Here's a little test: Pictured to the right are four cards. Each card contains a letter on one side, and a number on the other. Which cards must you turn over to prove the following statement false? "If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side."

Researchers Peter Wason and Philip Johnson-Laird gave a similar test to 128 college-educated subjects in 1972. The most frequently given answer was "A and 4," (46 percent), with "only A" the second most popular (33 percent). Only 5 percent gave the correct answer, which is "A and 9."

It's fairly obvious that you must turn over the A-card: if there is an odd number on the other side of the card, you have proven the statement false. The popular tendency is to also turn over the 4-card to see if there is a vowel on the other side. However, the statement does not say an even-numbered card cannot have a consonant. For the same reason, turning over the S-card proves nothing, since the statement makes no claims about cards with consonants. On the other hand, turning over the 9-card and finding a vowel proves the statement false.

Why does this test fool so many people? The answer is a common act of reasoning called confirmation bias. Research shows that most people prefer confirming something rather than proving something wrong. Therefore, we gravitate toward confirming our beliefs--even when our task is to disprove something. (By turning over the 4-card we're trying to find further confirmation of the statement.) In the process, we make some flawed assumptions.

Let's look at a real-life example. Maybe your organization is struggling with high employee turnover. The popular explanation is that employees are leaving hoping to earn more money elsewhere. Confirmation bias would lead us to implement a solution in which we attempt to prove that theory, such as raising salaries across the board, or making counter offers to resigning workers. But what if we employ falsification instead? What if we look for a solution by proving the common belief wrong, instead of confirming it? By doing so, we might discover some bigger reasons that employees are leaving.

Learning to ignore those inner voices and preconceptions that compel you to prove something right opens you to tremendous problem-solving opportunities. Bookmark this post on del.icio.us

In 1975, management professor Steven Kerr wrote an article for the Academy of Management Journal titled, "On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B." The following excerpt sums up the paradox now known as Kerr's Folly: "Numerous examples exist of reward systems that are fouled up in that the types of behavior rewarded are those which the rewarder is trying to discourage, while the behavior desired is not being rewarded at all."

Three decades later, organizations continue to suffer Kerr's Folly. Corporations hope for long-term growth, but reward managers for meeting the latest Wall Street estimates. Companies encourage teamwork, but establish winner-take-all compensation systems around the private interests of individual employees. Sell the most, and win that terrific cruise. Employers want workers to take initiative, but reward those who display strict adherence to even the most out-dated rules. Manufacturers say they care about quality, but pay employees by the number of items produced. Despite the obvious disparities, most leaders seem to have no clue as to why they're not getting the results they want.

The cure for Kerr's Folly is obvious: reward people for the behavior you want. For example, the best approach for getting your employees to work together is to structure their rewards around teamwork. Only then will you get the desired results, because only then will you be exhibiting values-based leadership. You see, if the mission statement professes that your organization values teamwork, but you reward only the top performers, you've lost credibility as a leader.

Perhaps it's time to look at your reward systems. Bookmark this post on del.icio.us

Four men and eight women helped settle the score for thousands of Enron employees and stockholders today by finding Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling guilty of securities fraud. The jury convicted Lay and Skilling of misleading investors by deliberately hiding Enron's enormous debt and mounting losses. Enron founder Lay faces a prison sentence of up to forty-five years; former CEO Skilling could be sentenced for up to 185 years.

Under Lay and Skilling, Enron became the modern-day symbol of corporate greed and corruption. The once-giant energy company filed for bankruptcy in December 2001 amid allegations that management used off-the-books partnerships to prop up its stock price and deceive its investors. Enron's collapse wiped out billions of dollars in shareholder wealth--including the life savings of many of its employees whose retirement plans held company stock--and tens of thousands of jobs.

The convictions bring the number of guilty verdicts in the Enron debacle to twenty-one, including those people who pleaded guilty. No wonder CNNMoney.com called Enron "the granddaddy of all corporate fraud cases." Bookmark this post on del.icio.us

Matt Langdon has a new blog called The Hero Workshop. Matt is dedicated to promoting heroic behavior in young people, and he wants to be sure we're giving them the proper role models. His recent posts suggest we're using the wrong definitions of the word hero:

"The notion that a person acknowledged for great achievement in a field is a hero troubles me. The modern world's tight focus on celebrity ensures that those people with celebrity status are at the forefront of the public's thoughts on heroes. This, coupled with the achievement definition, creates an environment where sports stars are worshipped as heroes.

"Is a hero more than that? I believe character is at the core of the true definition of the word hero. A hero understands the nature of responsibility, has a respect for the importance of others, helps others, does amazing things, and accepts life's quest."

Check out Matt's blog and let him know who your heroes are. Bookmark this post on del.icio.us

Two stonemasons are working side by side when someone asks them what they are doing. The first mason replies, "I'm cutting stone." The second mason responds, "I'm building a great cathedral." A recent survey by Right Management Consultants highlights the significance of the different replies in this old story.

According to the Right survey, nearly two-thirds of workers don't know or don't understand their organization's business strategy. Furthermore, uncertainty about their employers' missions leaves employees feeling disengaged and results in low productivity, poor quality, customer complaints, and high turnover.

Right's findings implicate top management in creating employee disengagement by failing to communicate their organization's business strategies. Twenty-eight percent of surveyed organizations said they limit such communication to their leadership teams. Alarmingly, 15 percent are uncertain of the best way to communicate their business strategies to employees.

