WorkPuzzle

Social Networking and Recruiting - Part 2: Relational Currency

Last week, we began a discussion about the use of online social networking for marketing and recruiting.  We talked about some of the principles that seem to govern this puzzling environment.  But, maybe it is only puzzling because we approach it from an odd perspective.

Earlier this week, I was packing up for a business trip to Philadelphia.  My three-year-old noticed I was loading my suitcase and asked me to bring her back a seashell from my trip.  I told her, “Honey, I’m not going to the ocean on this trip, so I can’t bring you back a seashell.”  (My last trip was to the New Jersey coast and resulted in a seashell I picked up on the beach.)  But, she was undeterred.  Before I left the house, she made the same request three or four more times, each with a gentle reminder from me that seashells were not plentiful in Philadelphia.  As my wife dropped me off curbside at the airport, she gave it one more try… "Don't forget to pick up a seashell for me Daddy!”

It is clear that my daughter now connects business trips with seashells.  Granted, she is three years old and still has a few things to learn.  But, she is making the same mistake many of us make when we approach online social media—we assume (and hope) that this environment will respond like environments where direct marketing tactics are effective.  After all, there are a whole bunch of people congregating in one place, based on similar interests (much like a direct mail list or a tradeshow).  It only makes sense that they would be open to receiving and acting on well-crafted marketing messages, right?  Wrong.  Not all business trips produce seashells, no matter how often we ask.

In social networking, there’s a principle called “Relational Currency” that seems to govern interactions.   Michael Hyatt, CEO of Thomas Nelson, a large publishing company, does a great job of describing this principle:

“Sometimes when I speak with marketing executives about social media, they seem to get it.  But they don’t.  Not really.  They falsely believe that Twitter and Facebook are like every other broadcast channel.  They see it as an opportunity to blast their message out to thousands of followers—for free!—and sell them stuff.  My response?  No.  No.  NO!  A thousand times, no!  Twitter is not a broadcast medium. 

Twitter and Facebook are relational tools not transactional tools. Contrary to what many think, social media rewards:

1. Generosity;
2. Other-centeredness; and
3. Helpfulness

It is a vehicle that appeals to people’s deep, God-given desire to connect.  It works when there is trust.  When it becomes just another form of spam (violating people’s trust), it fails to be effective.”

If we insist on using direct marketing currency (well-crafted messages that highlight the benefits of a product, service, or new position) in an environment where only social currency (generosity, other-centeredness, and helpfulness) is accepted, we’ll naturally experience a lot of frustration.

Michael Hyatt goes on to describe an “exchange rate” for the world of social networking:

“This [exchange rate] is what I have come to call the 20-to-1 rule.  It represents a ratio.  It means that you have to make 20 relational deposits for every marketing withdrawal.  This isn’t science.  I don’t have any hard, empirical evidence to prove it.

But I have observed that if you just keep asking people to do something—buy your book, come to our conference, sign up for our cause—without making adequate deposits, they will begin ignoring you.  Eventually, they will unfollow you and disconnect from your updates.

No one wants to be spammed.  Not today.  There are too many alternative sources of content.  If you want to build a social media presence, one where people listen to you, then you have to be a giver not a taker.  I think 20-to-1 is about right.”

Here’s the take away—don’t expect to get your marketing or recruiting message heard in the realm of social networking unless you’re willing to use the currency that works in that environment.  To be effective, you’re going to have to put in a lot of effort and be a legitimate contributor.   

Now, does anyone know where I could find a seashell in Philadelphia?  

 Source: http://michaelhyatt.com/2010/04/the-20-to-1-rule.html

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Ben Hess.  Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below. 

The Art and Science of Interviewing New Agent Candidates - Part 3

Recruiting the best new agents demands an understanding of how the best recruits think and reach decisions.  As previously mentioned, it also requires an understanding of the natural conflict that occurs inside the minds of people further down the ladder of the recruiting pipeline...the people who are just beginning to ponder the possibility of becoming an agent.

