Wired for Success

Are We Entering The Age of Empathy?

Ray B. Williams — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:23:24 +0000

Greed is out. Empathy is in. That's how Frans de Waal begins his book, The Age of Empathy: Nature's Lessons For A Kinder Society. De Waal is a biologist, professor of psychology and director of the Living Link Center at Emory University. In 2007, Time magazine selected him as one of the world's most influential people.

The global financial crisis of 2008, together with the election of a new American President representing a vastly different political and social perspective, has produced a "seismic shift in society," argues de Waal. The distinguished scientist says it is long overdue that we jettisoned our beliefs about human nature--proposed by economists and politicians--that human society is modeled on the perpetual struggle for survival that exists in nature. De Waal says this is mere projection on our part. Nature is replete with examples of cooperation and empathy.

Empathy, de Waal explains, is the social glue that holds human society together. He argues that modern psychology and neuroscience research supports the concept that "empathy is an automated response over which we have limited control." He points to the fact that many animals survive not by eliminating each other, or by keeping everything for themselves, but by cooperating and sharing.

Given all we know about empathy in other animal species, why do we persist in seeing human existence, particularly in business, as a fight for survival, with winners and losers? De Waal calls this the "macho origin myth" which insists that the human species has been waging war on itself as millennia as a reflection of our true nature. What has been ignored is the fact that empathy has been evident during that entire time. De Waal points to a mass of examples of sacrifice, empathy, co-operation and fairness in humans and other animals’ species. For example, how many people know that most soldiers are unwilling to fire at the enemy, even in battle?

Unfortunately, philosophy and religion as well as science have long suggested that caring and kindness do not come from our biological nature, but are ways that humans overcome biological instincts. In contrast, aggression, dominance and violence have been attributed to our DNA. According to de Waal, for humans and other advanced animals, sharing, compromise and justice matters. He argues that feeling and acting with empathy for others is as automatic as aggression.

De Waal explains how empathy has three layers. The first layer is emotional contagion, where the flush of emotions runs through a group of people during a dramatic event. The next layer is feeling for others, our empathetic response when we see another's predicament. And the third layer is "targeted helping," the ability to feel the way another does. He suggests that the historical predominant view of humans as slaves to a "selfish gene" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. We have competing genes--some selfish and aggressive, an others selfless and empathetic--and they are constantly jostling for position. People are complicated and complex, not instinctively cruel and selfish; they are capable of caring and empathy with equal passion and depth.

Given the nature of business survival in a competitive world, de Waal's clarion call that greed is out and empathy is in, may be a call we should all hear.

Sustainability: The Second Business Bottom Line

Ray B. Williams — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:31:01 +0000

Business can no longer operate from the perspective of short-term financial gain only. The world has become too complex, and social and environmental concerns now make financial profits at the expense of everything not only short sighted but dangerous. And we need only see the leadership debacles of an Enron, Worldcom and the recent Wall Street fiascos to see what selfish financial gain reaps on everyone. There is increasing support for the notion of a business triple bottom line: financial profits, social responsibility and sustainability.

Tim Sanders, in his book, Saving The World at Work, says "the responsibility revolution has arrived. It demands that companies make a difference to society," and the ones that don't participate risk becoming obsolete.

The Gallup Organization recently interviewed Ray Anderson, founder and chairman of Interface, Inc. and author of Confessions of a Radical Industrialist: Profits, People, Purpose--Doing Business by Respecting the Earth. Interface, the largest commercial carpet tile company in North America was originally, like most traditional carpet manufacturing companies, a high-input, heavy polluting industry that was damaging the environment. One of Anderson's employees one day gave him a book by Paul Hawken, The Ecology of Commerce, which caused Anderson to have an epiphany after reading it.

At the age of 60, Anderson decided to completely change Interface from its environmentally damaging practices and move to sustainability. Anderson said, "I wanted Interface, a company so oil-intensive you could think of it as an extension of the petrochemical industry, to be he first enterprise in history to become truly sustainable--to shut down its smokestacks, close off its effluent pipes, to do no harm to the environment and to take nothing from the earth not easily renewed by the earth."

