Seasonal Absence Syndrome
The practice of playing hooky from work to enjoy the sunshine now has a clinical name: Seasonal Absence Syndrome. And according to a recent study sponsored by Kronos Incorporated, four out of ten full-time employees have experienced symptoms of SAS; in other words, they admitted to calling in sick to get an extra day off from work. And, not surprisingly to any manager, employees are most susceptible to the SAS virus on Mondays and Fridays.
Good news! One local company I know has discovered a treatment for SAS. They have immunized their employees with a special summer work schedule: instead of working eight to five Monday through Friday, employees work 8:30-5:30 Monday through Thursday and take off every Friday afternoon. Once the summer/SAS season ends, it's back to the traditional timetable.
In a separate Kronos survey, 98 percent of workers said they have gone to work when they were ill. So maybe it all evens out. But if your employees don't utilize their sick days when they're under the weather, and your healthy workers abuse their sick days to play outdoors, your organization's productivity is suffering. Perhaps it's time you found your own cure for Seasonal Absence Syndrome.
Good news! One local company I know has discovered a treatment for SAS. They have immunized their employees with a special summer work schedule: instead of working eight to five Monday through Friday, employees work 8:30-5:30 Monday through Thursday and take off every Friday afternoon. Once the summer/SAS season ends, it's back to the traditional timetable.
In a separate Kronos survey, 98 percent of workers said they have gone to work when they were ill. So maybe it all evens out. But if your employees don't utilize their sick days when they're under the weather, and your healthy workers abuse their sick days to play outdoors, your organization's productivity is suffering. Perhaps it's time you found your own cure for Seasonal Absence Syndrome.
Labels: employees, leadership
Bookmark this post on del.icio.usCohesiveness and Groupthink
"Insanity in individuals is something rare; but in groups...it is the rule." Friedrich Nietzsche
According to the American Management Association, 60 percent of executives report that getting people to work together is the biggest hurdle they currently face. Indeed, establishing successful workgroups has long been a leadership objective. But instead of concentrating on how to get people to work together, perhaps we need to consider if employees should work in groups at all.
When people talk about teamwork, they often mention the positive-sounding term "group cohesion." Researcher Albert V. Carron explained the concept of cohesion as a sense of closeness and bonding among group members. Cohesion can lead to higher individual effort, more personal job satisfaction, less turnover, and greater adherence to group norms. However, cohesion can also have negative effects on group performance.
For example, research psychologist Irving Janis determined that highly cohesive groups are susceptible to groupthink, which he defined as the propensity for people to seek unanimous agreement even when overwhelming evidence points to a different conclusion. Groupthink causes collective rationalization -- the tendency to explain away, or ignore altogether, contrary ideas. It puts pressure on members to conform, thereby stifling and restricting individual identity. Groupthink stops members from suggesting ideas that might deviate from the collective opinion, causing a deceptive appearance of group consensus. And it gives the group a potentially disastrous sense of invulnerability. Janis blamed groupthink for several political fiascos, including the failure to anticipate the Pearl Harbor attack, the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion, the escalation of the Vietnam War, and the unsuccessful hostage rescue in Iran.
Janis identified some preventions of groupthink. He suggested that leaders encourage each group member to freely air objections and doubts, invite outside experts to offer opinions, and refrain from expressing their own opinions when assigning tasks to groups. And he proposed that group members take turns playing the role of devil's advocate at meetings.
The lesson here is that getting people to work in groups is difficult. Because of the human dynamics involved, two or more heads are not always better than one. A future post will discuss how to decide which tasks are appropriate for groups.
Maybe there's a good reason that artists, scientists, and inventors prefer working alone. What do you think?
According to the American Management Association, 60 percent of executives report that getting people to work together is the biggest hurdle they currently face. Indeed, establishing successful workgroups has long been a leadership objective. But instead of concentrating on how to get people to work together, perhaps we need to consider if employees should work in groups at all.
When people talk about teamwork, they often mention the positive-sounding term "group cohesion." Researcher Albert V. Carron explained the concept of cohesion as a sense of closeness and bonding among group members. Cohesion can lead to higher individual effort, more personal job satisfaction, less turnover, and greater adherence to group norms. However, cohesion can also have negative effects on group performance.