In the preceding two blog entries, I addressed some fundamental problems associated with instant gratification thinking.  I have seen many managers fall into this pattern of recruiting.  Such tactics really undermine any chance of hiring the best new candidates. If you haven't done so already, I urge you to review the first two discussions on this topic (1,2) so that you are familiar with these pitfalls.  Today, I will change gears and address the actual decision making process that unfolds inside the minds of people further down the decision pipeline, and the role you can play in helping them through that process.

Read the next few paragraphs carefully.  What might seem ridiculously obvious at first, will gradually build a powerful model toward helping almost anyone with any decision.  You must first understand the building blocks...

Throughout most of the decision making process, the wisest people carefully weigh all angles before committing to something new.  That means that they typically hold two opposing views (or sides) in their minds that are in temporary conflict.

In order for that conflict to work itself out successfully toward a decision they can commit to, they must be able to think about, consider, and assess the possible pros and cons of each argument that exists in their heads, from both sides.  In other words, they have to fully realize and accept that there are two sides,  must be open to both, weigh both, and ultimately commit to one.  With me so far?

Now, most of you are accustomed to seeing people who have already been through this process before ever speaking to you.  They are in licensing school, etc.  They have already done the above before you ever meet them.

But, those who have just recently begun the process of discovery haven't had time to consider both sides of the argument.  What do you think happens when you become a salesman at this point?  Desperate people might comply and fail, but what about people who aren't desperate?  What happens if your role slips into only offering all the good reasons to become an agent?  If this occurs, two things happen:

1. You force them to take on the other side of the argument; and
2. They no longer feel that you will act as an objective resource to address their concerns.

In other words, as soon as they sense that you want it more than they do, you lose any leverage or influence.  Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with overcoming objections, but you must carefully do it without wanting it more than they do.

Your job is to continually push the argument back where it belongs--- in their own head.  The conflict doesn't belong between you and them.  If you find that you are taking one side, then you are forcing them to take the other.  They will defend whatever is the opposite side of the argument.

Many times people even attempt to draw you into a debate in order to force the decision outside their own head so that they can win the argument with you, because they can't win it on their own.  If you feel drawn in, as if you want to close the deal, then this is probably happening.  Watch for it.

The appropriate way to handle this is to point out to them that they suddenly seem to be trying to talk themselves out of what they had previously been weighing out so carefully.  Confess to them that you suddenly feel like trying to sell them on becoming and agent, when it isn't your role to do so.  Assure them that it's an anxiety provoking decision, but that it seems like they are trying to undermine what they had previously been excited about.

If you take this patient role of neutral observer and keep pushing the conflict back into the person's own head, then and only then, can they make a decision they can live with.  It takes work, but there will be some jewels you'll find along the way.  And I guarantee that whatever they decide, they'll respect your objectivity enough to use your company's services in the future.

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn.  Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, Partner at Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.  

The Art and Science of Interviewing New Agent Candidates - Part 2

As promised, today I'll continue breaking down the psychology of good candidate interviewees and the anatomy of a decision within the minds of smart people.

Despite warnings from my high school English teacher, I am throwing caution to the wind and plan to mix as many metaphors and analogies in the following paragraphs as it takes to get my point across. 

We have to start with a dating analogy.  How did you...or would you... find your ideal spouse?  Would you wait for people to ask you out, or would you pursue multiple people before finding the best match?  Were you one of those who waited for people to pursue you?  Not the best plan folks.  But this is exactly what many managers do. Desperate people generally grab the low hanging fruit.  (No joke was intended here, but yes...I see it...and yes, a new metaphor!)  It takes no skill, little courage, no risk, and absolutely no courting skills to ask a desperate person to marry.  Often times, these folks later wonder why they are disappointed with the end result...

Of course, even though most of us can relate to the dating/marriage analogy, it breaks down at some point because you (as a manager) want to hire an entire office full of good performers, not just one.  So back to the harvesting fruit analogy...

