Good Recoveries from Bad Communications - John Baldoni - Harvard Business Review
Blogs - John Baldoni **
On: Leadership, Leadership development, Managing people *
Good Recoveries from Bad Communications *
1:08 PM Wednesday December 30, 2009 *
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the King's horses and All the King's men Couldn't put Humpty together again. **
But maybe someone in human resources can! *
I was reminded of this nursery rhyme when I received a query from an HR manager seeking advice on how to help one of her colleagues. An email announcing news of a reorganization had unsettled employees. It fell to the managers to calm everyone down and try to restore team effectiveness and performance. *
This story is not unique; it happens in large and small organizations regularly. People in charge release information in ways that demonstrate a profound lack of sensitivity toward individuals and teams. The communicators, very often senior leaders, mean no harm; they are merely acting without thinking enough about what they are communicating. And so when things are communicated poorly, it falls to managers on the ground to "put Humpty together again." *
If you find yourself having to smooth over a bungled communication, here are some things you can to try to set things right. *
- Acknowledge the problem. People are upset and confused. You need to note their disgruntlement. To ignore it is to be as rude as the communications directive. *
- Apologize. Take the high road. Even if the mistake was not yours, as part of management, you should accept blame and apologize. You may express sympathy but do not throw senior management under the bus. Doing so will only make you seem like a finger-pointer. *
- Refocus on the reason for the communication. Explain the reason for the communication and why the initiative is necessary. This gets you past the poor delivery and focused on the business. *
- Allow people to express their points of view. Let them vent. Sometimes reorganizations will bring personal hardship, such as more responsibilities, lack of additional compensation, or worse — loss of a job. You are allowed to acknowledge the pain. *
- Refocus on the initiative. Put an end to the formal venting and refocus on the business case. Even though the communication was mishandled, the reasons for it may be sound. Stand up for the company. *
Being honest, none of this is guaranteed to work. When management sends out emails announcing reorgs or initiatives without advance preparation, it sends a strong signal that people really do not matter. While such an attitude may be perceived as more acceptable in today's tight job market, it erodes morale and confidence in senior leadership. Employees may not be able to leave immediately, but they will start to look elsewhere — at least that's what good employees will do. In the meantime they will shift from "commitment" to "compliance," that is, going through the motions. *
Still, it falls to managers in the middle to do what they can to make things better. While you may not reverse attitudes toward the company, you can position yourself as concerned and trustworthy. This is critical when it comes to getting people focused on the task at hand as well as asking them to do more with less in these challenging times. *
Doing so may allow you to achieve what all the King's horses and men could not do — put the whole thing together again, and in doing so, earn the respect and trust of your followers. *
John Baldoni is a leadership consultant, coach, and speaker on leadership. He is the author of six books, including Lead by Example: 50 Ways Great Leaders Inspire Results.
Access Original Article: http://blogs.hbr.org/baldoni/2009/12/good-recoveries-from-bad-communications.html?cm_mmc=npv-_-DAILY_ALERT-_-AWEBER-_-DATE
***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Entrepreneurs: Raise your communication IQ - Dec. 30, 2009
Entrepreneurs: Raise your communication IQ - Dec. 30, 2009
CNNMoney.com *
Raise your communication IQ
**By Alexander SteinDecember 30, 2009: 5:46 AM ET *
(Fortune Small Business) -- How would you rate your skill at communicating? Excellent? Average? You prefer that someone else do the talking? Everybody knows that effective communication is essential to entrepreneurial success. So how can you raise your communication IQ? *
Like a hi-fi system, verbal communication integrates input, processing, and output. Communication specialists typically focus on improving output. That is what everyone experiences when you speak: your command of language; your accommodation of social mores and boundaries; how nimbly you respond to nonverbal cues. *
Much of the processing function happens unconsciously. As children we're taught to "use our words," and before long, communicating becomes as natural as walking or riding a bike. At a conscious level, processing also includes strategies and rules of engagement that require you to put your brain in gear -- thinking about where you want the conversation to go, which statements are appropriate in a particular context and so on. *
At the deepest level there's your personal psychology. It includes your gender, ethnicity, and sociocultural background -- and it shapes your fears, insecurities, and reflexive reactions and defenses. These elements combine to mold your unconscious "understanding" of how people relate to one another, as well as your expectations of how others will treat you. *
How does this all play out? With so many variables, there's a nearly infinite array of scenarios, some workable, others not. *
Consider Robert and Evan, president and senior vice president, respectively, of an established, mid-size wealth management firm. (I've disguised some identifying details.) Evan, 52, is a model of Ivy League B-school poise and professionalism. His demeanor, in addition to his savvy and expertise, calms skittish clients with nose-diving portfolios. *
The problem: Robert, 71, is an old industry lion. Clients admire Robert, but he tends to be barbed with Evan and undermines the staff. To make matters worse, he's an execrable listener, perpetually interrupting his colleagues or talking over them. For a long time Evan reacted by muzzling himself. He didn't want to resign because he's in line to run the firm after Robert retires. He told himself that allegiance to his mentor and firm -- and his handsome compensation -- made up for his deeper pain and outrage. But he was breaking under the strain. *
What to do? In my discussions with Evan, it soon became clear that he identified Robert with his father. To the outside world, Evan's dad was a pillar of the community. At home he raged like a Hun. As a kid, Evan was terrified of his father's temper but could never tell friends what his life was really like. *
