of the foregoing will serve to place the human resource department more in line with the basic aims of the business.
2.0 communication: Social networks are assuming increasing importance in intra-company communication. Indeed, some of the more innovative companies are now replacing intranets with this type of tool. Communication needs to be increasingly horizontal, and in all possible directions, both within the company, and externally.
The end of rigid demarcation: Divisions between departments will be gradually diluted thanks to technology and the need to work as a team. As complexity grows, rigidly separated departments make less sense. Detailed lists of functions that are set in stone will gradually become meaningless owing to the rapid pace of change.
More performance-related salaries: The percentage of total remuneration which is allocated to meeting objectives may increase, especially in times of crisis like the present. While it is true that companies cannot afford to lose talented people, it is equally true that they are not in a position to pay the salaries offered before.
A better work-life balance: An increasingly popular way of improving employee motivation is to implement policies that help staff meet the demands of their professional and personal lives. Such motivation-enhancing policies are all the more important in an environment where salaries may well stagnate.
In the sixties, Albert Bandura carried out an experiment that was a revelation at the time. He showed a group of children a recording of someone beating a doll. When the recording finished, the children, without any prompting, picked up dolls that were lying around the room and started to beat them, just as they had seen in the video. This exercise demonstrated that we learn through observing, and, consequently, that it is far better for us if we have positive role models. The reason behind this imitative behaviour can be found in the malleability of our brain.
One part of our brain is continually monitoring what the other part is doing. The neurons that do this are called “mirror neurons”, and they were actually discovered by pure chance, as is often the case in science. In the 1990s, a group of researchers led by Giacomo Rizzolatti was analyzing the brain activity of macaque monkeys when they discovered something unusual. When a monkey did something, such as pick up a banana, the same area of his brain was activated as when he saw another monkey, or a human, perform the same act. The researchers decided to see if the same phenomenon occurred in the human brain, and they discovered that it did. As Rizzolatti says, mirror neurons help us to understand others, and not only what they think but also what they feel. This explains why we learn through practice and observation.
Mirror neurons dissolve the barrier between you and someone else.
Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, neurologist, Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition
Angela Mendez and Montse Mateos recently wrote an excellent article about the impact of fear in the workplace. In this post, I’ll elaborate on their ideas to help people face up to fear.
1. Don’t deny your fear. Accept it as a normal emotion which is felt by everyone. We don’t usually speak about fear because it is considered a sign of weakness; however, never experiencing fear would be highly dangerous. Fear is part of the make-up of our brains, and is the emotion which has most helped us to get to where we are as a species. So, being alive means experiencing fear from time to time. Don’t try to avoid something which is a natural part of all mammals’ brains!
2. Cushion the impact of fear by looking at each situation calmly, and rationally. Define an action plan when faced with circumstances that induce fear in you. How many of our fears actually come to pass?I once read a study carried out in the USA which said that the figure is less than 5 per cent. Whatever the exact number may be, you only have to look back at your childhood and teenage fears to realize that they were greatly exaggerated. Fear is useful, but we have a tendency to be overly affected by it. A good technique which you can use is to imagine what you would do if your worst fears were fulfilled. A manager in a company once told me that at the beginning of his career, he was afraid that he would lose his job, and end up penniless and begging on the street. He took a brave decision to face up to this fear: he went to speak to some beggars and, although he learnt about the hard life which they led, he also saw that they were able to get used to it, and to find room for friendship and small pleasures in their lives. The experience gave him the strength to unmask his fear.
3. Realize that we all have the strength to face up to the fears which beset us. Don’t let fear paralyze you. Resilience is the name given to the strength which enables us to overcome difficult situations.I think that hardly anyone is fully aware of how resilient they can be. At the current time we are in the middle of an economic crisis. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that humanity has had to face up to far more difficult situations, such as war or epidemics. We need to see things in perspective, and trust in our innate capacity to face up to difficulties, and in our basic survival instincts.
4. Seek help. Speak to friends, family, colleagues, or specialists, and tell them about your problems. You don’t need to deal with your problems all on your own. If you’re going through a bad patch, tell others about it and don’t keep it to yourself. As Iñaki Gómez told me after confiding in a friend, your unshed tears stay trapped in your body. Or, to put it more prosaically, silence and isolation make us weak and more prone to fear. So, seek the support of friends and people you trust. Speak openly about what is troubling you and about how you feel, without blowing everything out of all proportion. There are some people who seem to positively enjoy painting a completely bleak picture of their situation. If you know someone like this, don’t be sucked in by their pessimism, but try to see the opportunities and alternatives available.