You certainly want to pick some low hanging fruit, (low hanging fruit are those people who you traditionally hire out of real estate licensing schools etc) because doing so eats up the fewest resources, and because you CAN find some great fruit there.  But, can you really find the highest volume of good fruit if you settle for only low hanging fruit?  The answer is an emphatic NO.  If you want abundant good fruit, you have to work harder to get to the fruit that is out of reach and assume that there is fruit that your competitor is too lazy to find ways to harvest.  

Great harvesters find the tools to capture every piece of fruit they can get their hands on, even if it takes more time and energy.  Keep in mind, you will likely have to throw away a great deal of bad fruit in order to find the best.  Remember Kevin Ryan, CEO of AlleyCorp who interviews someone EVERY DAY?  He does this because he is willing to expend the energy and time to uncover the best talent.  He says:

“I used to think business was 50 percent having the right people.  Now I think it's 80 percent.  The best way to be productive is to have a great team.  So I spend more time than most CEOs on human resources.  That's 20 percent of my week.”

When it comes to interviewing the best candidates, you have to change your entire mindset.  The best fruit will probably not be low hanging.  Any one of your competitors can find those folks--they're easy to get to.  But who is going to spend the time and energy working to attract the candidates who are already good at what they do...only they happen to work in a different industry?  Who's going to have the patience to court these people over several months of indecisiveness, licensing school, and occasional second thoughts?  NEWS ALERT- The brightest and most motivated people will not say yes right away.  (More on this next edition.)

Who among you are willing to turn over enough rocks and do the necessary work to dislodge those hard to find diamonds?  (I warned you!  If you're keeping track, that's metaphor #3.)  Doing this takes patience, consistent engagement, and finesse.

The finesse part is knowing how to talk to people who you suspect will become very good agents, but who might not be able to pull the trigger as fast as you'd like.  This is often the hard part.  How do you get them to arrive at "yes" without sounding like an impatient salesman?  The brightest candidates will resist this pressure.

In part three of this discussion I'll explain the anatomy of a decision and how you can best facilitate arriving at the right decision.  The process I'll share is used in psychotherapy by every well trained psychologist and will enable you to help anyone through any decision.

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn.  Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, Partner at Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.  

The Art and Science of Interviewing New Agent Candidates

Recruiting the best new agents demands an understanding of how the best recruits think and reach decisions.  It also requires an understanding of the natural conflict that occurs inside the minds of people further down the ladder of the recruiting pipeline...the people who are just beginning to ponder the possibility of becoming an agent.

Many managers have told me, point blank, that they don't have time to waste on someone who has trouble deciding if real estate is right for them.  One manager has been known to say, "If I have to interview a person for more than 20 minutes, then the candidate isn't right for real estate."   Here's another one I hear a lot:  "If they don't have a license, then I'm not interested."

The managers who say this are very confident in their views.  And for the first few years that I worked in this industry, I naturally had to respect their views because I hadn't seen enough to gauge the accuracy, or fallacy, of what they were so convinced of.

But now I have.  And I have ample evidence to suggest that their strong-headed, somewhat bullheaded way of interviewing new agent candidates rarely uncovers the best candidates, rather it attracts the most desperate and insecure candidates who fake cooperation and decisiveness just to get the approval of the inpatient narcissistic manager.  Now, I don't really expect these types of managers to change.

However, most managers I've met really want to know how to interview well, and are hungry to understand what is going on inside the minds of high caliber people.  That is...most managers fit somewhere between the ones who naturally and somehow intuitively act to facilitate the decision process, and those who treat candidates like peons.  (Side note: Knowing how to facilitate the decision making process in someone without appearing to want it more than the they do is hard to learn, and even tougher to practice: 9 years of school and 25 years of practice and I still make mistakes with this.)

So, for those who want to learn more, I'll spend the next few blogs breaking down the psychology of those ideal recruits, including the anatomy of their decision making process. 

In the meantime, send me your comments and stories either through the blog or my email.

Stay tuned... 

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn.  Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, Partner at Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.  

The Importance Of Grit

We all know people who aren’t necessarily exceedingly intelligent or particularly talented, who have a way of succeeding no matter what they do.