Between 1996 and 2008, Interface cut its net greenhouse gas emissions by 71%, far beyond the Kyoto Protocol's standard. At the same time Interface's revenue from sales increased by 66%, expanding its profit margins substantially. Interface also reduced greenhouse gas intensity by 82%, wastewater stream pollution by 72%, landfill-bound waste by 78%, and total energy usage by 44%. Interface reached the apex of the Globescan's Survey of Sustainability Experts while at the same time saving the company $405 million. Since 2003, Interface has sold 83 million square yards of carpet with zero net global warming effect.

In the Gallup interview with Anderson, he said, "zero footprint seemed to me to be absolutely the right thing to do, and it quickly became smart business." Yet, Anderson says Interface is not yet sustainable. He makes a distinction between zero footprint and sustainability, saying sustainability is the top of the mountain that he is climbing. He believes in it passionately and plans to be there by 2020.

Anderson says the substantial costs to move toward sustainability are paid for by waste elimination, and using recycled materials. He says that environmental consciousness has become a competitive advantage for his company over others, which has translated into greater profits.

But what about the recession, hasn't that put a damper into efforts for sustainability? Anderson says no. "This is not about spending money. This is about competing on cost, product, people, marketplace and goodwill in the worst of times as well as the best. Today, we're winning the market share in the depths of this recession because of the commitment we've made."

Ray Anderson made a commitment to turn around one of worst environmentally damaging industries toward sustainability and make a profit while doing so. If that isn't a lesson for the other captains of industry, I don't know what is.

Don't Retire, Keep Working To Stay Healthier

Ray B. Williams — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:41:32 +0000

Since the Great Depression, a commonly held perspective on the good life is that we can all look forward to retirement, when we didn't have to work any more. We would be more relaxed and healthier away from the stresses of work. There's a couple of flaws in that argument. For one thing, retirement, like pensions, was an invention of the depression, intended to deal with the problem of unemployment. Prior to the depression the concept of retirement didn't exist. And for the most part, people are viewing retirement in a very different way today. AARP in the U.S., report from a survey done in 2008 that 70% of workers plan to continue working past their retirement age.

Now recent research questions the assumption that not working anymore will improve your health. Researchers, led by Mo Wang, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, studied the health of 12,000 men and women between the ages of 51 and 61, using data from the U.S. National Health and Retirement Study. The research study was published in the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology.

Among the conclusions of the study were: Compared to those who quite working altogether, those people who described themselves as officially retired but who continued to work part-time or in temp jobs were less likely to be diagnosed with these diseases--high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, lung disease, heart disease, stroke, psychiatric problems and arthritis. Those who worked at least part-time were also less likely to show signs of functional decline, or inability to perform the activities of daily living. The findings were true for all categories of age, sex, financial statutes, education and physical and mental health before retirement.

This study supported much earlier studies, such as a study at a major hospital in 1920 that showed that people who worked after retirement lived longer and a Yale University study published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, that showed being laid off or fired close to retirement or old age had a devastating effect on an individual's health, with particular reference to stroke. The American Geriatrics Society reported that people over age 65 who worked as volunteers had half the death risk of those who did not.

The benefits of continuing to work, other than financial resources, are social interaction, and opportunities to use your brain, the University of Maryland researchers reported. And perhaps most important of all, people who continue to work past retirement age have a sense of purpose, which has a positive impact on their health. A final argument for continuing to work is the cost of health services for aging Baby Boomers, the bulk of the population. It may be more economical for them to keep working, and stay healthier, than to have millions of them retire and be less healthy.

The Myth of Management Efficiency

Ray B. Williams — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 04:47:44 +0000

The current recession has produced a flood of management "experts" and many leaders of organizations whose only strategy for dealing with the downturn in the economy is cutting costs, layoffs and more efficiency based strategies. The mantra for business for much of the last century has been operational efficiency. So leaders look for ways to cut costs and make the operations lean and mean. Yet much of the rationale for and evidence supporting efficiency as a key management strategy is questionable.

In a great article by Adam Hartung in Forbes, titled The Myth of Efficiency, he outlines how leaders have mistakenly used efficiency to drive business results, often with disastrous results. Hartung cites W. Chan Kim and Renee Mauborgne, of INSEAD International Business School, and the authors of Blue Ocean Strategy, who advanced the argument that businesses should create new market space or "Blue Ocean" rather than competing in an existing industry. Kim and Mauborgne say that only 14% of innovations are radical, and that those few radical innovations produce 61% of company profits. Hartung cites a report by the Doblin Group, a U.S. consultancy company, specializing in innovation research and implementation, that claims 9% of innovation resources are focused on incremental improvements.

