Being afraid of the 'other'

It's hard to avoid those harrowing images of those thousands of people fleeing war and destruction.  The pictures are everywhere and the effects of these massive movements of people are wide and far-reaching.  Post-World War Two, many psychologists turned their research to examining how we establish differences between 'Us' and 'Them'.  Turns out it is disturbingly easy to form what are called 'in groups' and 'out groups', often on the most arbitrary of criteria, and with lasting consequences.  (When you read some of the research, it's tempting to conclude that you, personally, would never do some of these things that dehumanise others, but the uncomfortable truth is that we are all prone to this kind of thinking).

The September issue (2015,  Vol 28 No 9) of The Psychologist carried two articles on current research into how and why we dehumanise others.  Often we do it because we are afraid, and the latest research suggests that in times when we feel particularly under threat our propensity to de-humanise is increased.  The extent to which we hold an 'out-group' as less-than-human acts as a predictor of our other attitudes.  For example, there was more dehumanising of Arabs by US citizens immediately following the Boston Marathon bombing, which showed up in how this group, in general, should be treated as a consequence.

Philip Zimbardo (he, of the famous Stanford Prison Experiments) argues that dehumanisation is a form of evil and that we are all capable of it if the situational context is supportive of such.  The process of dehumanisation diffuses responsibility - it allows us to take actions that would otherwise be highly uncomfortable, and possibly do things to others that we would never dream of doing in other circumstances.

However, he also pointed to something that he called 'heroism' - something that requires the courage to act in a different way.  This can be learned and he has established the Heroic Imagination Project to teach school children how to challenge mindsets, question peer group pressure and overcome stereotype threat.

http://heroicimagination.org/

Coaching in the workplace as a way of developing employees has been around for a number of years now, although the research into its effectiveness is still an emerging area of study.  So it is helpful to see the latest meta-analysis, by Jones, Woods and Guillaume*.

The analysis covers some 17 different studies, all work-based, covering over 2000 staff, mainly in management positions. 

Most encouragingly, Jones and colleagues found consistent evidence that coaching works and there are benefits in affect (eg improvements in self-efficacy or stress reduction), skill development and individual results.  It is thus, a powerful tool in the kit-bag of any HR professional charged with the responsibility of developing the staff in his/her organisation. In particular, it enables training and development to be tailored to each individual.

However, when looking in greater detail at what actually makes coaching work most effectively, their survey has yielded some surprising results:

• Perhaps most surprisingly, they found that effects of coaching were stronger when a coach internal to the organisation was deployed, rather than using an external professional.  Although the researchers stress some caution about this result (due to the low number of studies that used internal coaches), this is a finding that should not be ignored and has implications for the role of the external coach.
• The number of sessions and/or the length of the coaching contract did not affect results, although there may be some influence from the exact nature of the coaching conversation (ie more complex problems may require more time to work through, but there is also a case for a one-off coaching intervention).
• Face-to-face coaching and blended approaches seem to work equally well.  This has direct implications for driving arguments about the return on investment of coaching compared with other development activities.
• The use of multi-source feedback (eg 360 degree reports) in a coaching context actually had a weaker effect than coaching alone.  This is quite a surprising result and it is a common practice that multi-session coaching relationships often start with some kind of discussion around the results of such a report.  The researchers call for more investigation into this area, but postulate that the nature of the feedback given may direct the coachee's attention away from the session itself, thus reducing its effectiveness.

*  The full paper provides a very insightful analysis and is well worth a read if you are a HR professional or working as an external coach.  Currently you can purchase it online from Wiley (www.wileyonlinelibrary.com) although it is also due to be published in the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2015).  It is called:

Jones RJ, Woods SA and Guillaume YRF (2015)  The effectiveness of workplace coaching:  A meta-analysis of learning and performance outcomes from coaching.

Resilience in the workplace - a review of the evidence for resilience training

Resilience, Mental Toughness, 'bounce-back-ability', hardiness.  These terms are now hot topics in organisations.  How do we help staff cope with the increasing demands and pressures of today's workplace?  And do current initiatives to help people cope actually work?  Professor Cary Cooper and his colleagues have attempted to find out by conducting a survey of the latest research papers.*

Resilience - it's one of those funny psychological concepts.  We all know when we see it, we use it as an every day term, perhaps when discussing the latest sporting achievement or amazing comeback we have witnessed on the TV.  But when you actually come to define it, it becomes a bit more elusive.