A researcher noticed this about ten years ago and set out to learn what this is and how it works.   Since then, Angela Lee Duckworth, PhD, has conducted a series of studies on a concept called "grit."  Grit is another word for backbone, chutzpah, fortitude, guts, stick-to-it-iveness, etc.  It all started when Dr. Duckworth (while a student in Graduate School) observed that it wasn't necessarily the smartest people who succeeded and made a lasting impact on science. 

She had a hunch that it was a person's personal "grit" recipe that made the difference in their level of success.  Across six studies, Duckworth found that grit significantly contributed to successful outcomes:  Undergrads with the most grit earned higher grade point averages than their peers.  West Point Cadets with the highest levels of grit were more likely to return after the first summer.  Even "grittier" spelling bee competitors (a situation where IQ would seem the best predictor) out-spelled their less tenacious competitors.  Among older individuals, people with substantial grit had higher levels of education and made fewer career changes than less gritty peers of the same age.

In reviewing the literature, there appears to be little explanation as to how a person can acquire grit.  So, is this something innate in some and not in others?  Is it based on our genetic make-up?  Or, are there outside influences that haven't been explored as of yet (socio-economic status, traumatic circumstances early in life, family dynamics, etc...)?

Duckworth is still trying to find the answer.  But I want to remind you of the research on the growth mind set, which states that if you simply teach people about how the brain has the ability to change and grow, they can change and adopt new behaviors and learn beyond what they imagined was possible.  This is not pop psychology.  This is an empirically proven fact.  

So, ask your most gritty managers, executives and agents, “What has made you gritty?” or, “What is it about how you think that makes you capable of overcoming so many obstacles?”

I guarantee that you will have a powerful discussion develop that you never could have anticipated.

Many successful people don't attribute their success to their IQ or level of talent, but rather to their tenacity.  Genius Thomas Edison was one of those people.  Edison once said:  "Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up." 

"When you get into a tight place and everything goes against you, till it seems as though you could not hang on a minute longer, never give up then, for that is just the place and time that the tide will turn."  (Harriet Beecher Stowe)

Here is another prime example of grit:  Poet David Baker is Director of Creative Writing at Denison University, and author of seven books of poetry, including "Midwest Eclogue."  Mr. Baker laments: 

"Unfortunately, no one comes in my window and whispers poems to me... Poets [have to] work hard.  I may work on a single poem for weeks or months and write 60 or 70 drafts—only to decide that draft 22 was the good one."

Along these same lines, people often refer to Mozart's diaries, where he divulges that an entire symphony appeared, supposedly intact, in his head.  However, Jonathan Plucker an educational psychologist at Indiana University points out:

"But no one ever quotes the next paragraph, where he talks about how he refined the work for months."

So what can we learn from this?  The data shows that if we praise talent and accomplishments, we get stagnation, and even failure.  However, in studies where "effort" was rewarded, the result was growth and greater success.  Stick to rewarding effort in you and in others and you'll develop a successful team.  

Success comes to those who work harder...

In the meantime, if you want to contribute to science, visit http://www.ppresearch.sas.upenn.edu/ to take a ten minute grit assessment.

Source:  Psychology Today

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn.  Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, Partner at Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.  

Authenticity: Does Anyone Believe What You’re Saying?

As we work with companies, we’re often asked for advice concerning how to “get the message out” regarding recruiting.  Everyone seems to have a keen interest in the tapping and optimizing marketing vehicles that deliver their recruiting message to the widest possible number of candidates.

Case in point-- I was with a group of real estate managers a couple of weeks ago who were bemoaning the effective techniques their competitors were using to bombard their agents with recruiting messages.  There was a legitimate concern and even a little fear in the eyes of those managers who thought that their competitors were going to be successful and ravage their company.

Do you think they had anything to worry about?  Not if these managers are authentic and credible with their own agents and candidates.  The problem with the “carpet bombing” approach their competitors were practicing, is a lack of authenticity.  Their recruiting messages were self-centered, filled with exaggerations, and very repetitive in nature.  They weren’t very believable and bordered on annoying.