For example, research psychologist Irving Janis determined that highly cohesive groups are susceptible to groupthink, which he defined as the propensity for people to seek unanimous agreement even when overwhelming evidence points to a different conclusion. Groupthink causes collective rationalization -- the tendency to explain away, or ignore altogether, contrary ideas. It puts pressure on members to conform, thereby stifling and restricting individual identity. Groupthink stops members from suggesting ideas that might deviate from the collective opinion, causing a deceptive appearance of group consensus. And it gives the group a potentially disastrous sense of invulnerability. Janis blamed groupthink for several political fiascos, including the failure to anticipate the Pearl Harbor attack, the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion, the escalation of the Vietnam War, and the unsuccessful hostage rescue in Iran.
Janis identified some preventions of groupthink. He suggested that leaders encourage each group member to freely air objections and doubts, invite outside experts to offer opinions, and refrain from expressing their own opinions when assigning tasks to groups. And he proposed that group members take turns playing the role of devil's advocate at meetings.
The lesson here is that getting people to work in groups is difficult. Because of the human dynamics involved, two or more heads are not always better than one. A future post will discuss how to decide which tasks are appropriate for groups.
Maybe there's a good reason that artists, scientists, and inventors prefer working alone. What do you think?
Labels: employees, group dynamics, leadership
Bookmark this post on del.icio.usA Wake-Up Call
We create mission statements because we want employees to see our big picture. Question is do we see theirs? Amid a growing war for talent, organizations are slow to recognize the role that values play in attracting, motivating, and keeping employees. But as a new survey reveals, employees are already paying attention.
In a nationwide telephone survey conducted by CO2 Partners, less than half of all respondents said their employer's core values match their own. What's more, a whopping 30 percent of workers think their core values may actually be misaligned with those of their employer. So what's causing employees to feel disengaged from their organizations' values?
When hiring workers, companies show perspective employees how aligning with the organization's values will meet their personal interests and needs. But once on board, employees look for evidence of compatibility -- proof that their leader's values are in alignment with the organization's, and thus, their own. Without frequent confirmation from their leader, employees might conclude the organization's values are not what they thought they were. If they perceive, whether accurately or not, that management changed or somehow misrepresented the values, employees will feel unaligned.
"Clearly, there is a link between core values and emotional commitment," says Gary Cohen, president of CO2 Partners. "If organizations are going to grow talent and commitment there has to be mutuality when it comes to communication and operating principles."
As a leader, your task is clear. By proactively demonstrating the correlation between your personal values and those of the organization, you will validate for employees that their values are compatible with those of the company. To do that, you must live by the values you profess.
What do you think? Post a Comment
In a nationwide telephone survey conducted by CO2 Partners, less than half of all respondents said their employer's core values match their own. What's more, a whopping 30 percent of workers think their core values may actually be misaligned with those of their employer. So what's causing employees to feel disengaged from their organizations' values?
When hiring workers, companies show perspective employees how aligning with the organization's values will meet their personal interests and needs. But once on board, employees look for evidence of compatibility -- proof that their leader's values are in alignment with the organization's, and thus, their own. Without frequent confirmation from their leader, employees might conclude the organization's values are not what they thought they were. If they perceive, whether accurately or not, that management changed or somehow misrepresented the values, employees will feel unaligned.
"Clearly, there is a link between core values and emotional commitment," says Gary Cohen, president of CO2 Partners. "If organizations are going to grow talent and commitment there has to be mutuality when it comes to communication and operating principles."
As a leader, your task is clear. By proactively demonstrating the correlation between your personal values and those of the organization, you will validate for employees that their values are compatible with those of the company. To do that, you must live by the values you profess.
Labels: employees, leadership, values
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
Great post! The key is to find out from your employees what their own personal core values are and get them to seek SIMILARITIES as opposed to differences with the company core values. Point out that the "labels" may be different, but the meanings can be similar.
What do you think? Post a Comment
The Ringelmann Effect
When working on a team project, perhaps you've observed that while you're pulling your weight some others in the group are loafing. Researchers call that phenomenon the Ringelmann Effect.
In the late 19th Century, engineering professor Maximilian Ringelmann studied the relationship between individual and group effort. Ringelmann had people pull a rope individually while he measured their pull force with a strain gauge. Then he put his subjects in teams and had them pull the rope together. Ringelmann discovered that the group force was not as strong as the individual efforts added together. In other words, while the group pulled more than any one individual did, individual contribution actually declined. The more people Ringelmann added to a group, the greater the decline in personal effort. Three people pulled at only two and a half times the average individual effort, and eight people pulled at a force equal to the combined individual effort of only four people.