By decoupling the historical image (father) from the current person (Robert), Evan learned to speak up for himself and his staff. That was a major breakthrough for Evan. Still, he had to learn how to use his newfound voice. Before one important meeting with Robert, Evan ran his presentation past me. He sounded nervous. *
"I'd never be so scared if I were just talking to my wife," he said. "Let's hear that version," I proposed. The words didn't change, but Evan instantly sounded more relaxed and confident. He had been telegraphing his fear without knowing it. Robert picked up Evan's nervous signals, which in turn triggered the boss's toxic assaults. *
Here are some tips that should improve your communication skills. *
- Recognize *** that not every aspect of communication is under your control. We all convey messages we don't intend. And other people often interpret our messages in unexpected ways. That's not always a bad thing, especially if you're comfortable (or can become comfortable) with spontaneity. *
- Accept *** the fact that misunderstandings and conflict are unavoidable. The goal is not to evade them but to address them head-on. The longer damaging or uncomfortable things are left unspoken, the longer they remain damaging and uncomfortable. *
- Study yourself.*** Know your triggers and how you typically express feeling hurt, angry, or threatened. Cultivate relationships where you can safely air your honest thoughts and reactions. Finally, set realistic expectations. Robert wasn't about to change, so Evan had to take responsibility for improving their communication. That might seem unfair, until you consider the bleak alternative of keeping things the same. *
Alexander Stein, Ph.D., is a business psychoanalyst in New York City and a principal in the Boswell Group and Triad Consulting.
Access Original Post: http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/23/smallbusiness/effective_communication.fsb/index.htm
***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
CNNMoney.com *
Raise your communication IQ
**By Alexander SteinDecember 30, 2009: 5:46 AM ET *
(Fortune Small Business) -- How would you rate your skill at communicating? Excellent? Average? You prefer that someone else do the talking? Everybody knows that effective communication is essential to entrepreneurial success. So how can you raise your communication IQ? *
Like a hi-fi system, verbal communication integrates input, processing, and output. Communication specialists typically focus on improving output. That is what everyone experiences when you speak: your command of language; your accommodation of social mores and boundaries; how nimbly you respond to nonverbal cues. *
Much of the processing function happens unconsciously. As children we're taught to "use our words," and before long, communicating becomes as natural as walking or riding a bike. At a conscious level, processing also includes strategies and rules of engagement that require you to put your brain in gear -- thinking about where you want the conversation to go, which statements are appropriate in a particular context and so on. *
At the deepest level there's your personal psychology. It includes your gender, ethnicity, and sociocultural background -- and it shapes your fears, insecurities, and reflexive reactions and defenses. These elements combine to mold your unconscious "understanding" of how people relate to one another, as well as your expectations of how others will treat you. *
How does this all play out? With so many variables, there's a nearly infinite array of scenarios, some workable, others not. *
Consider Robert and Evan, president and senior vice president, respectively, of an established, mid-size wealth management firm. (I've disguised some identifying details.) Evan, 52, is a model of Ivy League B-school poise and professionalism. His demeanor, in addition to his savvy and expertise, calms skittish clients with nose-diving portfolios. *
The problem: Robert, 71, is an old industry lion. Clients admire Robert, but he tends to be barbed with Evan and undermines the staff. To make matters worse, he's an execrable listener, perpetually interrupting his colleagues or talking over them. For a long time Evan reacted by muzzling himself. He didn't want to resign because he's in line to run the firm after Robert retires. He told himself that allegiance to his mentor and firm -- and his handsome compensation -- made up for his deeper pain and outrage. But he was breaking under the strain. *
What to do? In my discussions with Evan, it soon became clear that he identified Robert with his father. To the outside world, Evan's dad was a pillar of the community. At home he raged like a Hun. As a kid, Evan was terrified of his father's temper but could never tell friends what his life was really like. *
By decoupling the historical image (father) from the current person (Robert), Evan learned to speak up for himself and his staff. That was a major breakthrough for Evan. Still, he had to learn how to use his newfound voice. Before one important meeting with Robert, Evan ran his presentation past me. He sounded nervous. *
"I'd never be so scared if I were just talking to my wife," he said. "Let's hear that version," I proposed. The words didn't change, but Evan instantly sounded more relaxed and confident. He had been telegraphing his fear without knowing it. Robert picked up Evan's nervous signals, which in turn triggered the boss's toxic assaults. *
Here are some tips that should improve your communication skills. *
- Recognize *** that not every aspect of communication is under your control. We all convey messages we don't intend. And other people often interpret our messages in unexpected ways. That's not always a bad thing, especially if you're comfortable (or can become comfortable) with spontaneity. *
- Accept *** the fact that misunderstandings and conflict are unavoidable. The goal is not to evade them but to address them head-on. The longer damaging or uncomfortable things are left unspoken, the longer they remain damaging and uncomfortable. *
- Study yourself.*** Know your triggers and how you typically express feeling hurt, angry, or threatened. Cultivate relationships where you can safely air your honest thoughts and reactions. Finally, set realistic expectations. Robert wasn't about to change, so Evan had to take responsibility for improving their communication. That might seem unfair, until you consider the bleak alternative of keeping things the same. *
Alexander Stein, Ph.D., is a business psychoanalyst in New York City and a principal in the Boswell Group and Triad Consulting.