The core of the problem of the poor showing for innovation producing business success is that innovation has been constantly battling efficiency as a management strategy. Jill Lepore, wrote a recent article in The New Yorker, titled, Not So Fast: Scientific Management Started as a Way To Work: How Did It Become a Way of Life? She recounts the story of how renowned Supreme Court Judge, Louis Brandeis was mesmerized by an industrial engineer from Philadelphia, Frederick Winslow Taylor. Management theory came to life in 1899 with a simple question: “How many tons of pig iron bars can a worker load onto a rail car in the course of a working day?” The man behind this question was Frederick Winslow Taylor, the author of The Principles of Scientific Management and, by most accounts, the founding father of the whole management business. Lillian Gilbreth, often called the mother of modern management, had serious doubts about the industrial management movement that she initially helped to promote. Yet, Taylor's scientific management principles became the Bible upon which management practices have been used to dominate Western business for the past century. The problem is, that Taylor was a better salesman than a scientist.

Matthew Stewart, the author of The Management Myth: Why The Experts Keep Getting It Wrong, describes how Taylor manufactured his data, lied to his clients and inflated his results. He argues that since Taylor, business programs in universities continue to model much of their education, with particular emphasis on technical knowledge and the scientific management approach. Stewart, who was for many years a management consultant, argues that the study of philosophy and ethics would serve society better as a basis for educating business leaders.

This theme is echoed by Tom Demarco in his book, Slack: Getting Past Burnout, Busywork And The Myth Of Total Efficiency, in which he details American business leaders' obsession with planning and cost saving efficiency based on a mistaken belief that human beings are efficient in the same way that machines are. In a similar vein, a ground-breaking book by Dan Coffey, titled The Myth of Japanese Efficiency, challenges the commonly held view based on an earlier MIT study that Japanese car manufacturers pioneered a "lean and flexible" production model, which has helped to reinforce the cultish devotion to efficiency. 3M's CEO, George Buckley in BusinessWeek, argues that creative blue ocean strategy produces better business results than the traditional focus on operational efficiency, and he argues further, that excessive focus on efficiency stifles innovation.

The economic recession, with the dominant leadership strategies emphasizing cost cutting and technical analysis has shown that Taylor's scientific management approach has not left us, despite decades of attempts to move to a management approach that is humanistic rather than mechanistic.

Mentoring: The Forgotten Strategy in the Recessionary World

Ray B. Williams — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:00:07 +0000

Many small to medium sized companies have become so successful that they have been "corporatized," a term coined that describes the feeling of professionals working in those companies that makes them feel like "cogs in a wheel."

In an article the Harvard Business Review, authors Thomas J. Delong, John J. Gabarro and Robert J. Lees argue that the remedy for the corporatized phenomena is for those companies to institute a program of mentoring. While the need for mentoring was once more commonplace during good economic times, it has slowly disappeared from many organizations during the growth of the global economy and fierce competition and specifically during the recession.The mentoring relationship can serve a critical role in an employee's career, skill development; and is a key to retaining talent and a fundamental way by which the organization can shape leadership.

Workplace mentoring usually takes place between two individuals--one, the older more experience person and the other, the younger, less experienced individual. Mentors typically provide career related support which includes visibility, networking, coaching and sponsorship as well as psychosocial support by developing the protégés sense of identity, competence and effectiveness, sometimes including friendship and role modeling.

A research study conducted by professor Christina Underhill at he University of Memphis, where she examined all the research conducted on mentoring in the past 25 years showed the organization benefits from mentoring by enhanced organization attractiveness and recruitment, reduced employee turnover, increased organizational learning, and employee productivity and socialization.

The selection of a mentor is critical to the program's success. The research by DeLong, Gabarro and Lees showed that good mentor: Is someone who is absolutely credible and whose integrity transcends any messages; tells the protégés truthful things they may not want to hear; interacts with the protégés in ways that the protégés wants to become a better person; helps the protégés feel secure enough to take risks; helps develop the protégé’s' confidence to raise above their inner doubts and fears; supports the protégé’s' attempts to set and achieve audacious but attainable goals; and present challenges and opportunities the protégés might not have seen on their own.