5. Look to the future, and set yourself motivating goals and challenges. In the end, the best way to get rid of fear is to look at the other side of the coin: your hopes, dreams and new plans.The past never comes back, but you can create your future if you fully embrace it. Learn to enjoy your new situation and to laugh about what has happened to you. Start making new plans, whether work-related or personal. All this won’t happen overnight but, little by little, by trusting in yourself and with the help of friends or people you admire, you can build a new future. In the words of Nelson Mandela: “The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear”.
“The role of the company chairman and CEO in the 21st century will be to provide a vision and to choose the best people.”
Jack Welch, Chairman and CEO of General Electric (1980-2001)
1. Time and resources! The first commandment: your job will be to devote yourself body and soul to nurturing talent in your organization.
2. Talent strategist: You will carry out an in-depth analysis of the needs of your company in terms of the talent required, the skills needed, and the level of commitment and performance sought. Furthermore, you will determine the value which the company gives to its employees; in other words, you will determine the reasons why someone decides to start working -and subsequently to keep on working- for the company, and the benefits which this person perceives the company gives him.
3. TheCasanova factor: You will be in regular contact with the main sources of talent available to you (universities, professional bodies, associations, your competitors), and you will be well-known to them. In addition, you will clearly communicate your company’s strong points. In a word, you need to seduce potential employees.
You also need to be flexible about where you look for talent. It stands to reason that if your company is looking to innovate, it won’t want to hire a series of clones; and it is equally the case that you won’t put together a diverse team if you only hire engineers who go to “X” university and come top of their class.
Seduction has to run through everything you do (in the area of talent management…). So you can say goodbye to the old, tried and trusted ways of hiring people, and start to use your imagination. How about putting out some more creative ads when looking for new people? Why not ask applicants to mention on their CVs their hobbies, any voluntary work they’ve done, the sports they play, and the trips they’ve been on? After all, if you want to know who you going to hire and what type of person they are, you will want to go beyond just their academic qualifications,.
4. Keeping tabs on talent: You will keep up-to-date with movements in the market and will be on the lookout for possible manoeuvres by your competitors. What’s more, these days you need to be more alert than ever: the Internet has made communication and job-seeking much easier and quicker for everyone- your own staff included.
5. A connoisseur of talent: You will select people based on their abilities, level of commitment and their potential. An employee who is committed to his company will be motivated to contribute ideas and feels part of the organization. Does your selection process take into account candidates’ psychological potential to commit themselves to the company? In addition, you will need to take on a range of different people if you want to innovate, and you’ll also need to be very flexible. Bear in mind that the genuinely talented professional is very demanding and may ask you more questions in the job interview than you ask him! If this happens, it’s actually a good sign: this type of person knows what he wants, and he realises that he is in a position to choose precisely because he is very good at his job.
6. Atrainer of trainers: You will use the plans which the company undertakes as a means towards staff development. You will make sure that your organization does not have glass ceilings, and that people are able to develop professionally in their jobs, without waiting to be promoted. You will also participate in the identification of possible candidates for promotion and in making sure they receive the appropriate training.
7. A builder of commitment: You will build a protective moat around the company so that people do not want to leave. You will do this by having an appropriate style of leadership, by gradually changing the prevailing company culture if there are problems in that area, by promoting a good working atmosphere, and by making sure that salary levels are fair within the company, and in comparison to your competitors. Of course, we always have the best of intentions in this regard- to lead well, to pay well, a good company culture, etc. But, as the Bible says: “the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak” (Matthew, 26: 41). In view of this, you need to evaluate the current situation objectively, and then to take the appropriate stops to remedy any shortcomings detected: for example, by developing leadership skills through coaching programs, by initiating a change in the company culture, or by reviewing salary scales. And don’t lose sight of the ultimate aim of all these actions: to reinforce the commitment of your staff.