Access Original Post: http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/23/smallbusiness/effective_communication.fsb/index.htm
***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Happiness Breeds Success…and Money! | Psychology Today
Happiness Breeds Success…and Money! Psychology Today
"One factor towered over relationships in its connection with happiness. That factor was work. "
How of Happiness **
The scientific pursuit of happiness. **
by Sonja Lyubomirsky *
Sonja Lyubomirsky is a social psychologist at the University of California, Riverside and author of The How of Happiness: A Scientific Approach to Getting the Life You Want. See full bio Happiness Breeds Success…and Money! *
Does happiness deliver dollar bills? The evidence suggests it does. ***
I had a rather interesting experience this week appearing on the CNBC show, The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch. The theme was that being happy will bring you cash. Over the top? Absolutely. Ridiculously enthusiastic and fakely combative? Definitely. The people were all very nice though, and I had fun (even after the first segment, when the executive producer told everyone they were doing “a great job,” but then pulled me aside and ordered me “to amp it up”). *
So, does happiness deliver dollar bills? Well, actually, the evidence suggests it does. *
I’ll explain how, but allow me first to backtrack for a moment. *
As an experimental social psychologist who has been studying happiness for almost 20 years, I’m often asked, “What makes people happy?” Until a few years ago, my answer always reflected the common wisdom and empirical findings in my field – “It’s relationships, stupid.” That is, I always responded that our interpersonal ties – the strength of our friendships, familial bonds, and intimate connections – show the highest correlations with well-being. *
Imagine my surprise then, after Ed Diener, Laura King, and I conducted a meta-analysis (a “study of studies”) of 225 studies of well-being. I wholly expected to discover that social relationships – more than any other variable – would be both causes and consequences of being happy. However, what I observed was something rather different. One factor towered over relationships in its connection with happiness. That factor was work. *
The evidence, for example, demonstrates that people who have jobs distinguished by autonomy, meaning and variety – and who show superior performance, creativity, and productivity – are significantly happier than those who don’t. Supervisors are happier than those lower on the totem pole, and leaders who receive high ratings from their customers are happier than those with poor ratings. And, of course, the income that a job provides is also associated with happiness, though we now all know that money has more of an impact when we have less of it. *
Why does our work make us happy? Because it provides us a sense of identity, structure to our days, and important and meaningful life goals to pursue. Perhaps even more important, it furnishes us with close colleagues, friends and even marriage partners. *
The story doesn’t end there, however. Studies reveal that the causal direction between happiness and work runs both ways. Not only do creativity and productivity at the office make people happy, but happier people have been found to be more creative and productive. They are better “organizational citizens” (going above and beyond their job duties), better negotiators, and are less likely to take sick days, to quit, or to suffer burnout. *
The most persuasive data regarding the effects of happiness on positive work outcomes (as opposed to vice versa) come from longitudinal studies – that is, investigations that track the same participants over a long period of time. These studies are great. For example, people who report that they are happy at age 18 achieve greater financial independence, higher occupational attainment and greater work autonomy by age 26. Furthermore, the happier a person is, the more likely she will get a job offer, keep her job, and get a new job if she ever loses it. Finally, one fascinating study showed that people who express more positive emotions on the job receive more favorable evaluations from their supervisors 3.5 years later. *
But the point that really interested Donny Deutsch and his producers is that all of this applies to income. Not only does greater wealth make people (somewhat) happy, but happy people appear more likely to accrue greater wealth in life. For example, research has demonstrated that the happier a person is at one point in his life, the higher income he will earn at a later point. In one of my favorite studies, researchers showed that those who were happy as college freshmen had higher salaries 16 years later, when they were about 37! *
But before we find yet another reason to be envious of very happy people (not only do they get to feel great, but they get to have good jobs and make more money as well!), consider what the research on happiness and work suggests. It suggests that, when it comes to work life, we can create our own so-called “upward spirals.” The more successful we are at our jobs, the higher income we make, and the better work environment we have, the happier we will be. This increased happiness will foster greater success, more money, and an improved work environment, which will further enhance happiness, and so on and so on and so on. *
If you want to learn more about the psychology of happiness and how people can become happier, I’m teaching a “master class” (via phone) on 7 Thursdays (1pm-2pm EST) starting July 24, 2008 (with a break in August). *
Access original post: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-happiness/200807/happiness-breeds-success-and-money
***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
"One factor towered over relationships in its connection with happiness. That factor was work. "
How of Happiness **
The scientific pursuit of happiness. **
by Sonja Lyubomirsky *