In conducting their review, Cooper and his colleagues found many different definitions in the 14 studies, plus a range of other terms for similar characteristics (such as the ones in the opening paragraph).  They were keen to differentiate 'resilience' from these other terms and settled on the definition that suggests that it is something which is malleable and therefore, can change over time and of course, be learned.

Four areas of measurement were used as showing evidence for the benefits of resilience training; 1) mental health and subjective well-being outcomes, 2) physical/biological outcomes, 3) psychosocial outcomes and 4) performance outcomes.  Interestingly, only six of the 14 studies included in the survey actually measured changes in resilience itself and in only three of these studies were there statistically significant increases in resilience.  This might seem like a athletics coach training a runner in various sprinting techniques but forgetting to actually check that he can actually run faster as a result.  But, the researchers do point to the wide range of training interventions, ranging from Cognitive/Behaviour techniques to mind/body to the spiritual.  As with many areas of psychological study that are in their infancy, a lack of randomised trials, variations in methodology and a range of populations makes interpretation difficult, and it is not yet clear what types of resilience training work best, with whom and by what mechanism.  It may be that resilience training helps to moderate certain psychological aspects, and hence works best with people who, for example, are prone to stress.  It may also mean that there is no one way of building resilience that works across contexts and populations.

That said, virtually all the studies reported improvements in outcomes as a result of resilience training, with impressive results in the area of mental health and well-being outcomes, such as stress, depression, anxiety, and negative mood.  However, there is no one single variable that consistently shows improvement across all the 14 studies and more research is required to discover exactly what methods produce the best results and by what mechanisms.

So, the latest signs are that resilience training can have positive effects, but more research is called for and Cooper and his colleagues conclude their paper with recommendations for taking the research area forward.

*This is only a brief summary of their work and the full paper is definitely worth a read, as it does provide a useful summary of the latest progress in an area that is of concern to HR practitioners working with overloaded people in the workplace.

You can find it at:

Roberston IT, Cooper CL, Sarkar M, Curran T (2015)  'Resilience training in the workplace from 2003 to 2014: a systematic review', Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88, 533-562.

Staffordshire University conference on Resilience, 26 March 2015

This proved to be an informative and entertaining insight into the latest thinking about resilience, in both sport and business.

The day kicked off with the opening presentation by the England footballer, Earl Barrett, (now coaching at Stoke).  His stories about having to cope with adversity in his career ranged from racism to injury to being dropped from the team.  And this set the tone for the day; resilience is one of those things that we all recognise, but is actually quite hard to define and to measure.  Does what it takes to recover from injury tap on the same resources that it takes to perform well in a key sales-pitch?

Research shows that resilience can and does change with context.  It varies within and between individuals and is influenced by internal factors like personality and also with external factors such as environment and culture.  The good news is that it can be learned.

Resilience is a key factor in coping with stress and each speaker was able to advance our knowledge on building resilience.  Even a change in perception can produce dramatic results.  Perceiving a situation as either a challenge or threat can have profound effects on performance.  Similarly, choosing the right type of social support at the right time can also affect stress levels.

A different slant at the topic was given by Rune Todnem By on what people need to hear from their leader in times of trouble or stress.  Turns out it's not the chest-beating, 'more cow-bell' motivational speech but something that attends to the needs of the audience.  

They need to know that what their leader requires of them is possible, worthwhile and appropriate, to name a few of the key elements, if you want motivated staff.

The event finished with a case study from Roy White, Head of HR at Sony Mobile.  Roy showed how the company had designed and delivered a resilience training programme for staff, built on the three pillars of 'Body', 'Mind' and 'Spirit'.  

Thanks to all the speakers for laying on such a useful event, particularly the staff at Staffordshire University, Marc Jones, Jamie Barker and Martin Turner.   I would also like to recommend Jamie and Martin's book, 'What Business can Learn from Sport Psychology' (Bennion Kearny).