Ringelmann attributed his results to what he called "social loafing," the tendency for people to apply less effort when they're part of a group. Some loafers perceive that others in the group are slacking, so they feel justified in exerting less effort. Others assume their laziness will go unnoticed in a group. And some simply believe that their personal efforts have little effect on the team's overall results. It's changing that last perception that will give you the greatest success in improving the effectiveness of your team.
When you share your vision with others, you show them not only the outcomes you're seeking but also their roles in achieving those results. Once they understand the parts they play in fulfilling your team's vision, members will pull together and accomplish extraordinary work. So have a vision and convince others to share it.
What do you think? Post a Comment
In the late 19th Century, engineering professor Maximilian Ringelmann studied the relationship between individual and group effort. Ringelmann had people pull a rope individually while he measured their pull force with a strain gauge. Then he put his subjects in teams and had them pull the rope together. Ringelmann discovered that the group force was not as strong as the individual efforts added together. In other words, while the group pulled more than any one individual did, individual contribution actually declined. The more people Ringelmann added to a group, the greater the decline in personal effort. Three people pulled at only two and a half times the average individual effort, and eight people pulled at a force equal to the combined individual effort of only four people.
Ringelmann attributed his results to what he called "social loafing," the tendency for people to apply less effort when they're part of a group. Some loafers perceive that others in the group are slacking, so they feel justified in exerting less effort. Others assume their laziness will go unnoticed in a group. And some simply believe that their personal efforts have little effect on the team's overall results. It's changing that last perception that will give you the greatest success in improving the effectiveness of your team.
When you share your vision with others, you show them not only the outcomes you're seeking but also their roles in achieving those results. Once they understand the parts they play in fulfilling your team's vision, members will pull together and accomplish extraordinary work. So have a vision and convince others to share it.
Labels: group dynamics, leadership, vision
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
What do you think? Post a Comment
Event Slides: National Association of Credit Management
For more than 100 years, the National Associate of Credit Management has helped organizations recognize the warning signs that put their assets at risk. These days, no asset is more valuable than a talented employee is, and companies need to pay attention to the red flags indicating that a shortage of workers is looming. And then they need to take the steps necessary to retain the workers they already have. That was my message at a meeting of the National Association of Credit Management today. You can download the slides here. You will need PowerPoint to view these slides.
Labels: leadership, Slides
Bookmark this post on del.icio.usChange Management
"How do you manage change?" It is a frequently mentioned challenge I hear when conducting my workshops. And in a recent survey by workplace consultants BlessingWhite, nearly half of the 900 executives surveyed think that leading teams through organizational change is very, or even extremely, challenging. But I think the underlying question actually is, "How do you get employees to accept change?"
Most organizational change initiatives fail because senior management ignores the obvious: managers and employees view change differently. Top managers see change as normal and necessary -- as something that's required to meet competitive demands or improve productivity. Employees, on the other hand, consider change disruptive and unsettling. "The Board may pivot at any moment, and so can an agile CEO," says BlessingWhite CEO Christopher Rice. "But getting the next echelon to move proves to be a lot harder. There's always a call for resilience and flexibility, but not enough guidance how to go about it."
Here's how to go about it. Start by eliminating the obstacles in employees' minds that cause anxiety; then you can clear the path to change.
Employees first need to understand the mechanics -- that is, how the change will affect the way they do their jobs. Employees must understand how new things work before they can implement a change. Next, workers need to embrace the change psychologically. So how well you communicate the facts is critical to ensuring their emotional acceptance. Finally, employees wonder if the change reflects a shift in the organization's values. Therefore, take the time to explain what's really prompting the change. Of course, when you live by the values you profess every day, employees are less apt to attribute procedural changes to a wholesale discarding of company values.
When you properly teach your employees how to implement a change, remove any emotional concerns they have, and demonstrate that the organization's values are intact, you will be able to drive change effectively. When you prepare your employees for change this way, they will be less likely to resist new approaches -- and more likely to put changes into practice quickly. And nowadays, leadership is all about change.