The Vancouver Board of Trade initiated the Leaders of Tomorrow program, in which young university graduates, who want to be involved with the Board of Trade, are matched up with experienced business and professional mentors. Feedback from the both the protégés and the mentors involved in the program have indicated it has been a huge success.

Given the challenge and potential conflicts between the generations--Baby Boomers and Generation Y in particular--the promise of a beneficial and low cost initiative such as mentoring can be a smart organizational strategy.

Management Practices That Waste Time and Money

Ray B. Williams — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 03:33:03 +0000

At the best of times, management mistakes can cost an organization valuable time and money. During difficult economic times, the results can be disastrous.

In my Psychology Today article, Management Rewired: What Brain Science Can Tell Us About Leadership I said, "Research on how the human brain can affect behaviors--called neuroscience, or the popular term, brain science--has yet to be fully appreciated by leaders of organizations. That knowledge could have a significant impact on how leaders are trained and what they do. In the past few decades, scientists have gained new and more accurate scientific views of human behavior, studying the human brain. Organizational change that takes into account the physiological nature of the brain and ways that predisposes people to resist cooperate with leaders can be extremely useful for leaders."

It appears as though this management lack of knowledge of brain functioning and human performance may account for dysfunctional management practices.

Aubrey C. Daniels, one of the world's foremost authorities on management and human performance, outlines management practices that are destructive to organizations during boom or bust times, in his outstanding book, Oops! 13 Management Practices That Waste Time and Money (and what to do instead).

Daniels points out that few managers look for behavioral data to affect employee performance because most manager know very little about the science of behavior and recent brain science or neuroscience, and very few business programs in universities teach it. He says another reason why organizations are fundamentally flawed from a behavioral perspective is that they were designed by those people--those with financial expertise--who have only one purpose in mind, to make money. He says that "how employees are paid, appraised, rewarded, and recognized have financial implications," but when designed without an understanding of human behavior, you can have get contrary results. For example, there is a mountain of research to show that employees are not primarily motivated by financial rewards over the long term, yet we continue to use that as a management motivational strategy.

Daniels identifies the following 13 managerial strategies that no only don't work, but are destructive to organizations and the people in them, what's wrong with them and what to do about it:

Employee of the Month [and most other forms of recognition and reward] What's wrong with it: It focuses attention on one employee, but most work is a team effort. What to do about it: Acknowledge achievement for everyone the moment it happens.
Stretch Goals. What's wrong with it: Employees end up overwhelmed and frustrated if they fail to reach aggressive goals. What to do about it: Set achievable short term goals and chart employee progress month by month.
Performance Appraisal. What's wrong with it: It's hated by both managers and employees; it's done once a year and then appraisal is ignored for the rest of the year; it's not motivational. What to do about it: Give immediate management feedback to employees for success or failure.
Ranking employees. What's wrong with it: Even if the gap between employees is small some end up at the top and others at the bottom. The ones at the bottom feel like failures.
Rewarding Things a Dead Man Can Do (rewarding negatives). What's wrong with it: If you reward employees for zero defects, the sure way to meet that target is to try nothing that has a chance of failing, or falling short. What to do about it: reward every success, not matter how small.
Salary and Hourly Pay (merit pay, automatic bonuses). What's wrong with it: Once a raise is given, it is permanent, but it's unlikely to continue to motivate and bonuses are viewed as entitlements, even if performance is less than satisfactory. What to do about it: Pay for performance or revenue sharing that must be earned each year.
You did a good job, but… (good news-bad news feedback). What's wrong with it: "Yes, but," is not a motivator, but a punisher, and seen by employees as management "nagging." What to do about it: praise and criticism should come in two separate conversations.
The Sandwich [Criticism sandwiched between two positive statements]. What's wrong with it: People naturally place more focus on negative messages than positive, so the focus on the positive is lost. What to do about it: If management needs to confront an employee about an issue, do so in a straight forward manner, with no sugar-coating.
Overvaluing Smart, Talented People (you don't buy people's brains, you buy their behavior). What's wrong with it: Management focuses on resumes and IQ not performance. Provide growth opportunities for all employees and give them opportunities to shine.
The Budget Process. What's wrong with it: Tedious, time-consuming divvying up of resources creates an expectation for everyone to want more. What to do about it: Budge according to what each part of the organization can prove they need to get results.
Promoting People No One Likes. What's wrong with it: employees perform out of fear rather than commitment and loyalty. What to do about it: Promote people who are liked and have superior interpersonal and emotional intelligence abilities.
Downsizing. What's wrong with it: Many things including the stress placed on those employees that remain, and the costs of new hires after the recovery. What to do about it: Find more creative ways of costs savings, done by many companies.
Mergers, Acquisitions, And Other Forms of Reorganizing. What's wrong with it: Decisions are made mostly on financial terms, with little focus on integrating corporate cultures and declining performance. What to do about it: Get teams of people together to manage the integration over time, rather than by management edict.