Also a quick shout out for another upcoming event if you are interested in this area of research.  The author and consultant, Ted Garratt is running a workshop on 13 May on 'Coaching for the Zone' http://www.tedgarratt.co.uk/.  Well worth a look if you want to look at practical application theories on approaches to achieving excellent performance.

Choking under pressure

The Staffordshire University conference on resilience in sport and business is this week, and it reminded me of the flip side of this.  What happens to us when we freeze under pressure or give sub-optimal performance on the 'big day'?

A great place to explore this topic is by reading Sian Beilock's book, 'Choke'.  It's packed with research on why people, who are more than capable of performing, fail to live up to their potential when it really counts.  Beilock gives examples from sport, music and education, to name a just a few. 

Choking isn't random - it happens under certain circumstances and will happen more to some people than to others.  The key element is what we do with our part of the brain that governs working-memory (the bit that keeps information on a 'mental scratch pad' while we process it).  It turns out that when we feel the pressure, our anxiety takes up valuable resource in our working-memory, leaving less capacity for us to use for performing well.

If our performance also involves a motor skill, we can also fall prone to what Richard Masters calls 'reinvestment'.  Reinvestment is where we start to concentrate consciously on something that we had previously rehearsed so much, we didn't need to think about it at all. 

Reinvestment makes the unconscious conscious and when we do this, we try (in vain) to control our muscles and movements, leading to sub-standard performance.

The good thing is there are things we can do to prepare for these situations and Beilock's book contains many useful techniques to help you prepare for the big event.  Rehearsal, re-intepretation and even distraction tasks like singing a song to yourself, while you (don't) concentrate on the main task, can all help.

The conference on resilience is at Staffordshire University, 26th March 2015.  Watch this blog to get a summary of the day.

Laughter is good for the soul... as long as you are not trying to kill me

What's the most fun you've had with your boss?  Have you ever laughed out loud, together, as equals?  Or have you had the experience where your boss's so-called humour has left you feeling uncomfortable or even humiliated?

Some interesting research has shown that humour can be a form of leadership and a way of establishing effective working relationships between boss and follower.  BUT, it has to be the right kind of humour.  There are two types of humour; affiliative and aggressive.  Affiliative humour is seen as a positive form of humour designed to amuse people.  Aggressive humour is much more 'Win-Lose' and is intended to mock people or to emphasise differences in status.  It can include sarcasm, 'put-downs' or inappropriate subject matter.

Affiliative humour has been found to improve relationships by improving satisfaction, team cooperation and commitment.  It is thought to act as a declaration of self-disclosure by the boss, which helps to establish trust and openess and encourages reciprocal behaviour. 

These kind of relationships were not found in leaders who exercised more aggressive forms of humour.

In short, the findings of the research show 'that humour is useful for creating a high-quality relationship between leader and follower when used in an affiliative way but not if it is used in an aggressive way'.

The researchers do qualify their findings - if you are not a natural humourist then don't over-work it; you will only look inauthentic or people misunderstand your intentions.  However, it is possible to develop your funny side and the researchers mention the following approach by McGhee in their paper:

The Seven Humour Habits Programme

http://www.laughterremedy.com/

The research paper is 'Affiliative and aggressive humour in leadership and their relationship to leader-member exchange' by Alexander Pundt and Felicia Herrman, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2015) 88, 109-125

Look who's talking - suit or self?

Featured in the digest section of the The Psychologist (March 2015) was this rather interesting finding.  Researchers (Eagleman, Pitt and Savjani) have found people consider individual and corporate actions in the same way.  Forty participants were given written scenarios to consider while their brains were being scanned.  Some of these scenarios were written by individuals, others by corporations, with the scenarios having a prosocial, neutral or antisocial bias to them.  The researchers found that the there were no significant differences in brain activity when a participant was considering either an individual or corporate missive.    It seems that we don't 'de-humanise' a message when it comes from the corporation.

However, when participants were asked to declare how they actually felt about each scenario the results were more surprising: 'Humans behaving prosocially were met with stronger approval than were corporations, and misbehaving corporations made participants angrier'.  Corporations seem to be judged more harshly.  We tend to view unethical behaviour as a strong predictor of the future performance of the organisation, but are more forgiving if the message is attributed to an individual.