8. A natural problem-solver: When a member of staff does not perform as well as expected, you will analyze the causes and consider a variety of solutions, which can range from changing the employee’s responsibilities so that he can better develop his abilities to terminating his relationship with the company, if this proves to be necessary.
9. A catalyst for getting everyone involved: In order to carry out all of these tasks, having the support of senior management will not be enough; you will also need to get all of the company involved; you will need to clearly communicate the initiatives you are putting into practice, ask for suggestions, and ask your staff to recommend people from outside the company when you are looking to take on new personnel.
10. A negotiator up to the last minute: Why not have a friendly chat when someone decides to leave the company? This will enable you to find out first-hand the real reasons why the person wants to leave (provided that he’s not excessively diplomatic) and, in the course of the interview, you may find an opportunity to make him a counter-offer and persuade him not to leave. You’ve got to find this last-ditch effort an exciting challenge, like Michael Jordan who loved the dying seconds of the game so much that people talked about his “love affair with the buzzer.” He made game-winning shots on the buzzer on no less than twenty-five occasions!
So, do you feel ready to be a Manager of Talent? And to manage your own talent?
A couple of weeks ago, I received an incredible piece of news: I have been awarded the Manager Forum Speaker Prize for 2009, which I am really thrilled about. Isabel Sancho, the Managing Partner of Interban Network, sent me the following notification:
The Manager Forum Prizes aim to recognize the contribution and career path of leading professionals and experts in the business world; they also aim to help Spanish companies position themselves in the first rank as examples of professional know-how and competitive strategy.
This year, the Manager Forum Prizes are being awarded in two categories: 2009 Thinker of the Year and 2009 Speaker of the Year. On behalf of the Manager Forum Organizing Committee, of which I am a member, it is my honour to inform you that we have decided to award you the Manager Forum Speaker Prize for 2009 in recognition not only of your outstanding career to date, but also for your important and necessary contribution to the business world at large.
The prize ceremony was held at the Manager Forum Conference on the 28th October in Madrid, where I gave the opening address. The Manager Forum Thinker Prize for 2009 has been awarded to Javier Fernández Aguado, who I admire and congratulate for the recognition given to his work. It was a pleasure to be present at his award ceremony.
Really, what can I say? I’m extremely grateful to the jury and to all those who, with your words and support, help me to carry out my work, to which I am committed and in which I profoundly believe.
Without the support of those around us, all of our best intentions to change can come to nothing. If we don’t have the backing of those closest to us, it’s all too easy to relapse into the old ways. You can probably think of examples of this both in your work and in your personal life. And I’ve just come across a striking example of this in a fantastic film I recently saw on DVD, The Wrestler, starring a Mickey Rourke back to his very best form, who has been nominated for an Oscar for his performance
The film tells the story of a professional wrestler who was a big star in the eighties and who’s still in the ring, even though he’s now well past his prime. One day he suffers a heart attack during a fight, and has no choice but to retire and come face to face with that most dreaded of human predicaments, loneliness. I especially liked the film because it brings into focus the difference between having real friends or just mere acquaintances, the huge chasm which separates someone who is just pleasant company and someone with whom you can have a deeper relationship. I don’t want to spoil the ending for you, but it’s a film which graphically shows the price we’re prepared to pay to avoid being alone; and how we need the support of others to be able to change, even though we don’t always realise this. If you want to change some aspect of you life (your job, your personality, your way of life…), can you count on the support of someone close to you? If you can’t, then I’m afraid the process of change is going to be all the more painful.
Finally, I especially liked one scene which shows how we cling on to fame and our need to be seen or feel important, even at the cost of our own dignity. I’ve seen this myself with people who’ve had their day in the sun and can’t stop reminding everybody about it. In the words of Kipling:
“If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same…”
Success is either an impostor or a fluke; and anyone who thinks the world of himself because of his success will sooner or later have his day of reckoning. That is why failure can often be a blessing in disguise, and why we need friends and their support to remember who we really are.
I really enjoyed the Japanese film Departures, directed by Yojiri Takita, and winner of the 2009 Oscar for the best foreign language film. It blends sensitivity, a good plot, wonderful acting and, above all, it makes us think about the worth of any occupation when it is carried out with dignity and respect. The main character in the film prepares the bodies of the dead for their final rest. His line of work is rejected by those around him. However, he prepares the corporeal body for life beyond with such elegance, grace and profound respect that he acquires the stature of an artist.