Sonja Lyubomirsky is a social psychologist at the University of California, Riverside and author of The How of Happiness: A Scientific Approach to Getting the Life You Want. See full bio Happiness Breeds Success…and Money! *
Does happiness deliver dollar bills? The evidence suggests it does. ***
I had a rather interesting experience this week appearing on the CNBC show, The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch. The theme was that being happy will bring you cash. Over the top? Absolutely. Ridiculously enthusiastic and fakely combative? Definitely. The people were all very nice though, and I had fun (even after the first segment, when the executive producer told everyone they were doing “a great job,” but then pulled me aside and ordered me “to amp it up”). *
So, does happiness deliver dollar bills? Well, actually, the evidence suggests it does. *
I’ll explain how, but allow me first to backtrack for a moment. *
As an experimental social psychologist who has been studying happiness for almost 20 years, I’m often asked, “What makes people happy?” Until a few years ago, my answer always reflected the common wisdom and empirical findings in my field – “It’s relationships, stupid.” That is, I always responded that our interpersonal ties – the strength of our friendships, familial bonds, and intimate connections – show the highest correlations with well-being. *
Imagine my surprise then, after Ed Diener, Laura King, and I conducted a meta-analysis (a “study of studies”) of 225 studies of well-being. I wholly expected to discover that social relationships – more than any other variable – would be both causes and consequences of being happy. However, what I observed was something rather different. One factor towered over relationships in its connection with happiness. That factor was work. *
The evidence, for example, demonstrates that people who have jobs distinguished by autonomy, meaning and variety – and who show superior performance, creativity, and productivity – are significantly happier than those who don’t. Supervisors are happier than those lower on the totem pole, and leaders who receive high ratings from their customers are happier than those with poor ratings. And, of course, the income that a job provides is also associated with happiness, though we now all know that money has more of an impact when we have less of it. *
Why does our work make us happy? Because it provides us a sense of identity, structure to our days, and important and meaningful life goals to pursue. Perhaps even more important, it furnishes us with close colleagues, friends and even marriage partners. *
The story doesn’t end there, however. Studies reveal that the causal direction between happiness and work runs both ways. Not only do creativity and productivity at the office make people happy, but happier people have been found to be more creative and productive. They are better “organizational citizens” (going above and beyond their job duties), better negotiators, and are less likely to take sick days, to quit, or to suffer burnout. *
The most persuasive data regarding the effects of happiness on positive work outcomes (as opposed to vice versa) come from longitudinal studies – that is, investigations that track the same participants over a long period of time. These studies are great. For example, people who report that they are happy at age 18 achieve greater financial independence, higher occupational attainment and greater work autonomy by age 26. Furthermore, the happier a person is, the more likely she will get a job offer, keep her job, and get a new job if she ever loses it. Finally, one fascinating study showed that people who express more positive emotions on the job receive more favorable evaluations from their supervisors 3.5 years later. *
But the point that really interested Donny Deutsch and his producers is that all of this applies to income. Not only does greater wealth make people (somewhat) happy, but happy people appear more likely to accrue greater wealth in life. For example, research has demonstrated that the happier a person is at one point in his life, the higher income he will earn at a later point. In one of my favorite studies, researchers showed that those who were happy as college freshmen had higher salaries 16 years later, when they were about 37! *
But before we find yet another reason to be envious of very happy people (not only do they get to feel great, but they get to have good jobs and make more money as well!), consider what the research on happiness and work suggests. It suggests that, when it comes to work life, we can create our own so-called “upward spirals.” The more successful we are at our jobs, the higher income we make, and the better work environment we have, the happier we will be. This increased happiness will foster greater success, more money, and an improved work environment, which will further enhance happiness, and so on and so on and so on. *
If you want to learn more about the psychology of happiness and how people can become happier, I’m teaching a “master class” (via phone) on 7 Thursdays (1pm-2pm EST) starting July 24, 2008 (with a break in August). *
Access original post: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-happiness/200807/happiness-breeds-success-and-money
***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Four things to think about before you say, "I'll take it" - How to Avoid Overspending and Manage Your Money - Oprah.com
How to Avoid Overspending and Manage Your Money - Oprah.com
Your Brain on Shopping **
By Tim Jarvis *
Four things to think about before you say, "I'll take it" *
Six hundred fifteen billion dollars. Our national debt comes to mind—but no, this is the latest estimate of what U.S. companies spend a year on marketing.*
With such an investment, it's hardly surprising that corporations are so skilled at getting us to buy products we don't need. You can outsmart them, however, says Dan Ariely, PhD, author of the best-selling new book Predictably Irrational and professor of behavioral economics at MIT, if you watch out for these four purchasing snares. *