The implications of this seem to suggest that we view corporations as 'behaving' in the same way as we view individual behaviour, but we are more harsh in our judgements.  What then, is the role of the leader?  Does he/she need to retain some humanity when communicating the corporate vision?   What should the leader do in times of adversity?  How much of ourselves do we need to include in our communications with our followers?

How to shoot yourself in the foot.

Another chance coincidence has prompted this post.  A couple of days ago, two colleagues, independently told me of their experiences of being turned down for a job and the feedback they had received from the recruiter to justify their decision.  I'm paraphrasing a bit to protect confidentiality, but one was told her 'personality' might become wearing after a few days.  Strange comment as a) personality was not one of the recruitment criteria and b) this was an internal vacancy and the applicant had been working very successfully for the company (with her personality) for many years. The other applicant (for a completely different company) was told, ' We wanted to offer you the job but we didn't think you would say 'Yes'... so we didn't make you and offer'.  This is up there with the kind of thinking that Marvin the Paranoid Android in The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.  

So it got me thinking, what's the worst feedback you have had when being turned down for a role?

Find us on Twitter @enthiostraining and post up your own experiences #badjobfeedback

Resilience

I make no claim to this, but a friend of mine drew my attention to this post and I liked it!

'Five things resilient people do'

http://kripalu.org/blog/thrive/2014/01/22/five-things-resilient-people-do/?utm_source=Thrive&utm_medium=post&utm_content=012715CtRL&utm_campaign=CtRL_2015

More on distraction

Two thought-provoking quotes from Damon Young's book, 'Distraction' (2008, Acumen)

'To be diverted isn’t simply to have too many stimuli but to be confused about what to attend to and why.  Distraction is the very opposite of emancipation:  failing to see what is worthwhile in life, and lacking the wherewithal to seek it.'

'This is often called an ‘information economy’, but the market is supposed to run on scarcity, not surplus.  In reality it’s an ‘attention economy’ – what is in short supply are the mental and physical resources for actually taking notice of anything and for trying to make sense of it’.

Interruptions and multitasking

One of those happy coincidences this week, where two pieces of information come together at the same time.  Like a lot of companies in our field of work, we are doing quite a bit of work around resilience, mindfulness and emotional intelligence.  If you work in any organisation today, it is more than likely that you are being asked to do more with less, pick up the slack or even 'man up'!  People are feeling under a great deal of pressure at the moment, hence the interest in the previously mentioned topics.  (Although it still remains to be seen whether this interest is driven by a concern for the welfare employees or a way of squeezing a bit more juice from the lemon!  We were given a phrase yesterday by Robert Joyce, (see previous blog post) - he talked about 'McMindfulness', the pursuit of peace and harmony, but do it QUICKLY!)

The two sources of information were a podcast,  BBC World Service, The Forum: A world of ideas (13/1/15) and an article in The Observer (18/1/15).

The podcast was actually about interruptions.  Although sometimes, we welcome an interruption (and can signal to the other person that it is their turn to speak, by, for example, repeating ourselves) and sometimes an interruption can act as a distraction from a less enjoyable task, you won't be surprised to hear that most of the time, we find interruptions rude and consequently make some judgements about the person doing the interrupting.  However, it turns out that there are cultural, psychological and gender differences in the way we talk, pause and listen.  We also have different tolerances for being interrupted.  (Are you happy working in an open-plan office?)

One of the interesting contributions to the debate was from Claudia Roda, Professor of Computer Science and Global Communication at the American University in Paris.  Her argument is that modern technology, email, social media etc violates the normal rules of conversation and that as a society, we are being too interrupted by technology.  (You may have experienced this if you have ever left your Twitter/email/Facebook link open as you work.  For how long can you ignore an incoming message?).  Roda argues for the development of 'polite machines'.  These are machines that have to 'learn' the rules of interaction (based on the individual user) and adapt to their preferences.