We can apply these same qualities to any type of work, regardless of what we do. In the society we live in each person plays a fundamental role in the working of the whole; I cannot understand why we insist in seeking self-fulfilment in climbing up the corporate ladder when possibly we should focus more on what we do, and on finding meaning in carrying out our jobs as if they were a work of art, whether they are management positions, auxiliary functions or we work in a funeral parlour. We are bent on finding meaning outside of ourselves when, very probably, real strength is found within ourselves. This is precisely what differentiates some workers from others: on the one hand, those who really live and enjoy their job and see it as a service to others, as opposed to those who consider it a mere routine. In the troubled economic times we’re immersed in, it’s not so easy to change companies or position. Perhaps this is an opportunity to find fulfilment in the small details of our jobs, whether we’re writing a report, cleaning or managing people.
Departures is also a reflection on death. In the film, death is shown to be a natural event and is presented without melodrama. Although the death of a loved one is seen to be extremely painful for those left behind, the film also conveys how life goes on in spite of this pain. Unlike certain Far Eastern countries, in Spain we tend to be more histrionic when faced with death (up to a few decades ago, people still hired “professional” mourners), and there is a certain taboo associated with it. In the film, however, life and death flow in parallel, silently. It’s really worth seeing, and experiencing.
I have been informed that the Spanish version of this blog is one of the finalists for the Blogosfera RRHH 2009 (2009 Human Resources Blogosphere Prize) which is coordinated by the Observatorio de la Blogosfera de RRHH (Human Resources Blogosphere Observatory). The Observatory has come to this decision based on a qualitative ranking, carried out every fortnight, of articles selected from Spanish human resources blogs. This blog was placed in the top 10 in the ranking of articles published up to 15 September of the current year. I am extremely grateful for this recognition as the other nominees include colleagues and friends whose work I greatly admire.
The members of the jury are:
Jaime Montalvo – Former Head of the Consejo Económico Social.
Mayte Sanz – Publisher of the magazine Revista Observatorio de RRHH y RRLL.
Senior Manager – An influential blogger in the field of human resources.
Carlos Martí – Research fellow at the IESE and a blogger at Trompazos en la Red.
Isabel Sancho – Managing Partner of Interban Network
Francisco García Cabello – Director of the radio programmes Foro de RRHH y Líderes.
Helena López-Casares – Publisher at LID Editorial
Ricardo Alfaro – President of AEDIPE Cataluña
Eugenio de Andrés – Managing Partner of Tatum y Director of the Observatorio de la Blogosfera de RRHH.
Control for control’s sake could well be the motto of many companies. A friend of mine, who has just been appointed as the managing director of an American multinational corporation, told me about his own frustrating attempts to improve the people management in his own company. He had aimed to present his strategic plan in person at the main offices of the company around the world. However, owing to the demands of innumerable meetings and videoconferences at the company’s headquarters, he was barely able to move from his seat! I fear that his experience is very much the rule, rather than the exception.
We’ve been speaking for years about managing people from a humanistic, rather than mechanistic, perspective. However, the fact of the matter is that very few companies have been impregnated with this person-centred approach. Instead, many companies are overwhelming their staff with demands for more and more information. No one would deny that information is crucial for effective decision-making. However, how much information do we really need? What is the opportunity cost of swamping different departments with demands for all kinds of reports? Time is a very precious commodity. If people are spending their time cranking out reports, as is the case in many organizations, then they can’t be devoting it to the customer. Quantum mechanics tells us that the observer affects what he observes. So, if as managers we are geared towards analyzing endless streams of data, we will most definitely influence the day-to-day work of our teams.
Years ago, I worked with a manager who insisted that all the purchase orders were input manually into the computer, simply because he couldn’t wait till the next working day to get the automatically generated report! His impatience meant that some poor soul had to spend three hours a day inputting duplicated information. Completely absurd, but all-too-common in many companies even today.
If we want to eliminate this control mania, we need to overcome two main obstacles. First of all, the fear experienced by many managers in these difficult economic times: the greater the crisis, the greater the need for control, which in turn leads to increased stress levels. Secondly, the large number of departments whose raison d’etre is purely to produce and analyze information.