The Free Offer: "As with heavy traffic, when you see 'free,' slow down and be cautious," Ariely suggests. A common example is the promise of free shipping. Very often that's built into the price of the product, or it's contingent on your spending over a certain amount. "The appeal of zero cost is tied to the fear of losing something—mostly money in this case, but also making a poor decision," he explains. "There appears to be no possibility of loss when we choose something free, but, of course, the risk is usually just not visible." *
Context Inflation: "If you've been given an estimate of $40,000 to renovate your home," Ariely says, "adding a $4,000 fireplace may not seem like much of a stretch, until you think about other things it could buy—as in, $4,000 could pay for a vacation or new computers for the family." The dollar figure alone may not register. *
The Decoy: A coffee chain might offer three cup sizes: a 12-ounce at $1.77, 16 ounces at $1.98, and 20 ounces at $2.09. Even though the company could profit nicely by selling the largest cup at 75 cents, because of the two smaller decoys we feel that $2.09 is a bargain and happily pay it. "When you see a range of prices, it's as if you were coming from a dimly lit room into a bright one; at first you're not used to the light, but you quickly adjust. We don't think about how much money is worth to us; we just make a relative decision." *
Too Many Choices: Ariely's research shows that we like to keep our options open (the "fear of loss" thing again)—so we'll buy the high-tech (high-priced) camera with functions we never end up using. If you're deciding on an item that comes in many models, Ariely suggests giving yourself a time limit: "When you're down to the final two options, toss a coin, and while it's in midair, try to feel how you want it to fall—that's your answer." *
*Source: Blackfriars Communications, a marketing consultancy firm in Maynard, Massachusetts. *
See original post: http://www.oprah.com/article/food/partyplanning/pkgholiday/200807_omag_mind_shopping
***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
Your Brain on Shopping **
By Tim Jarvis *
Four things to think about before you say, "I'll take it" *
Six hundred fifteen billion dollars. Our national debt comes to mind—but no, this is the latest estimate of what U.S. companies spend a year on marketing.*
With such an investment, it's hardly surprising that corporations are so skilled at getting us to buy products we don't need. You can outsmart them, however, says Dan Ariely, PhD, author of the best-selling new book Predictably Irrational and professor of behavioral economics at MIT, if you watch out for these four purchasing snares. *
The Free Offer: "As with heavy traffic, when you see 'free,' slow down and be cautious," Ariely suggests. A common example is the promise of free shipping. Very often that's built into the price of the product, or it's contingent on your spending over a certain amount. "The appeal of zero cost is tied to the fear of losing something—mostly money in this case, but also making a poor decision," he explains. "There appears to be no possibility of loss when we choose something free, but, of course, the risk is usually just not visible." *
Context Inflation: "If you've been given an estimate of $40,000 to renovate your home," Ariely says, "adding a $4,000 fireplace may not seem like much of a stretch, until you think about other things it could buy—as in, $4,000 could pay for a vacation or new computers for the family." The dollar figure alone may not register. *
The Decoy: A coffee chain might offer three cup sizes: a 12-ounce at $1.77, 16 ounces at $1.98, and 20 ounces at $2.09. Even though the company could profit nicely by selling the largest cup at 75 cents, because of the two smaller decoys we feel that $2.09 is a bargain and happily pay it. "When you see a range of prices, it's as if you were coming from a dimly lit room into a bright one; at first you're not used to the light, but you quickly adjust. We don't think about how much money is worth to us; we just make a relative decision." *
Too Many Choices: Ariely's research shows that we like to keep our options open (the "fear of loss" thing again)—so we'll buy the high-tech (high-priced) camera with functions we never end up using. If you're deciding on an item that comes in many models, Ariely suggests giving yourself a time limit: "When you're down to the final two options, toss a coin, and while it's in midair, try to feel how you want it to fall—that's your answer." *
*Source: Blackfriars Communications, a marketing consultancy firm in Maynard, Massachusetts. *
See original post: http://www.oprah.com/article/food/partyplanning/pkgholiday/200807_omag_mind_shopping
***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
OnLove: Psychologist-author Robert Epstein says love isn't accidental - washingtonpost.com
OnLove: Psychologist-author Robert Epstein says love isn't accidental - washingtonpost.com
The Washington Post *
OnLove: Psychologist-author Robert Epstein says love isn't accidental *
By Ellen McCarthy **Sunday, December 27, 2009; E10 *
Robert Epstein believes that someday, in the not-too-distant future, many Americans will share his philosophy on relationships. And his philosophy is this: You can build love deliberately and choose whom to do it with. *
All of this "falling" stuff, he thinks, will become passé. *
Epstein is a psychologist and author whose previous research has focused largely on creativity and adolescence. He turned his attention to affairs of the heart after his first marriage ended in divorce. "It was personal," he says. "I've certainly failed in relationships and in very much the typical American way, which makes it very frustrating -- when you fail in a typical way." *
In 2002, when a young woman came in to interview for an internship and told him she'd never been in love, he had an idea: They set out to make her fall in love. The intern eventually backed out of the experiment, so Epstein decided to do it himself. After meeting a woman on a plane who agreed to be his partner in the endeavor, he began to employ strategies and behaviors that relationship experts have found increase feelings of intimacy: sharing vulnerabilities, touching each other affectionately and seeking adventures together. *