Daniels presents some very controversial remedies for what ails our current organizations, based on some very sound brain science and human behavior research, that should draw the attention of every leader.

Leaders' Mindset May Determine Long Term Success

Ray B. Williams — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:10:02 +0000

A leader's "mindset" may determine success. Mindsets that are characterized by a commitment to growth, flexibility and adaptability continue to develop the leader's brain and develop reservoirs of untapped potential.

The notion of mindset and how it can affect performance is outlined by Stanford University psychology professor Carol Dweck, in her book, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success.

Dweck argues that everyone has one of two basic mindsets. If you have the "fixed' mindset, you believe that your talents and abilities are fixed or set in stone--either you have them or you don't. This kind of person is driven to prove themselves repeatedly, trying to look successful at all costs. However, this mindset actually leads to stagnation and declining performance. If you have the second mindset, or "growth" mindset, you know that your talents and abilities are built over time, so you seize every opportunity for growth--and success.

Dweck shows how the growth mindset develops in childhood and early adulthood and drives every aspect of our lives, from work to relationships to parenting. Much of her work is based on brain science which shows that we have "plastic" brains, capable of learning until we die. She describes how creative geniuses in all fields of endeavor, apply their growth mindset to achieve results. Dweck also shows us how we can change our mindset at any age.

In an article in the June 19, 2009, BusinessWeek, John R. Ryan, the President of the Center for Creative Leadership, discusses how we might apply Dueck's ideas to leadership in organizations. He suggests that first, a growth mindset must drive leaders' management of the organization's human talent, focusing on the long-term development of people. Second, Ryan argues that leader's must create an organizational culture that permits risk taking and allows for mistakes, citing Dweck's research that shows that people's fixed mindsets come from early childhood experiences of being judged and criticized for making mistakes. Finally, Ryan argues that leaders all too often rest on their laurels and accomplishments of the past, basing their performance on their ego rather than an attitude of continual learning.

Professor Dweck's mindset research challenges leaders to develop their growth mindset regardless of age and experience, and challenges educators and parents to examine how their are developing growth mindsets in our children.

Ray B. Williams is Co-Founder of Success IQ University and President of Ray Williams Associates, companies located in Phoenix and Vancouver, providing leadership training, personal growth and executive coaching services. www.successiqu.com

Management Rewired: What Can Brain Science Tell Us About Leadership?

Ray B. Williams — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:35:14 +0000

Research on how the human brain can affect behaviors--called neuroscience, or the popular term, brain science--has yet to be fully appreciated by leaders of organizations. That knowledge could have a significant impact on how leaders are trained and what they do. In the past few decades, scientists have gained new and more accurate scientific views of human behavior, studying the human brain. Organizational change that takes into account the physiological nature of the brain and ways that predisposes people to resist or cooperate with leaders can be extremely useful for leaders.

Some valuable insights come from John Medina, a molecular biologist, published in the Harvard Business Review in May 2008. Medina is an author of Brain Rules: 12 Principles For Surviving and Thriving at Work, Home and School. Medina says "the brain is so sensitive to external experiences that you can literally rewire it through exposure to environmental influences." For example, we know that stress hurts the brain and that has a huge impact on productivity. Medina says that enduring continuing stress is like trying to fly an airplane under water.

Some people have brains that are wired in a way that can overcome huge amounts of stress, but we're not able to predict this. Slowly, brain science is beginning to inform us about the genetic components of why some people are more resilient than others. For example, a gene called 5-HTT helps regulate our moods. People with a mutation of this gene are more likely to become depressed under stress.We're also learning a lot about how our brain remembers. Medina says there is no such thing as a perfect memory because the brain's prime purpose is survival. So it will change the perception of reality to survive. The brain is not a perfect recording device. This finding supports Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), which proposes that no one really knows what reality is, but only his or her perception of reality.

