Acknowledge how people are feeling.
Too many leaders avoid making tough calls. The delay often does far more damage than whatever fallout they were trying to avoid. In fact, hard decisions often get more complicated when they’re deferred. In a ten-year longitudinal study of more than 2,700 leaders, 57% percent of newly appointed executives said that decisions were more complicated and difficult than they expected. In particular, three challenges stood out. First, a desire to be kind often encouraged leaders to put off making, or delivering, a decision they knew would be unpopular, but this only increased people’s pain in the long run. A second problem was an obsession with making the absolute best decision; some leaders delayed decision-making to gather more data. But taking action in the face of incomplete data is an executive’s job. A third common reason for delayed decision-making was a desire to be fair. Managers often want to avoid singling out their star performers, or put off holding their under-performers accountable. But while that may seem egalitarian, in fact it’s the opposite of fairness. Your organization watches how you make decisions, and your behavior shapes the culture for others. Focus on making timely decisions that keep the work moving forward.
Too many standing meetings are a waste of time. Better meeting techniques, such as distributing agendas, won’t fix a meeting that shouldn’t be happening at all. When it’s not clear who owns a meeting, why people are convening, and how a group’s work contributes to the company’s strategy, more-drastic measures are needed. First, make sure each meeting has a clearly articulated mandate with defined decision rights. Second, design a synchronized meeting cadence. It may seem obvious, but a meeting’s frequency and allotted time must be commensurate with its charter and decision rights. Finally, figure out the right composition. Too often leaders let hierarchy define who comes to a meeting. Instead, only those who have something specific to contribute should be included.
Execution is often the place where good strategies go to die. But it doesn’t have to be. As you’re developing your strategy, take into account the thinking styles and mental models of the people who will be responsible for its execution. Involve them in the process of creating the strategy, to generate a sense of ownership and to tap into their collective wisdom. Strategy is inherently about creating something new or getting somewhere new. But we often can’t process something that is completely unrelated to what we already know. So craft a narrative that connects the past to the future, and design metrics that focus attention and motivate behavior around what will make the strategy successful. Those metrics should center on questions such as: How many experiments are we able to run per week or even per day? How well are we connecting the various forms of capital across the business? How rapidly is our ecosystem growing? How easily can people share data across the enterprise? These are much better indicators of whether you are truly aligning strategy and execution for digital disruption.
We all spend too much time complaining at work. Why? Because it feels good, requires minimal risk, and it’s easy. When we complain about someone else, the uncomfortable feelings begin to dissipate because complaining releases our pent up energy. That’s why we say things like “I’m venting” or “I’m blowing off steam.” But complaining creates a number of dysfunctional side effects (beyond the time wasted): It creates factions, prevents or delays productive engagement, reinforces and strengthens dissatisfaction, riles up others, breaks trust, and, potentially, makes the complainer appear negative. Instead of complaining, take action. Be direct with the person who is causing your frustration. It’s not nearly as easy as complaining. But it will be far more productive and valuable.
Implications for marketers and policy makers.
You may think you’re helping. You’re not.
And you might be the cause.
Cyberattacks are on the rise, and it isn’t only violated firms that are hurt by them. New research finds that hacked firms’ rivals can also suffer negative financial effects — but these effects can be mitigated by having good privacy practices. In particular, firms with privacy policies that are transparent about how the company uses customer data and that give customers a high degree of control over their data can protect themselves when their rivals are hacked. The upside to having a strong privacy policy can be considerable: The researchers found it can save some companies hundreds of millions of dollars.
The amount of ventilation, or fresh outdoor air brought inside, is a critical determinant of health. But does air quality also matter for workers’ productivity and cognitive ability? Research on knowledge workers suggests so. Two studies found that breathing better air led to significantly better decision-making performance among participants. Researchers saw higher test scores across nine cognitive function domains when workers were exposed to increased ventilation rates, lower levels of chemicals, and lower carbon dioxide. Businesses should take action to optimize their air quality for employees’ health and productivity.
Does doing the same task over and over trigger more automatic decision-making and make employees more likely to behave unethically? New research finds that working on the same task may lead to more rule breaking, while switching back and forth between even a few tasks may lead to less. Results from four studies point to a relatively simple way to support rule compliance at work: changing the order in which employees perform routine tasks may be an easier way to promote rule-following, as opposed to trying to change people’s motivations.
When a disagreement erupts between two people on your team, it might be tempting to jump in and impose a decision on them. While this may certainly be the fastest (and possibly least painful) way to a resolution, it won’t help your team members figure out how to resolve conflicts on their own. Therefore, it’s better as a manager to rely on your mediation skills, not your authority. The first step of playing the role of mediator is to understand both of their positions – what one is claiming and the other rejecting, and their interests – why they are making and rejecting the claims. You can do this in a joint meeting with both parties or in separate meetings. decide whether to initially meet with the parties together or separately. Both approaches have pros and cons. The goal of the initial meeting is to have them leave with emotions abated and feeling respected by you, if not yet by each other. With that done, you then want to focus on getting their positions, interests, and priorities out on the table. Throughout the process encourage them to take responsibility for moving toward an agreement. If all of your efforts fail to produce a settlement, you may need to shed your mediator role and, as the boss, impose an outcome that is in the best interests of the organization.
One of the most difficult parts of a manager’s job is giving feedback. In surveys, 44% of managers agreed that giving criticism was stressful or difficult, and 21% admitted that they avoid it. But an even larger number avoid giving praise: 37%. Managers may assume that it’s their job to correct their direct reports when they make a mistake, but that kudos are optional; managers who only criticize rate themselves as very effective — much more so those who praise, or who both praise and criticize. But this doesn’t match employees’ views at all: in fact, managers who give only negative feedback are rated just a little higher than managers who give zero feedback. The best-rated managers are those who either only give positive reinforcement, or who offer a balance of negative and positive feedback. Don’t underestimate the power of praise.
Your audience doesn’t have to know you’re shaking on the inside.
Your body language can speak volumes.
Can we trick ourselves into making smarter choices?
The death of a loved one can be devastating. While 85% of companies provide bereavement leave as a benefit, many individuals go back to work well before they’re ready. Because of this, they’re likely to face challenges as they navigate interactions with coworkers, and try to be productive while balancing their emotional needs. If you’re returning to work after a loss, there are ways to control your situation so you’re more comfortable at work, even while grieving. First, control your external situation by setting up responses to potentially awkward conversations with coworkers. Expect the unexpected and decide in advance what you want to share with others, and what you want to keep private. Then, tell these preferences to an ambassador, so they can spread the word to others. Then, focus on your own needs. Give yourself time and space when you need it to catch up on work or simply decompress. Allow yourself the freedom to cry by having tissues nearby, and surround yourself with comforting items. Finally, don’t forget to ask for help.