The good news? They fell in love. The bad? It didn't last. She was from Venezuela, and the logistics were too difficult to overcome. *
Still, Epstein, former editor of Psychology Today, has been shaping his theory that love can be orchestrated ever since. It may sound strange to Western ears, he realizes. But Epstein's come to think it's the American way that's really absurd when it comes to love: "We grow up on fairy tales and movies in which magical forces help people find their soul mates, with whom they effortlessly live happily ever after," he wrote in a recent issue of Scientific American Mind. "The fairy tales leave us powerless, putting our love lives into the hands of the Fates." *
To gain insights into another way of cultivating love, Epstein has begun to study arranged marriages. Some studies have found that over time the affection between partners in arranged marriages can surpass that of couples who chose each other because of love. *
Epstein, 56 and remarried, taught a course at the University of California at San Diego last spring in which students could earn extra credit by employing affection-building exercises with friends and strangers after class. Almost all the students who tried the techniques -- including trust falls, synchronized breathing and prolonged gazing -- reported greater feelings of closeness with their partners. (The psychologist has sworn off talking about his own relationship, but he will say his wife sat in on several classes that semester.) *
The seed Epstein is hoping to plant in people's minds, through lectures and a book he's writing, is that we may have greater control than we think over this wily thing called love. *
And if that doesn't sound particularly romantic? *
"All I can say is there's nothing romantic about failure," Epstein answers. *
Read Original Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/24/AR2009122400057.html
***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
The Washington Post *
OnLove: Psychologist-author Robert Epstein says love isn't accidental *
By Ellen McCarthy **Sunday, December 27, 2009; E10 *
Robert Epstein believes that someday, in the not-too-distant future, many Americans will share his philosophy on relationships. And his philosophy is this: You can build love deliberately and choose whom to do it with. *
All of this "falling" stuff, he thinks, will become passé. *
Epstein is a psychologist and author whose previous research has focused largely on creativity and adolescence. He turned his attention to affairs of the heart after his first marriage ended in divorce. "It was personal," he says. "I've certainly failed in relationships and in very much the typical American way, which makes it very frustrating -- when you fail in a typical way." *
In 2002, when a young woman came in to interview for an internship and told him she'd never been in love, he had an idea: They set out to make her fall in love. The intern eventually backed out of the experiment, so Epstein decided to do it himself. After meeting a woman on a plane who agreed to be his partner in the endeavor, he began to employ strategies and behaviors that relationship experts have found increase feelings of intimacy: sharing vulnerabilities, touching each other affectionately and seeking adventures together. *
The good news? They fell in love. The bad? It didn't last. She was from Venezuela, and the logistics were too difficult to overcome. *
Still, Epstein, former editor of Psychology Today, has been shaping his theory that love can be orchestrated ever since. It may sound strange to Western ears, he realizes. But Epstein's come to think it's the American way that's really absurd when it comes to love: "We grow up on fairy tales and movies in which magical forces help people find their soul mates, with whom they effortlessly live happily ever after," he wrote in a recent issue of Scientific American Mind. "The fairy tales leave us powerless, putting our love lives into the hands of the Fates." *
To gain insights into another way of cultivating love, Epstein has begun to study arranged marriages. Some studies have found that over time the affection between partners in arranged marriages can surpass that of couples who chose each other because of love. *
Epstein, 56 and remarried, taught a course at the University of California at San Diego last spring in which students could earn extra credit by employing affection-building exercises with friends and strangers after class. Almost all the students who tried the techniques -- including trust falls, synchronized breathing and prolonged gazing -- reported greater feelings of closeness with their partners. (The psychologist has sworn off talking about his own relationship, but he will say his wife sat in on several classes that semester.) *
The seed Epstein is hoping to plant in people's minds, through lectures and a book he's writing, is that we may have greater control than we think over this wily thing called love. *
And if that doesn't sound particularly romantic? *
"All I can say is there's nothing romantic about failure," Epstein answers. *
Read Original Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/24/AR2009122400057.html
***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
Relational Models Theory: Business and friendship, and love oh my! | everyday psychology
Relational Models Theory: Business and friendship, and love oh my! everyday psychology
Relational Models Theory: Business and friendship, and love oh my! *
By: Jeremy Sherman, Ph.D.**December 27, 2009 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s after Christmas dinner at your brother’s house. The fire is crackling in the fireplace. Kids are running around. You’re drinking egg nog, feeling warm all over. *
Your brother stands up and says “Folks, I’m hoping you had a good time tonight. I’ll have your bills by the door, please pay before you leave. We take cash or Visa.” *