Does control produce genuine added value for companies? We can only hope that the current crisis leads many organizations to re-think the systems which they use, and that they decide to prioritize those areas which create real added value, and not those which merely serve to sooth the anxiety of managers or to justify certain jobs.
Just a short note to tell you that my first book in English has just come out. It’s called NoFear and is published by Palgrave Macmillan. I’m very excited about this, and it’s a real honour to be associated with such a prestigious publishing house. I’m already receiving e-mails from readers in the UK!
NoFear will also be published shortly in Portuguese, and it’s already been translated into Brazilian Portuguese and Catalan. In addition, the original version in Spanish is now in its sixth reprint. The honest truth is that when I was writing the book I had no idea that it would prove to be so popular. I’d like to thank everyone who has read it and recommended it!
Resilience comprises two different elements: the ability to keep it together when you are subject to great demands and pressures; and the ability to overcome difficulties, to learn from mistakes and to develop creatively, by turning difficult circumstances into opportunities.
The word resilience comes from the Latin resilio which means to turn round, to make a leap or to rebound, like elastic bands when they are stretched and then return to their initial shape. This concept was first used in physics; it was Michael Rutter who applied it to the social sciences in 1972. The first studies into resilience focussed on people who had found themselves in extreme situations: concentration camps, poor children living on the streets or women who were the victims of violence. Those of them who had been able to survive and to keep on living without throwing in the towel were termed resilient. A clarification may be in order here: resilience does not mean being invulnerable; resilient people suffer like anyone else. What sets resilient people apart is their ability to have a decent quality of life despite all the painful experiences which they have gone through.
What makes it possible for people to have a decent quality of life even when they have been born into abject poverty, or had parents who were alcoholics, or been abused as children? The answer was provided by Emmy Werner who, over the course of 32 years, carried out a study into people in the Hawaiian island of Kauai who had grown up in extremely unfavourable conditions. All the people who had been able to overcome their initial circumstances and to develop as human beings shared one thing in common: they had been able to rely on one person, whether a family member or not, who had unconditionally accepted them as they were, regardless of their temperament, physical appearance or their past. Boris Cyrulnik, one of the pioneers in the study of resilience, also reached the same conclusion. When he was six years old he managed to escape from a concentration camp after seeing both his parents die there. He lived in different shelters until he was finally adopted by a farming family who taught him to love life and literature.
More than two thousand years ago Heraclitus said: “We never bathe twice in the same river.” The same is also true of resilience. After going through a difficult time, we never return to the same starting point. In other words we are, fortunately, not elastic bands. All the difficulties or changes which we go through do influence us, and they can help to transform us. We know that they usually come at just the wrong time, although there is never really a right time, is there? The challenge we face is to consider these difficulties as an opportunity to give the best of ourselves.
Twenty-five centuries ago, the Greek dramatist Euripides remarked: “The expected does not happen, it’s the unexpected which comes to pass”. This is indeed often the case, both in the economic and social realm. All of a sudden, unexpected events occur which radically change our outlook and leave profound consequences.
The writer Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls these events “black swans”. He takes this metaphor from what happened in Europe in 1697. At that time, everyone thought that swans were only white; however, the first explorers to return from Tasmania brought black swans back with them. Thus, the white swan paradigm was consigned to history. Before the appearance of the black variety, nobody, understandably, was able to foresee the existence of swans which were other than white.
A similar lack of foresight afflicts economists, entrepreneurs, political leaders or managers when a crisis or a pandemic arises (or Google, or the Internet, or any number of other black swans). As Taleb points out, economists are brilliant at explaining what has already happened, and extremely bad at predicting the future. As a curious sidenote, when Taleb presented his theory at the World Bank, some members of the audience were none too pleased.
Why are we so bad at foreseeing the future? There are many reasons which help to explain this. The first is purely biological: our brain is hardwired for survival, and not for complex decision-making and calculating probabilities. In the distant past, you had a better chance of survival if you ran a mile when you saw a lion than if you stopped to contemplate the various courses of action open to you (basically because the lion wouldn’t wait). Secondly, our educational system is based on committing facts to memory, and not on identifying patterns. Third, we live in an increasingly complex world, which makes it more difficult than ever to predict what will happen in the coming months, let alone years.