The Observer article, 'Why the modern world is bad for your brain' was by the eminent neuroscientist, Daniel Levitin (18/1/15 and online,

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/18/modern-world-bad-for-brain-daniel-j-levitin-organized-mind-information-overload) 

was full of interesting facts about using technology. 

What both the podcast and the article had in common is evidence that multitasking is not that effective.  We may think that we are being efficient, but actually our effectiveness is being diminished.  IQ is reduced and our ability to concentrate is affected by a greater amount than if we had been smoking marijuana!  There are effects on health too and we suffer from 'cognitive overload' due to the increased number of decisions that we have to take.

Is the development of more/better technology the answer or do we need to re-think how we want our employees to work?

Another little promotion for a small business

Today, we had the opportunity to re-acquaint ourselves with Tai Chi, courtesy of Robert Joyce.  Resilience, mindfulness and mental toughness are all hot topics at the moment and we were attending one of Robert's workshops, as part of the development of a leadership programme in the private sector.

Robert has an easy style, and aims to de-mystify Tai Chi.  He explains things in a simple way and gives the rationale for the benefits of Tai Chi, using both Eastern and Western philosophies.  Before teaching Tai Chi full time, he worked as a Project Manager in engineering, so he's well-used to explaining things to busy managers.  As he introduces the movements,  each is built up gradually (we actually started learning the exercises while sitting).

The two hour workshop proved to be quite a workout!

Robert is based in Poole, Dorset (UK) and you can find him at:

www.elemental-taichi.co.uk

In praise of silence

A nice quote from John Francis, (from the TED radio podcast, 'Quiet', 21/11/14).  John simultaneously decided to give up using motorised transport and talking.  He remained silent for 17 years, and walked the world.  Talking about his motives, he realised that he regularly questioned his commitment to remaining silent, but never questioned himself about his choice to give up motorised transport.  This is what he said next:

'I didn't know who I would be, if I changed.  And I know that a lot of times we find ourselves in this wonderful place where we've gotten to, but there's another place for us to go and we kind of have to leave behind the security of who we've become and go to the place [of] who we are becoming'.

Laughter is good for the soul

We have just returned from 3 days in Germany, attending the Strategic Leadership Trainers' Summit. (Nuremberg is such a beautiful city.)  SL, run by Thor Olafsson is a fascinating company with some very impressive tools for developing leadership.  Most notably, the Integrated Leadership Development programme and their Inner Compass model seem to be able to create big changes in individuals and organisations.  It was the first time that we had met the rest of team of trainers, who are spread across the world.  A very impressive bunch of people.  You can find out more about Strategic Leadership at:

http://strategicleaders.de/

As part of the conference, we were treated to a presentation by Edda Bjorgvins.  Edda is a very well-known actress from Iceland, and has starred in an Icelandic comedy, 'Stella', which over the last 20 years, has become a national institution.  She's also a comedian, a psychologist and a motivational speaker.

http://www.eddabjorgvins.com/

Edda gave us a highly entertaining and informative lecture on the power of humour for well-being and for creating a productive working atmosphere.  When I say, 'lecture', it was rather unconventional and began with a few minutes of dancing, laughter and general good-natured banter.  There was a serious point to all this, though, as Edda soon backed up all the Tomfoolery with some of the research on humour and health.  We liked Edda.  She has a warm heart and she models what she talks about.  She's not afraid to be the butt of the joke and she can find humour in anything, while also knowing what type of humour is appropriate in a particular setting.  You can catch a bit of Edda on You Tube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nBfqVkGJKs

Random acts of kindness

Congratulations to Luke Cameron who completed his 365 days of doing at least one random act of kindness every day, over the course of 2014.  If you haven't already read about his exploits I recommend his blog:

http://thegooddeeddiary.com/

On the blog you can find a list of all the things he did.  Some of them may seem small or even insignificant.  Others you may look at and think, 'Well I do that as a matter of course.  It's just good manners'.  But to think that way is to miss the point.  

Just imagine what it does to your mindset, to go out every day (even the ones where you might be in a less positive mood!) and consciously aim to commit an act of kindness.  Take a moment to consider what that might do.  Fundamentally, it removes you from the centre of your universe and, for a moment at least, puts someone else in your place.  Now imagine repeating that moment for at least another 364 times over the year.  Do you think it might have an effect on you and how you perceive the world?  Maybe we become a bit more optimistic, generous or simply a bit more tolerant?