There’s a nervous laugh or two and then you notice, he’s not kidding. There’s a stack of invoices and a card swiping machine on the foyer table. *
What’s wrong with this picture? Social psychology’s Relational Models Theory suggests that we interact with each other following two* distinct sets of social rules. One is business mode in which you keep track of who owes what. The other is friendship mode in which you don’t keep track. In business, it’s fees for service, straight up. In friendship it’s “No no, it doesn’t matter. I’ll get the check this time. After all, who’s counting?” If you get a chance, listen to this chapter of Dan Ariel’s wonderful new book “Predictably Irrational” which describes Relational Models Theory research. *
Sliding back and forth between the two modes makes us uncomfortable. Your brother’s invoice, for example. Likewise if you went to coffee with a friend and spent most of the time talking about concerns you have about your children, getting billed the next day for an hours consultation would be enough to end the friendship. Conversely if your boss reneged on a promised pay raise because “we’re all friends here” it would raise your red flags sky high. *
Still we can’t help but sliding back and forth between business and friendship modes, or else how would strangers ever become friends? With new acquaintances we start out cautious, more business-like. Gradually we build rapport. Sometimes rapport stops short of friendship making only for loyal business associates. But sometimes it converts into friendship and we discontinue keeping track of who owes what. *
I’ve noticed some interesting patterns and parallels related to this business/friendship dualism. I’ll share them here with links to relevant articles: *
1. Proprietary vs. Commodity goods: Generic drugs and bushels of wheat are commodity goods. They’re purchased solely on price. We don’t care who makes them because we don’t perceive a quality difference between different brands. It’s nothing personal. There’s no brand loyalty. In contrast, iphones and Porsches are proprietary goods. They are sold on their unique qualities which are proprietary to certain brands. Proprietary goods have loyal brand followings. People accept no substitutes, so the companies that make them have a kind of monopoly. We’re more generous in what we are willing to pay for these products. Apple products, for example are never discounted. *
Commodities are like business relationships. Proprietary goods are like friendships. In business, as with commodities, if you can get a better deal from someone else, go for it. In friendship as with proprietary goods, loyalty matters. *
2. Commodification and the pretend friend trend: These days a company like Apple, with its highly proprietary goods is an exception. The general trend is toward rapid erosion of proprietary status. Do you care who made the hard drive in your computer or the blender in your kitchen? Do you even know who made them? Brands are increasingly irrelevant. Even where you buy a good matters less than it used to. Search engines like Pricegrabber make it possible to buy anywhere the price is lowest. *
It’s a buyer’s market and businesses scramble to preserve, restore and build whatever proprietary status they can by pretending to be our friends. They try to convince us that they are like our family, congregation or tribe. They romance their products, hoping their customers will become BFFs (best friends forever). *
3. Underemployment and the pretend friend trend: Between commodification, outsourcing, automation, the maturation of the tech boom, and the current economic downturn, employers are tightening back on what they offer to employees. To soften this hardening, and make employees want to contribute more for less, corporations lean into the rhetoric of friendship: “Our company is a family,” “It’s all for one and one for all around here.” “There’s no I in team,” “You are the company,” “We want to empower you.” Some of this rhetoric grew out of an earnest effort during the boom decades to make corporate life more user-friendly. But these days it has become increasingly disingenuous. When the going gets tough, the tough get smarmy. *
4. Romantic love as the ultimate proprietary good: Corporations romance their products, and romantics do too. To fall in love is to form an exclusive brand-loyal proprietary relationship with another person. We dream of a BFF, someone with whom to say mutually “I won’t shop around. You’re it for me. I’d accept no substitutes. You’re so special I’d pay and do anything to be with you.” The pretend friend trend plays out here too. A “player” is someone who romances because talk is cheap. He says friend-like things while undertaking the business of grabbing the fun and leaving, because it’s nothing personal. *
5. Commodification of all social life: Modernity, technology and our general commitment to practicality seems to promote a decline in loyalty overall to church, state, land, family, tribe, community, partner and friends. Business looks increasingly like the sadder but wiser default mode. Lily Tomlin said “No matter how cynical you get, you just can’t keep up.” Is Match.com the romantic equivalent of Pricegrabber? The science spirit debate, modernism vs. romanticism, even the fundamentalist “moral backlash” play out as a war over this trend, whether our business or practical inclinations are saving or ruining us. *
6. Being in it vs. being outside observing it: Business vs. friendship dualism is a product of the ins and outs of logic. Logic is largely about making distinctions, deciding what belongs within or outside of which relationships, categories, or sets. We experience this personally as deciding whether we are in a particular relationship or not. Sometimes it’s just obvious. We’re in. Sometimes we step back to wonder, should I be in this relationship? *