Brain research shows that long-term memory doesn't happen instantly, but occurs over a long time. So to develop long-term memory you have to be consistently re-exposed to certain information, a process called, "elaborative retrieval." Advertisers understand this concept, which is reflected in message repetition. Brain research has also pointed us to the knowledge that our brains are very elastic and capable of change regardless of age. The physical changes neurons undergo when learning something happens to anyone’s brain at any age. The brain remains plastic until we die, which means we can remain lifelong learners.

Business school professors at the Arizona State Univesity and Emory University are working with neuroscientists to study the brains of executives. At Emory, researchers asked a group of executives to respond to PowerPoint slides presenting moral dilemmas associated with early memories, to establish whether brain patterns that determine moral thinking are formed early in life. The results so far show that moral thinking is formed early in life which brings into question whether it could be taught later in life. The Leadership Neuroscience Project, headed by Arizona State University professors Pierre Balthazar and David Waltham initiated a study of a group of business leaders while they discussed various scenarios such as layoffs, to determine if there were any distinctive brain wave patterns.

"Neuroleadership,” is a term coined by David Rock, a leadership consultant and author of Quiet Leadership: Six Steps to Transforming Leadership At Work. Rock and Jeffrey Schwartz, a research scientist at UCLA, are applying neuroscience concepts to leadership. For example, by emphasizing mindful, focused attention on new management practices, rather than fixing old habits that don't work, leaders can actually rewire their brains. McKinsey and Company is now incorporating their ideas into client workshops. An article by Rock and Schwartz published in Strategy and Business Journal, was the publication’s most downloaded article in 2006.

Improvements in brain analysis technology has allowed researchers to track the energy of a thought coursing through the brain in the same way they can track blood flowing through the circulatory system. Change lights up the prefrontalal cortex, which is fast and agile. Overloading the prefrontal cortex can generate fatigue, fear and anger, because of the cortex's connection to the emotion center of the brain, the amygdala.

Rock and Schwartz state that "the traditional command-and-control style of management doesn't lead to permanent changes in behavior. Ordering people to change and them telling them how to do it fires the prefrontal cortex’s hair trigger connection to the amygdala. The more you try to convince people that you’re right and they're wrong, the more they push back. The brain will try to defend itself from threats. Our brains are so complex that it is rare for us to be able to see any situation in exactly the same way as someone else. The way to get past the prefrontal cortex’s defenses is to help people come to their own resolution regarding the concepts causing through their prefrontal cortex to bristle."

Dr. Robert Cooper, of Stanford Business School writing in Strategy and Leadership Journal, points out that we actually have three brains--the one in our head, the one in our gut and the one in our heart, all of which have massive number of neurons. He claims that the highest reasoning involves all three brains working together.

Traditional change in management tactics in organizations are based more on animal training than on human psychology and neuroscience. Leaders promise bonuses and promotions (the carrot) for those who go along with the changes, and punish those (the stick) who don't with less important jobs or even job loss. This kind of managerial behavior flies in the face of evidence that shows that people's primary motivation in the workplace is neither money or advancement but rather a personal interest in their jobs, a good environment to work in and fulfilling relationships with their boss and colleagues.

Charles Jacobs, author of Management Rewired: Why Feedback Doesn't Work and Other Supervisory Lessons From The Latest Brain Science, says the brain is wired to resist what is commonly termed constructive feedback, but is usually negative. When people encounter information that is in conflict with their self-image, their tendency is to change he information, rather than changing themselves. So when mangers give critical feedback to employees, the employees’ brain defense mechanism is activated because that information conflicts with what the brain remembers and knows.

Jacobs' views are supported by management guru Aubrey C. Daniels, writing in his book, Oops! 13 Management Practices That Waste Time and Money. He cites a study by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) which found that 90% of performance appraisals are both painful and don't work and further, produce an extremely low percentage of top performers. Modern brain research questions the validly of psychological testing, such as the Myers-Briggs test, used for employment decisions. These tests were developed long before we knew very much about how the brain processes anything.

So if critical feedback or so called constructive criticism is not effective, what is? Jacobs recommends that leaders engage in a Socratic dialogue with employees, asking questions so that the employees set their own goals and self-evaluate. Leaders have to understand that learning in our brains is not the same for all people. When new ideas and concepts are embraced by people, the brain changes physically. So changing the way we think can alter the brain's physical characteristics.