"Management's effective communication of the vision of the business to all employees, and how it can be lived in their daily jobs, is one of the biggest differentiators between engaged and disengaged work forces," said Right's Chris Gay. "Engagement and commitment improve dramatically when employees know what is expected of them, and how they fit into the total picture."

The ability to communicate powerfully a vision's significance is critical to values-based leadership, but it requires skills disregarded by almost all business leaders. To lead effectively, you must inspire the behavior you are seeking. Values-based leaders identify shared aspirations--that is, they show how aligning with the purpose of the enterprise will help employees achieve their own goals and meet their own needs. Once workers see that connection, they'll become engaged and start contributing to the organization's ultimate success. Bookmark this post on del.icio.us

How do you inspire today's young people? It's a question I hear often in my workshops. Managers complain about new workers entering the workforce lacking overall professionalism, written communication skills, analytical skills, or business knowledge. Did you ever imagine that your role as manager would involve telling recent college graduates that clothes worn for clubbing are not appropriate at work? But the real challenge for leaders is not just managing their youngest workers, but unifying a multigenerational workforce.

According to a survey just released by Randstad USA, an increasing number of Americans are working past traditional retirement age. That's not surprising, considering that 91 percent of employed participants reported not having enough savings for a comfortable retirement. And the survey highlights serious compatibility issues between older employees and their younger coworkers.

Three-quarters of experienced workers age fifty-five or older said they get along fine with younger co-workers. But just over half of all participants said they relate well to older workers. That inability to connect to the most experienced workers restricts the transfer of knowledge: according to 77 percent of survey respondents, younger employees do not solicit advice or guidance from their coworkers who are over age fifty. Why? Only 20 percent of workers believe their older counterparts have new ideas to bring to the table.

The American workforce consists of employees from four generations: the silent or war generation, baby boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y. Each generation has common life experiences that influence their behavior. Employers must rethink how they lead workers to accommodate generational differences, use everyone's best talents, and inspire workers from every demographic group.

How are you inspiring your multigenerational workforce? Bookmark this post on del.icio.us

Seth Godin posts about the danger of restrictive policies--specifically, how some policies leave customers no other choice but to stop being your customers.

Here's the significance of Godin's observations to leaders. People with authoritative titles--or their minions--customarily drive change downward. But bureaucrats nestled in their corner offices are less in touch with technology, customer wishes, or workforce capabilities than employees who are working on the front lines. For a company to remain competitive, new ideas must originate from all levels of the corporate hierarchy, but driving change from below is often a high-risk, low-reward game. Rising up to promote change might earn you an ill-favored reputation as a rebel. Policy makers--especially those entrenched at the top of a bureaucracy--are probably the people who established the very practices you are trying to change. Having the audacity to suggest improving or abandoning long-standing procedures is politically dangerous, and, quite often, when suggestions are well-received, the bureaucrats take credit for those ideas, anyway.

So is it really worth the risk? Yes, if the changes you advocate are equally important to the values of your employees and your organization. Those common values provide workers with the meaning and connection they need in their jobs. Pushing for changes that uphold your organization's values demonstrates your leadership Categories: credibility. Bookmark this post on del.icio.us

Does your boss treat you like a child? Janet Orlando can probably top your worst story. She quit her job at Alarm One, less than a year after she joined the Fresno, California home-security company, after being spanked at work.

Court records from Orlando's sexual discrimination lawsuit describe how Alarm One used competition between sales teams to motivate its sales force. During weekly sales meetings, losers had to eat baby food and wear diapers. For added humiliation, supervisors spanked losing team members with a competitor's metal yard sign as coworkers cheered and shouted lewd comments. Salespeople who arrived late for a meeting, or who talked out of turn, were also subject to a spanking. "The spankings also were used to increase productivity from its work force," said the company's lawyer.

Defending itself, Alarm One said the practice wasn't discriminatory because supervisors spanked male as well as female employees. Besides, said the company, participation in the activity was voluntary. The jury disagreed, and spanked Alarm One with a $1.7 million judgment for Orlando.

The company says it has since abandoned the practice. Bookmark this post on del.icio.us

Delivering bad news is challenging. That's why many leaders weasel their way through that challenge by using euphemisms intended to soften the blow. Instead of you're fired, we use jargon like outsourcing, offshoring, downsizing, or rightsizing. Or we use phrases with clinical descriptions of the people whose jobs we're eliminating, like resource action or reducing surplus human capital.

Last Friday, Verizon Communications announced plans to close four of its call centers. Or, in the jargon used by Verizon spokesperson Bill Kula, "We're adjusting to the dynamics of the telecommunications industry as it exists today and focusing our attention and employment support in the areas of growth and de-emphasizing the areas of depletion of the customer base." Translation: we're putting 1,600 people out of work.

The irony with euphemisms is that the action of firing people is still a distasteful one. As a result, the euphemism is as repulsive as the language it replaces. Does learning that your company is de-emphasizing the areas of depletion of its customer base make you feel any safer than hearing about mass firings?

Credible leaders are sincere and straightforward when delivering news--whether it's good news or bad. However, when you sidestep candor with euphemistic jargon, your message comes across as hollow and condescending. Always be direct, honest, and clear. Leave euphemisms to the politically correct. Otherwise, your resulting ineffectiveness as a leader--because of poor communication skills--might prompt your boss to ask you to please leave to pursue other interests. Bookmark this post on del.icio.us