So, if a black swan event is capable of shattering all the strategies which we have carefully developed over months and months (as occurred on September 11th,, and as tour operators in Mexico are now finding out), we would be well advised to approach decision-making from a different angle.
The first challenge we face is “learning to learn”. By this, I mean that managers need to focus not so much on what they know as on what they don’t know. We need to contemplate scenarios which take us radically out of our comfort zone, and then take these scenarios into account when defining possible strategies.
The second challenge for companies is to increase their chances of producing “positive black swans”, or in more conventional terminology, of bringing about market-changing innovation. (It’s worth noting in passing that Archimedes’ Law, the discovery of penicillin by Fleming, 3M’s Post-its or Pfizer’s Viagra all came about “by chance”.) However, if we want to produce the next “big thing”, we need to create a favourable environment which facilitates such a breakthrough. Google, for example, implements an innovation-friendly policy in the form of the 70/20/10 rule for the use of staff time: 70% of work time devoted to the core areas of the business, 20% to projects related to the business, and 10% to new ideas where “anything goes”.
Last but not least, we need to address fear of failure. It is evident that, in such a complex world as ours, no one can guarantee immediate success. So the key to paving the way for future innovation is to give people the freedom to experiment: to try out new ideas, to be wrong, and to be continuously learning.
Black swans wait for no man (or woman); either we take the initiative, or we disappear.
Sir John Sawers is the UK’s Permanent Representative at the UN. If we feel so inclined, we can easily find out quite a lot about him: we can view photos of him in bathing trunks, photos with his mother, with the girlfriends of his sons, and consult his own private address. All of this information has not been disclosed by some “dangerous” foreign spy network but by Facebook. It seems that nobody informed Mr Sawers’ wife that her husband was going to be appointed to head up the British Secret Service, known as MI6, and she innocently uploaded all kinds of data and family photos, without restricting access. Hardly what the doctor ordered for James Bond’s future boss! His job is now in jeopardy, and it’s not difficult to see why. That’s the way things work in today’s world: we have access to everything (or at least almost everything, and if in addition you upload information on Facebook , it makes the task of finding out that little bit easier).
Increased transparency is without doubt one of the major changes which the Internet is bringing about. The Iranian dissidents, for example, are shaking the very foundations of the system by using Twitter or e-mails. Anyone in Iran can be a journalist and upload photos and videos on the Web, and in the process raise the hackles of those with Taliban-like tendencies. In Germany, on the other hand, it appears that some recruiting firms are fleshing out information about applicants by surfing the Web for information about them (which raises issues of the right to privacy that are not easy to resolve). This could be coming to a company near you, soon.
For many people transparency is dangerous, not so much because others can see them in their swimsuit, as because it becomes clear to all who contributes what and how. Before the days of modern information technology, people kept secrets under lock and key in order to preserve their power. If, as happens today, information is freely circulating on the Web, what added value is provided by someone whose only job is to keep the keys? So, the good news is that the advent of transparency means the death of those jobs focussed exclusively on keeping information secret. The more managers instil transparency in their organizations, the greater the added value that will be created. Anyone not sure about this should take care, otherwise he could suffer the same fate as James Bond’s boss.
Over the last few years I have been looking into the role of fear in companies. I am now carrying out research into how we deal with fear in our personal and professional lives. I am very interested to hear from anyone who has successfully faced a difficult situation, and how they managed to face it.
I would be really grateful if you would be prepared to contribute something on this. If you are, then could you please answer the following questions:
1. What is the most difficult situation you think you have overcome? (For example, being fired, the loss of a loved one, changing jobs, etc.)
2. What did you do to overcome it? In other words, what steps did you take?
3. What lessons do you take away after this experience?
4. What would you say to someone who finds themselves in a similar situation to yours?
5. Would you like your name to be mentioned when we publish the findings of the research?
If you would like to take part, please write to my personal email: info@pilarjerico.com .
I will publish the results of the research on my blog and in a book which I am writing. I will credit all those who would like their name to appear. I will be posting regular updates on the results of the research on this blog.