Brain science also tells us that people make decisions based on emotions, not logic. When someone experiences something that gets attached to an emotion, it leaves a strong record in the brain. When that person encounters a similar set of circumstances, it brings up the memory along with the associating emotions, which could be positive or negative. It is the emotional memory that will affect the decisions, not logic. We use our analytical thinking processes to validate the emotional decision we have already made. That's why people can ignore evidence to the contrary to their emotional decision.

Brain science has huge implications for the way we manage organizations, and equally significant implications for HR practices. Compensation, benefits, rewards and other current methods of employee motivation are much the same as they were three generations ago, ignoring all the research evidence from psychology and brain science. So too is the evidence about how psychological states and their brain characteristics---for example, happiness--have a direct impact on employee engagement, creativity and productivity.

In my April 26, 2009 article in Psychology Today, I said, " Leaders can change their own behavior or influence that of other people by focusing on creating new behaviors rather than trying to fix old ones. In a world with so many distractions, one of the biggest challenges is being able to focus enough attention on any one idea. Leaders can make a difference by eliciting attention on only the most important things and focusing their feedback to employees on things that work well. Focusing on solutions and not problems, and allowing employees to generate solutions and developing new positive behaviors become a critical management strategy to increase success."

With the demands of a new economy the old leadership practices just won't work. It's time we learned from brain science.

Why Are You Not Like Me? The Generational Gap In The Workplace

Ray B. Williams — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:56:52 +0000

The workplace is facing a generational adjustment of values, learning and working styles that will have a huge impact on how leaders think and act. Generation X and Generation Y will transform the nature of the workplace.

Generation X (born 1965-1980 and approximately 55 million in North America) accept diversity; they are skeptical, pragmatic and practical, self-reliant, independent and individualistic; they reject authoritarianism and control; they were latchkey children and separate friends from family. They like a casual, friendly work environment, seek challenge, involvement and flexible learning arrangements. Work-life balance and family priorities are very important to Gen Xers.

Generation Y (born 1981-1999 and approximately 80 million in North America) celebrate diversity; they are optimistic, inventive and individualistic; they rewrite the rules; they enjoy a pleasurable lifestyle; they don't see the relevance of most institutions; they are masters of technology and social media; were nurtured by their parents; see friends as family; like a collaborative supportive work environment and interactive work relationships; have high demands and expectations; want to work for companies that are socially responsible and they want a balanced life.

The Pew Research Center has published a report profiling Generation Y entitled, "Generation Next." The report cited these characteristics of Generation Y:

* More than 50% of them are immigrants and not native North Americans, with liberal attitudes toward such issues such as gay marriage, and interracial dating;
* They are critical of the ethics and morality of business;
* They maintain close ties with their families;
* When they identify with a "hero" they are more likely to identify a family member, teacher or mentor rather than celebrities or politicians;
* They are more involved in politics than Gen Xers;

Bruce Tulgan, the founder of Rainmaker Thinking and an expert on Generation Y, says that they are a pampered and nurtured generation, being both high performance and high maintenance, with a very high sense of self-worth. Tulgan calls them "Generation X on steroids."

Generation Y does not like authoritarian leadership styles because they've grown up being able to question their parents. Generation Y, unlike Baby Boomers, is interested in making their jobs accommodate their family and personal lives. They have an extremely high value on self-fulfillment; they don't expect to stay in a job or career for long, seeing career change as normal.

In the workplace, the practice of the annual performance review is commonplace, but not one to which Generation Y is receptive. They grew up used to constant feedback and recognition form parents and coaches and teachers and expect more regular communication from bosses.

Generation Y's attitudes, values and behaviors are already beginning to show conflict with Baby Boom leaders and some Generation X leaders as well. According to a survey by Lee Hecht Harrison Company, 60% of employers are experiencing tension between employees of different generations. The survey found that 70% of older employees are dismissive of younger workers' abilities, and 50% of Gen Y workers were dismissive of older workers' abilities.

In the July 7, 2007 article in Time Magazine, writer Penelope Trunk observed that what distinguishes Generation Y is their attitude toward work and home. She says that Baby Boomers usually put work first, and Generation Xers try to juggle equally work and family, while Generation Y wants to spend quality and meaningful time in both. Another big difference for Generation Yers is their comfort in continuing to live at home with their parents, while they find the right kind of work. Many Generation Yers choose jobs just to be with their friends because friendships are a high value, or the choose jobs that allow them to work as volunteers in the community.