These are the types of messages that talented people tend to screen out quickly.  Of course, the campaigns are having some impact (or they would stop using them), but it is a numbers game that requires a huge dissemination of the message because the return is so low.  In addition, the new hires that are captured through this approach will tend to be low quality or be candidates who are so “abused” in their existing organization that even something gimmicky looks appealing.

So, how does one defeat a competitor who is recruiting like this?  The best way is to attack them where they are weakest—their own lack of credibility.  Do this by making sure that your messaging is authentic. 

Dr. John Sullivan recently wrote an article that provides some great insight regarding how to make sure that your recruiting messages contain this quality. 

Seven Factors That Increase Authenticity:

There are a variety of factors that increase a message’s probability of being perceived as authentic, including:

Support data — the availability of data or specifics about a program that support the subject of the message.

Credibility of the source — the credibility of the source based on the accuracy of previous messages.

Shared values — the perception of shared values and experiences between the author and the reader.

Candidness — the degree to which messages acknowledge imperfection.

The degree of professionalism — the extent of professional appearance in the design, editing, and writing, as well as any pictures that are included (too much isn’t a good thing).

The degree of filtering — the extent to which messages are scripted, screened, or filtered by corporate executives.

Two-way messaging — the extent to which you provide opportunities for questions, feedback, and comments by others.

To get started, use these principles as a checklist to evaluate your existing recruiting messages.  If your messages do not contain these components, then they are not being perceived by your candidates as authentic and need to be changed.  As you make changes, build messages that contain the components that Dr. Sullivan lists.

Next, make sure that you’re being credible and authentic with those who are already on your team.  If a candidate interacts with your organization and finds that your messaging matches the reality in your organization, a bridge is built.  If it turns out that you have a low-quality team, no amount of messaging to the contrary is going to help.

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Ben Hess.  Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below. 

The Top Management and Leadership Blogs

Much of what we present in Workpuzzle is gathered and synthesized from multiple sources, including other business blogs.  Earlier this month, in his own blog, Jurgen (yes, one name), compiled an organized list of the top 150 management/leadership blogs in the world. 

To adequately critique the blogs, he "retrieved their Google Page Rank, Bing hit count, Alexa Ranking, Technorati Authority, Twitter Grader, PostRank and FeedBurner count."

So here are the first 50 on Jurgen's list:

1. The Blog of Tim Ferriss - Tim Ferris
2. Leading With Purpose - Michael Hyatt
3. Anthony Robbins Training Blog - Anthony Robbins
4. How to Change the World - Guy Kawasaki
5. Daniel Pink - Daniel H. Pink
6. Management IQ - Business Week
7. GTD Times
8. Life Beyond Code Blog - Rajesh Setty
9. Dispatches from the New World of Work - Tom Peters
10. Three Star Leadership Blog - Wally Bock
11. The Business Blog at Intuitive.com - Dave Taylor
12. 800 CEO Read Daily Blog - (various)
13. Leading Blog - Michael McKinney
14. Great Leadership - Dan McCarthy
15. Grant McCracken - Grant McCracken
16. NOOP.NL - Jurgen Appelo
17. Ramblings from a Glass Half Full - Terry Starbucker
18. Ask a Manager - Alison Green
19. John Maxwell on Leadership - John Maxwell
20. Donald Trump Blog - (various) 
21. Leadership Team - Orrin Woodward
22. Robin Sharma Blog - Robin Sharma
23. N2Growth - Mike Myatt
24. Sanders Says - Tim Sanders
25. Chief Happiness Officer - Alexander Krejulf
26. Execupundit - Michael Wade
27. Work Matters - Bob Sutton
28. Life Optimizer - Donald Latumahina
29. Rosabeth Moss Kanter - Rosabeth Moss Kanter
30. Trust Matters - Charles Green
31. The Bing Blog - Stanley Bing
32. All Things Workplace - Steve Roesler
33. Positive Organizational Behavior - Bret L. Simmons
34. WeeklyLeader - (various)
35. Management Craft - Lisa Haneberg
36. The Practice of Leadership - George Ambler
37. The Wayne Dyer Blog - Wayne W. Dyer
38. Brian Tracy's Blog - Brian Tracy
39. Bob Burg's Blog - Bob Burg
40. RapidBI - Mike Morrison
41. Management Excellence - Art Petty
42. KR Connect - Kevin Roberts
43. Dale Carnegie Blog - (various)
44. Leading Questions - Ed Brenegar
45. CEO Blog - Time Leadership - Jim Estill
46. Stephen R. Covey - Stephen R. Covey
47. Curious Cat Management Improvement - John Hunter
48. Ed Batista - Ed Batista
49. Learn This - Mike King
50. Cranky Middle Manager - Wayne Turmel