Most organizational change initiatives fail because senior management ignores the obvious: managers and employees view change differently. Top managers see change as normal and necessary -- as something that's required to meet competitive demands or improve productivity. Employees, on the other hand, consider change disruptive and unsettling. "The Board may pivot at any moment, and so can an agile CEO," says BlessingWhite CEO Christopher Rice. "But getting the next echelon to move proves to be a lot harder. There's always a call for resilience and flexibility, but not enough guidance how to go about it."
Here's how to go about it. Start by eliminating the obstacles in employees' minds that cause anxiety; then you can clear the path to change.
Employees first need to understand the mechanics -- that is, how the change will affect the way they do their jobs. Employees must understand how new things work before they can implement a change. Next, workers need to embrace the change psychologically. So how well you communicate the facts is critical to ensuring their emotional acceptance. Finally, employees wonder if the change reflects a shift in the organization's values. Therefore, take the time to explain what's really prompting the change. Of course, when you live by the values you profess every day, employees are less apt to attribute procedural changes to a wholesale discarding of company values.
When you properly teach your employees how to implement a change, remove any emotional concerns they have, and demonstrate that the organization's values are intact, you will be able to drive change effectively. When you prepare your employees for change this way, they will be less likely to resist new approaches -- and more likely to put changes into practice quickly. And nowadays, leadership is all about change.
Labels: employees, leadership
Bookmark this post on del.icio.usLearning How To Cheat
"Duke University is a community of scholars and learners, committed to the principles of honesty, trustworthiness, fairness, and respect for others. Students share with faculty and staff the responsibility for promoting a climate of integrity. As citizens of this community, students are expected to adhere to these fundamental values all times, in both their academic and non-academic endeavors." -The Fuqua School of Business Honor Code
The honor code at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business hangs in every classroom, serving as a constant reminder to students of the college's core values. What's more, all prospective students receive a written copy of the code and, before gaining acceptance to the prestigious school, must agree in writing to abide by it. Why so much emphasis on a values statement? "Fuqua depends on every member of its community to uphold the code in both spirit and action," says Dean Douglas Breeden. Sounds good, right?
Maybe it's not good enough. There's news this week that officials at Fuqua caught thirty-four first-year MBA students cheating. A professor noticed suspicious similarities in students' answers to questions on a take-home exam. An investigation revealed that the students collaborated on the test in violation of the professor's instructions. All but four students in the class of thirty-eight participated in the cheating.
Although it may be the largest incident of college dishonesty, Duke's is not an isolated episode. In a survey published last year in Academy of Management Learning & Education, 56 percent of graduate business students acknowledged that they have cheated. Donald McCabe, a Rutgers professor who worked on the survey, says students are quick to blame their cheating on the post-Enron business environment. "They'll argue that they're just emulating the behavior they're seeing in the corporate world," he says. "They're acquiring a skill that will serve them well when they're out there."
So is college cheating just one more consequence of the corruption involving companies like Enron, Arthur Anderson, Global Crossing, WorldCom, and Tyco?
The honor code at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business hangs in every classroom, serving as a constant reminder to students of the college's core values. What's more, all prospective students receive a written copy of the code and, before gaining acceptance to the prestigious school, must agree in writing to abide by it. Why so much emphasis on a values statement? "Fuqua depends on every member of its community to uphold the code in both spirit and action," says Dean Douglas Breeden. Sounds good, right?
Maybe it's not good enough. There's news this week that officials at Fuqua caught thirty-four first-year MBA students cheating. A professor noticed suspicious similarities in students' answers to questions on a take-home exam. An investigation revealed that the students collaborated on the test in violation of the professor's instructions. All but four students in the class of thirty-eight participated in the cheating.
Although it may be the largest incident of college dishonesty, Duke's is not an isolated episode. In a survey published last year in Academy of Management Learning & Education, 56 percent of graduate business students acknowledged that they have cheated. Donald McCabe, a Rutgers professor who worked on the survey, says students are quick to blame their cheating on the post-Enron business environment. "They'll argue that they're just emulating the behavior they're seeing in the corporate world," he says. "They're acquiring a skill that will serve them well when they're out there."
So is college cheating just one more consequence of the corruption involving companies like Enron, Arthur Anderson, Global Crossing, WorldCom, and Tyco?
Labels: integrity, trust, values
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
Author George Brymer's comments about the leaders who get it, and those who never will.