So what do employers and leaders need to know and do to address these generational differences, and in particular respond to Generation Y workers?

Sylvia Hewlett , Laura Sherbin and Karen Sumberg wrote in the August 2009 issue of the Harvard Business Review that when economic times improve the landscape of talent management will have been transformed. Because of the impact of the recession, a combination of large numbers of Generation Yers entering the workforce combined with a refusal of Baby Boomers to take retirement will dramatically shift the composition of the workforce.

Two large surveys of college graduates the combined efforts of Booz, Allen Hamilton, Ernst and Young, Time Warner and UBS, concluded that on the surface--which is somewhat contradictory--that Generation Y shares some similarities with the Baby Boomers, more so that with Generation X. They both want to make social contributions through their work, they value social connections and loyalty to friends, and they prize other rewards over monetary compensation.

So what are smart employers and leaders doing? In essence, they are aligning jobs with the shared values of employees, which allows Baby Boomers to scale back hours but still provide their experience. For example, American Express is providing more job flexibility, allowing people to work where and how they want; and like Citigroups's Alternative Solutions Work program; which provides opportunities for social contribution and like Ernst and Young's Corporate Responsibly Fellows Program which has instituted progressive work policies that value multiple bottom lines including CSR and sustainability; and like Time Warner and Cisco which has instituted intergenerational mentoring.

Another interesting feature of the current generational shifts is the current leadership challenge of Generation Xers. As Baby Boomers retire and Generation Yers are not yet old enough to assume the reigns of power, Generation Xers will step into leadership positions and face the challenge of managing significant generational differences, which will require the best attributes of a transformational leadership style. The next decade in the workplace promises to provide some interesting generational dynamics.

Layoffs and the Stress Response

Ray B. Williams — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 20:18:43 +0000

The recession has had a serious psychological impact on many businesses, due to the stress associated with layoffs.

We know from various research studies that negative emotions such as fear, anxiety and sadness, which often accompany workplace stress, have a detrimental effect on workers' emotional and mental state, and performance.

Executives' and managers' judgments and decisions, particularly regarding relationship issues, can become skewed or unstable under stressful conditions, particularly if the company's focus is a "numbers" emphasis on sales targets.

History has shown that best practice companies which survive tough economic times focus on managing their human capital assets well, will outperform those companies which focus on other things, by a considerable margin. Inadequate human capital management leads to inadequate strategic thinking and decision-making.

Recent research shows that there is a correlation between declines in work performance and the negative climate produced by layoffs--often referred to as "layoff survivor syndrome."Layoffs not only create stress for workers who are laid off, but also for those co-workers who remain behind.

It is a management fallacy that keeping people anxious about keeping their jobs, motivates them to perform better. The evidence shows the reverse is true. Researchers have shown that people exposed to prolonged job stress face twice the risk of having a heart attack as non-stressed workers.In companies where layoffs have been implemented, there is a tendency by leaders to assume the survivors need little or no attention, and should believe they are "lucky to have a job."

The firm, Sirota Survey Intelligence conducted numerous surveys during and after the recession in the early 2000s, and reported that survivor employees wanted two things from management: competent management--competence to lead through a crisis; and caring management--humanistic behavior.

Many studies of the use of layoffs to reduce costs show that projected savings are greatly overestimated; showing that only 30% of companies that significantly downsized gained increased productivity and profits over a 3-5 year period; further, those companies underperformed on the stock market over the long term. One study found that, on average, a 10% reduction in employees resulted in only a 1.5% reduction in costs.

The stress that has come from layoffs has affected the managers that were responsible for implementing them. Since the economy took the plunge, more than 50% of managers have reported stress-related symptoms, according to the U.S.'s EAP company, ComPsych. Leon Grunberg, a sociologist at the University of Puget Sound who conducted a long term job stress study among managers, reported that managers were reporting stress symptoms up to 3 years after layoffs took place.

While it's clear that layoffs are frequently used as a management strategy during tough economic times to reduce costs, the true cost to companies are rarely calculated in terms of the impact on employee productivity and emotional health.

Ray Williams is Co-Founder of Success IQ University and President of Ray Williams Associates, companies located in Vancouver and Phoenix, providing leadership training, personal growth and executive coaching services. Ray can be reached at rwilliams@successiqu.com