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn.  Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, Partner at Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.  

Effective Meetings: Are You Doing It Right?

Research shows that we are spending more time in meetings than ever before.  What differentiates good meetings from poor meetings?  The answer can separate success from failure.  The experts have empirically looked long and hard at methods for optimizing meetings.  The below research-based suggestions are some of the better strategies that I have encountered.

Studies conducted by Robert Perkins Ph.D. of Mercer University, found that leaders who were weak in process skills and focused solely on the content of their agenda, had less success in their overall goals.  In fact, when leaders were unaware that there was more to their meetings than the dimension of content, their meetings were much less satisfying, had higher levels of conflict, and a lack of buy-in.

On the other hand, leaders who attended to both process and content when facilitating a meeting, generated more successful meetings and outcomes.
 
So what are process skills?  Process behaviors can be proposing ideas, increasing participation, reducing tension, asking clarifying questions, summarizing, and testing for consensus.  Content behaviors can be giving information, seeking information, telling, and disagreeing/attacking.  One group of researchers found that CEOs who increased participation of their team with regard to strategic decision making, achieved better quality decisions.  The team perceived their leader as much more trustworthy and felt more satisfied and committed to implementation.

In contrast, leaders who gave their own opinions too frequently or aggressively, or who disagreed directly or attacked the opinions of others, held less successful meetings and had less participant commitment.

Here are some effective process behaviors and strategies that can help lead the way toward successful meetings:

1. Reduce Tension:  Conflict is bound to arise.  When it does, the best leaders use humor, especially self-deprecating jokes, to quickly reduce the tension and demonstrate that they aren't taking themselves too seriously.  Poking fun at ourselves can evolve into a team trend that can be used when things get too heated to instantly lighten the tone.  This takes practice.
2. Ask questions:  Since the time of Plato and Socrates, the use of questions have intended to engage all members in dialogue.  Decreasing leader dominance is an effective way for teams to encourage the sharing and collaboration of ideas.  Clarifying questions intended to facilitate further discussion bring deeper understanding of problems and creativity in finding solutions.  The opposite shuts everyone down and restricts innovation.
3. Test for consensus:  A sure way to lessen commitment is to push through self-authorized agendas.  Instead, successful leaders make sure that they block any monopolization and domination of the discussion and bring non-responsive team members into the conversation.

All of the successful leaders who were studied followed the basics of how to run a meeting, such as routinely preparing agendas, adhering to time constraints (that is my pet peeve), and keeping discussions orderly and on topic.

Lastly, don’t think that being process-focused will leave you making decisions you can’t live with.  No matter how important it is to show your willingness to share the power and listen respectfully, no successful leader in these studies expressed a willingness to accept a group decision if they disagreed with the direction and predicted an unfavorable outcome.  The leader still holds the accountability of all decisions and everyone is usually understanding of this fact.

Hope this helps you prepare for your next meeting.

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn.  Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, Partner at Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.  

Positive Emotions and the Success of Your Organization

If you think that positive emotion has nothing to do with the success of organizations and groups, think again...  Some of the most empirically-based research being conducted today around group behavior is on the topic of ratio of positive-to-negative interactions.  With regard to marriage, teams, or even larger groups, highly complex mathematical models are being used to examine and predict group success and failure.  Research has determined specific combinations of ratios of positive-to-negative interactions that contribute to the most effective teams.  This is pretty fascinating stuff. 