Coincidentally, while Luke's story was making national headlines, I was reading a book on the 'altrocentric leader'.  I will post up more on this topic soon, but for now, it serves as an example of how a similar mindset to that of Luke is being encouraged as a way of leading in modern organisations.  The altrocentric leader is the converse of the ego-centric leader, the alpha-male (or female) who gets things done by stamping their authority, keeping control and themselves at the centre of everything.  The basic argument of the book is that in order for organisations to thrive in today's busy complex environment, where workforces are distributed and more individualised, and where the boundaries between customer, supplier, competitor and partner are becoming increasingly blurred, the effective leader has to recognise that leadership is both relational and contextual.  I'll post up a summary shortly, but for now, the simple message is that leaders need to start thinking about others.

Talent versus Knowledge

While doing some holiday reading, I came across the following quote.  It's attributed to Johannes Itten, one of the pioneers of the Bauhaus design movement of the 1920's.  Although he was referring to design, I think there is something in it for all of us:

'If you, unknowing, are able to create masterpieces in colour, then unknowledge is your way.  But if you are unable to create masterpieces in colour out of your own unknowledge then you ought to look for knowledge'.  

Nothing like a bit of hard work and application to study what has gone before you to help your genius shine!

The end of conscious choice?

Two stories in The Times, 5/1/2105:

'Technology lets boss know who is longing to leave', by Tom Whipple, and

'The suit that reveals when you are lying', by Nadeem Badshah

The first story is about employers using 'Big Data' technologies to analyse your posts on social network sites and other sources of information to highlight when a employee turns from engaged worker to disgruntled employee, who may then start to think about a new job with a new employer.  Apparently, data analysis shows that the existing employer has approximately 3 months to turn the situation around (should said employer wish to do so!).  

The second story is a short piece describing research conducted by a team of scientists from Cambridge, Lancaster and Utrecht.  They have developed a suit containing multiple sensors that can detect fine changes in physiology, allowing it to out perform the more traditional forms of lie-detectors.

What is striking about both of these stories is that we are now developing technologies that can tell what a person is thinking even before they might be currently conscious of that thought.  There are many more examples of this (For example, apparently, Amazon are developing algorithms that will predict a buyer's next purchase even before they know it themselves, thus improving efficiencies around delivery).

What does all this mean for our sense of autonomy, our belief that we are responsible and conscious about the decisions we make?  What implications does this have for personal development, or even legal responsibility?  Are we in the process of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, where instead of 'Computer says 'No'' we start believing we wanted something, just because it arrived in our post-box?

Any thoughts?

If your new year resolution is to find a new job...

We've been saving this one up, maybe just so you can have something to smile about on return to work!

Metro (9/10/14) ran an article on things job hunters have included in their applications and CVs. We've posted up some of our personal favourites:

'The idea was a gift from God, so unfortunately I am not able to share my methodology'  

(I would love to use this line when completing Request for Tender documents!)

'I have a lifetime's technical expertise.  (I wasn't born - my mother simply chose 'eject child' from the special menu)'.

'I have an excellent track record, although I am not a horse'.

'I want to be an astronaut but I think working in a call centre will help me gain confidence for talking to mission control from space'.

'I am a wedge with sponge taped to it.  My purpose is to wedge myself into someone's door and absorb as much as possible'.

'Please accept my application for the role of customer services director, which I appreciate may come as a surprise given I was fired from the position last month'.

'Previous experience:  Marijuana dealer and nefarious dude with an intuitive understanding of supply-and-demand economics'.

'I offer mediocrity at its best'.

'To utilise my creative talent in a mundane office'.

'I am able to show up at the office on time, not only during the first week but even after a year of employment'.

'My ruthlessness terrifies the competition and can sometimes offend'.

'Duties:  Pretending to be on the phone.  Trying to work out what the company did and what part of it I was supposed to be doing.  Hiding'.

If you have decided that you are going to enter the job market this year and you are feeling a bit out of touch, we strongly suggest you seek some advice!