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?