Barbara L. Fredrickson, of The University of Michigan and The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, has been leading this research and has found that over-weighting a group with negative emotion will impact the team, marriage or organization in a drastically negative way.  Success will not come easy, if at all; and if negativity tips too far, there is no recovery.

Here is how it works:  With ratios favoring negative-to-positive emotions, peoples' behaviors become much more easily predictable and aimed at survival and status quo.  In the reverse scenario, where positive outweighs negative emotions, people are less predictable and this unpredictability (characteristic of positive states) over time, yields resilience that allows people to flexibly adapt to inevitable crises.

Fredrickson writes:

"Within married couples, greater marital happiness is associated with less predictability from moment to moment as spouses interact, and yet, over time, these marriages are the ones most likely
to last (Gottman, 1994).  Within business teams, higher levels of expressed positivity among group members have been linked to greater behavioral variability within moment-to-moment interactions as well as to long-range indicators of business success (Losada & Heaphy, 2004).  And within organizations, positive experiences have been linked to broader information processing strategies and greater variability in perspectives across organizational members as well as to organizational resilience in the face of threat (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003)."

These researchers have actually found specific ratios that are optimal to success within groups.  I won't go into detail on these ratios as the equations are far more complex than most of you care to read.  However, I can tell you that a little negativity is good.  Negativity in teams where there is an abundance of positivity is experienced as healthy conflict and challenge that is not meant to be personal.

The following are some of the rules consistent across teams and groups when it comes to positive-negative ratios: (provided by Fredrickson)

1. Human flourishing and languishing can be represented by a set of mathematical equations drawn from the Lorenz system.   
2. Flourishing is associated with dynamics that are nonrepetitive, innovative, highly flexible, and dynamically stable; that is, they represent the complex order of chaos, not the rigidity of limit cycles.
3. Human flourishing at larger scales (e.g., groups) shows a similar structure and process to human flourishing at smaller scales (e.g., individuals).
4. Appropriate negativity is a critical ingredient within human flourishing that serves to maintain a grounded system.
5. The complex dynamics of flourishing first show signs of disintegration at a positivity ratio of 11.6.
6. Human flourishing is optimal functioning characterized by four key components:
(a) goodness, indexed by happiness, satisfaction, and superior functioning;
(b) broadened thought–action repertoires and behavioral flexibility;
(c) growth, indexed by gains in enduring personal and social resources; and
(d) resilience, indexed by survival and growth in the aftermath of adversity.

Sounds complex, but really it isn't.  Most leaders know where their team ratio is leaning.  If it's positive, keep it that way.  If it's not, it's time to change it...

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn.  Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, Partner at Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.  

 

The Benefits Of Being Well-liked

Are you well-liked?  If you are, the odds are pretty good that you have moved up the corporate ladder...or will do so some day.  Now, before you set out to become well-liked, you'd better be careful to know the difference between the authentic well-liked and the false, ingratiating attempts people sometimes make to become well-liked.

Here is Dr. James Larsen's summary of some intriguing research regarding this key ingredient to success:

"If you consider all the people you know, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, business associates, and social acquaintances, you’ll recognize a few of them as genuinely likable.  You like them, and if you compare lists, you’ll probably find that others like them, too.

What do you suppose being well-liked can do for a person in business? People become loyal customers because they like you.  Customers forgive mistakes because they like you.  Employees stay with you because they like you.  Bankers lend you money because they like you.  Vendors extend you credit because they like you.  Being well-liked can do a lot for you.

Would it surprise you to learn that well-liked people intend to be well-liked?  They work at it.  Would it also surprise you to learn that not everyone who works at it is successful?  Some people are positively horrid at it.  Try as they might, their efforts backfire, and the more they try to be well-liked, the more poorly people think of them.  Such people gain a reputation for being obsequious.