Carl Rogers, the father of humanistic psychology, said that people are fundamentally motivated by two things: to develop and to be loved. However, sometimes these two desires can be incompatible. For example, you plan to move away to get the job you’ve always wanted, but your family is not too keen on the idea and they let you know their opinion in no uncertain terms. So you’ve got a dilemma on your hands. Rogers said that problems occur when love is given with strings attached (“conditional love”). According to Rogers, love can never be conditional. If we try to get others to love us at the expense of denying our own desires and beliefs, we will end up paying a price. All decisions involve giving up something and bearing a cost. Moving away from one’s family and being alone is without doubt a painful experience, but so is betraying oneself and one’s innermost desires. It’s up to each person when faced with this type of dilemma to decide what price he/she would rather pay.
Joan Garriga summed this up with the brilliant phrase: “Growing means accepting blame”. Garriga, from whom I’ve learnt a lot, says that blame arises when we do not fulfil the expectations which others have of us. But if we want to grow, we have to be willing to pay that price. Not conforming to others’ desires does not mean, of course, being some sort of James Dean-like figure; it simply means being firm in our convictions. Sometimes we have no choice but to accept decisions which we do not agree with, as frequently happens at work. However, we must not ignore our inner voice. Being faithful to one’s ideals is an act of courage as it can cause us to be misunderstood, even by those closest to us, and leave us on our own. (We also might want to think about whether conditional love, to use Rogers’ term, is worth having…)
You happen to walk past a colleague on the street, you say hello but he doesn’t answer. Your first reaction is to feel slighted and think that he has deliberately ignored you. You then try to explain what’s happened: “It’s because I didn’t back him up in a meeting the other day”. You continue: “Whenever I disagree with him, he always gets angry and ignores me.” You then decide that the next time you see him there’s no way you’re going to say hello. However, it turns out that the real reason that he didn’t say hello was simply because he wasn’t wearing his contact lenses and he actually hadn’t seen you!
When something like this happens, we are going up the “ladder of inference”, to use the phrase coined by Chris Argyris. The ladder of inference is a way of explaining one of the principal problems in communication: when one person speaks, the other interprets his words in the light of his own prejudices, past experiences and personal opinions. You see, our brain doesn’t like ambiguity and, when faced with something it doesn’t understand, it tends to look for an explanation. The problem is that it often gets the explanation wrong. Just think how many times we misinterpret emails!
So we need to be very careful how we process information. If we want to go down the ladder of inference rather than up it, we should ask ourselves if our interpretation of what someone says or does really reflects his intention. And if we’re not sure, we would do well to check with the person in question. Unfortunately, many of us unwittingly become Hollywood scriptwriters and create a lurid plot in our minds when the reality is usually much more mundane and simple.
Following on from “A contract for a schoolmistress in 1923” and “Eleven rules for hiring women (1943)“, I’d like to share with you another pearl of wisdom from the past, this time from the book Practical Business Psychology by Laird and Laird, published by the prestigious McGraw-Hill Book Company in 1951. In this book the authors list the qualities which we should have if we want to be considered an employee with talent. (My favourite one comes at the end.)
Technical Qualities
1. Accuracy in day-to-day work
2. Completion of said work quickly
3. Planning of work beforehand
4. Neatness and tidiness in finished work
5. Knowledge of the systems of work in the office
6. Capacity to learn new systems
Social Qualities
1. Pleasant appearance
2. Use of appropriate language
3. Discretion as regards the secrets of the business
4. Cooperation with the rest of the employees
5. Acceptance of suggestions and criticism
Personal Qualities
1. Punctuality
2. Completion of tasks before the deadline
3. Initiative
4. Awareness of one’s own personal responsibility
And one final piece of advice: “To have a pleasant wife, if one aspires to be promoted.” In other words, if you weren’t bothered about getting on in the company, you could marry who you liked.
How do we choose our leaders? The Spanish broadcaster Eduardo Punset tackled this question with the evolutionary social psychologist Mark van Vugt of the University of Kent in his programme Redes (“Networks”). (For those of you who understand Spanish, I’ve inserted the video of the interview. If you want to read the interview in Spanish, the transcript is here). Among the many ideas discussed, I found the following especially interesting:
Who comes first, the leader or the followers? In the animal kingdom, it’s the followers who come first. To increase their chances of survival, animals stick together in a group. When the strongest animal goes in search of water or food, the rest follow it. According to van Vugt, leadership among humans developed in a similar way: first came the followers, then the leader.