Darren Treadway, from the University of Mississippi, is interested in this question, and he recognized an ideal setting in which to study it:  the relationship between supervisor and subordinate.

At work, employees want their bosses to like them.  Bosses hold the keys to their success, such as raises, promotions, job assignments, recommendations, lay offs, and so on.  If we assume that nearly all employees try to be well-liked by their supervisors, then the difference between the many who try and the few who succeed must lie either in the skill of their efforts, the perceptions of the supervisors, or both...probably both.  Treadway realized that comparing the efforts of successful and unsuccessful people would yield valuable insights into how well-liked people accomplish the feat, so he conducted a study to explore it.

Treadway studied 150 retail employees and 37 supervisors.  The employees completed self-report measures of ingratiation (efforts to get others to like them) and measures in interpersonal facilitation (supporting and encouraging co-workers and helping others 'get along,' also known as 'political skill.'  Supervisors supplied recent performance review documents, and they completed measures of employees’ ingratiation attempts toward them and employees’ performance in the area of interpersonal facilitation- Political skill.  Treadway found a most interesting pattern of results.

For employees who scored low on political skill, the rest of the findings weren’t very good.  As they increased their ingratiation efforts, supervisors noticed the increase, and it backfired.  Supervisors rated them lower on interpersonal facilitation.

For employees who scored high on political skill, the rest of the findings were much better.  As they increased their ingratiation efforts, supervisors did not notice the increase.  In fact, supervisors didn’t notice any ingratiation efforts at all.  Instead, supervisors recognized these efforts as increased interpersonal facilitation – a good thing.  They were trying to help everyone 'get along.'  The difference was political skill, and Treadway explains it this way.

Political skill exerts a powerful influence on the perception of ingratiation.  It effectively masks the intent of the person.  Instead of trying to be well-liked, people appear to be trying to help others get along, an altruistic intent.  Supervisors had a high regard for such employees.  They liked them, and political skill was the key.

'Politically skilled individuals convey a sense of personal security and calm self-confidence that attracts others and gives them a feeling of comfort,' says Treadway.  It is comprised of four components:

1. Social astuteness – Politically skilled people are keen and insightful observers of others and of themselves. They accurately interpret their own behavior as well as others in social situations.
2. Interpersonal influence - Politically skilled people are flexible, adapting their own behaviors as situations change, and as they do so, they try to influence the thoughts and actions of others. They strike bargains, negotiate, and offer quid pro quos. Because of this, other people experience politically skilled people as very influential.
3. Networking – Politically skilled people develop networks of people... friendships, alliances, and coalitions. They typically network with people possessing valuable assets, like organizational rank, decision authority, expertise, or resources.
4. Apparent sincerity – Politically skilled people possess high levels of authenticity, sincerity, and genuineness. They appear to be honest, open, and forthright. 'This dimension of political skill strikes at the heart of whether ingratiation efforts will be successful because it focuses attention on the perceived intentions of the person,' says Treadway. Forming perceptions of intent is a labeling process carried out by the target of the ingratiation attempt, and it is crucial to the outcome.

Treadway believes that apparent sincerity is the most important component of ingratiation success, and he believes people can increase their skills in this area.  So the next time you compliment someone, smile at someone, openly support the ideas and/or values of someone, or appear modest, you should mean it.  Any self-serving intent should be invisible.  If you don’t really mean it, then you’d better appear as if you do.  Treadway’s study demonstrated the fine line between appearing obsequious and interpersonal facilitation.  Make sure you are on the right side of this line."

What strikes me as interesting, is that this discussion parallels everything we have said about relationship credibility.  People can always tell the difference between those who are in it for themselves only or are in it for the greater whole. 

Reference:  Treadway, Darren, Gerald Ferris, Allison Duke, Garry Adams, and Jason Thatcher (2007) The Moderating Role of Subordinate Political Skill on Supervisors’ Impressions of Subordinate Ingratiation and Ratings of Subordinate Interpersonal Facilitation.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 848-855. www.businesspsych.org

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn.  Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, Partner at Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.