We can identify three types of leadership on the evolutionary ladder. First we have “democratic leadership” which existed in hunter-gatherer societies around 2.5 million years ago. In this type of society there was no overall leader. Instead, there were different leaders according to the “area of expertise”: war, hunting, etc. Next appeared the phenomenon of hereditary leadership, around 10,000 years ago. Hereditary leadership was typical in societies based on farming, and led to the creation of a monarchy and aristocracy which passed from one generation to the next. Finally we come to the concept of leadership prevalent in more “developed” countries today, where followers have much more freedom than before and demand leaders who are closer to them. This type of leadership shares certain characteristics with leadership in hunter-gatherer societies.
In the opinion of van Vugt, we choose female leaders when we want someone to smooth over conflicts, and male leaders when we are more interested in protection and defence from outside threats. This paradigm makes it difficult for women to become leaders of countries (as was the case with Hilary Clinton, according to van Vugt). This male/female dichotomy is based on attitudes we had in the past but, unfortunately, it still influences our way of thinking today. (As an aside, we usually choose older politicians in times of stability and younger politicians in times of change, so Obama got the slogan of his campaign right!)
Finally, studies in companies have shown that leaders who are chosen by their colleagues demonstrate the same qualities as the leaders of our distant ancestors: they are reliable, trustworthy, not overly ambitious, and, interestingly, taller. I will elaborate on these ideas in another post.
“Old age has two advantages: you neither have toothache nor do you hear the rubbish which those around you are spouting .”
Is the overall performance of a team less than, the same as, or greater than the sum of its parts? Ringelman, a French agronomist, found the answer: less. He came to this conclusion after studying of a group of men who were pulling on a rope. According to the laws of physics, four people who pull on a rope will exert four times the force as one person. However, Ringelman’s study showed that in reality the force exerted by a group of four was only two and a half times bigger than the force exerted by a lone individual. And when the number of men was increased to eight, the force was less than four times bigger. The rules of physics won’t help us to solve this conundrum. However, if we consider the motivation of the men involved, we may be able to find an explanation for Ringelman’s thought-provoking findings. The combined efforts of large teams are diluted “as if by magic” by group dynamics. The greater the number of people in the group, the greater our tendency not to pull our weight (no pun intended) and to think: “The others are taking it easy, so why shouldn’t I?” Or, to put it in a company context, “Why should I work harder if I only earn the same as the others?”
When we have come to a decision, any second thoughts, however well-founded, are not welcome. As a result, we amass all the reasons we can think of in order to plough ahead regardless. Festinger coined the phrase “cognitive dissonance” to describe this phenomenon. Cognitive dissonance is the avoidance of keeping in our heads two concepts which are contradictory, such as “smoking is bad for me” and “I like smoking”, or “I never vote for left-leaning political parties” and “I think the centre-left party has a more coherent programme”. This mental duality creates an inner conflict and, as we tend to avoid uncertainty or pain, we strive to eliminate contradictory thoughts with arguments of all stripes. Moreover, we are very good at finding a whole kaleidoscope of pseudo-arguments to choose from. To take the examples above, we might say to ourselves: “it’s not scientifically proven that smoking causes lung cancer” or “political parties never carry out their programmes”.
What lies in store for people management in the coming year? In this post, I’d like to share those ideas which I think will have the greatest impact on human resources management this year. Of course, some of these ideas will be more appropriate for some sectors than for others; and only time will tell if these predictions turn out to be prescient…
In the sixties, Albert Bandura carried out an experiment that was a revelation at the time. He showed a group of children a recording of someone beating a doll. When the recording finished, the children, without any prompting, picked up dolls that were lying around the room and started to beat them, just as they had seen in the video. This exercise demonstrated that we learn through observing, and, consequently, that it is far better for us if we have positive role models. The reason behind this imitative behaviour can be found in the malleability of our brain.
Angela Mendez and Montse Mateos recently wrote an excellent article about the impact of fear in the workplace. In this post, I’ll elaborate on their ideas to help people face up to fear.
Resilience comprises two different elements: the ability to keep it together when you are subject to great demands and pressures; and the ability to overcome difficulties, to learn from mistakes and to develop creatively, by turning difficult circumstances into opportunities.