Being all the way in parallels friendship mode. Wondering if you should be in parallels business mode. In friendship mode, you don’t need to keep track of who owes what because you identify with the the relationship itself. But if a friendship starts to feel unbalanced, you may take a perspective outside the relationship asking “is this fair?” At that point you’ve been triggered into business mode, observing the relationship from the outside, keeping track in order to answer that question. *
7. Rewarding for performance or effort: Who do you reward, the person who performs best or the person who works hardest? Imagine you’re the owner of a small struggling business. You have two sales people and have to lay one off. One works very hard but doesn’t bring in as much business as the other, who makes less effort but delivers a lot more business. So who goes, the hardworking under-performer or slouchy super-performer? In business you’d fire the hardworking under-performer. *
Now imagine you have two children. One is a natural. Without even trying he’s good at everything. He has been offered placement in a summer school for gifted children that costs $3000. Your other child works very hard and yet underperforms on all fronts. The school counselor suggests a remedial program for him that costs $3000. You can’t afford both the summer school and the remedial program, so who do you invest in? Even the word “invest” is repugnant when you’re talking about your children. You spend the $3000 on the remedial program because family is family, and performance isn’t everything. *
In other words in business you reward or measure merit primarily on performance. In friendship (and family is very intimate friendship) you don’t measure merit exclusively on performance, but on effort, or context in general. *
In politics, the Right and Left wing split on rewarding for performance vs. effort. The right argues that only performance should be rewarded. The left says, effort counts. At least in their political theory, the right wants more interactions to be run in business mode and the left wants more interactions to be run in friendship mode. *
8. Friendship, family, love: In an unfair world, we can only afford to make things fair with a select few. We create concentric circles or spheres of fairness. The closest fairness relationship we choose is with a spouse or partner. In the bargain come our children and inversely we come with our parent’s partnership. Out from that come our broader family and friends, and out from that our business associates. *
9. Update rates: How often do you step outside of a relationship to update your assessment of its value? With partners and family, perhaps very rarely. You’re all the way in it. With casual friends, you may reassess a little more frequently. In business you update in real-time. You leave the meter running. Love can be defined as a slow update rate. Unconditional love is no update rate–no matter how disadvantageous a relationship gets, you don’t notice because you never re-assess. And at the other end of the continuum, business is a continual update rate. It’s still a relationship, but because of the running tab, either party can presumably exit anytime and still end up with a square deal. By keeping track and equalizing as you go, you maintain both freedom to end it and safety in knowing that it will end fairly. *
10. Is love it’s own category? Sex changes everything. Here’s another great chapter from Dan Ariel’s book “Predictably Irrational” about studies showing that we’re terrible at predicting how we’d think and act under the influence of sexual arousal. This chapter comes right after the chapter cited above on the difference between business and friendship mode, so it does make you wonder if maybe there’s a third category. There might be but I have another theory: *
11. Dating is the tension between business and friendship taken to the extreme: Who would you want to let deep into your inner fairness circle where, in unconditional love, you can forget all about keeping track? Whoever it is, you had better vet this person carefully before you let them in, or your heart and wallet will be torn to shreds. Because romantic love is the most intense form of friendship, it has to start out as the most intense form of business. If you don’t keep track up front, you won’t be safe merging. In this it’s the ultimate ambigamist paradox: Dating is the very serious and careful business of transcending business altogether. It’s shopping for a person with whom you can relax and stop shopping. *
*The theory has grown more complex than this with various sub-modes of relationship enumerated, but this is nonetheless a common first approximation. *
See Original Post: http://everydaypsychology.co.cc/?p=20750
***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
Relational Models Theory: Business and friendship, and love oh my! *
By: Jeremy Sherman, Ph.D.**December 27, 2009 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s after Christmas dinner at your brother’s house. The fire is crackling in the fireplace. Kids are running around. You’re drinking egg nog, feeling warm all over. *
Your brother stands up and says “Folks, I’m hoping you had a good time tonight. I’ll have your bills by the door, please pay before you leave. We take cash or Visa.” *
There’s a nervous laugh or two and then you notice, he’s not kidding. There’s a stack of invoices and a card swiping machine on the foyer table. *
What’s wrong with this picture? Social psychology’s Relational Models Theory suggests that we interact with each other following two* distinct sets of social rules. One is business mode in which you keep track of who owes what. The other is friendship mode in which you don’t keep track. In business, it’s fees for service, straight up. In friendship it’s “No no, it doesn’t matter. I’ll get the check this time. After all, who’s counting?” If you get a chance, listen to this chapter of Dan Ariel’s wonderful new book “Predictably Irrational” which describes Relational Models Theory research. *
Sliding back and forth between the two modes makes us uncomfortable. Your brother’s invoice, for example. Likewise if you went to coffee with a friend and spent most of the time talking about concerns you have about your children, getting billed the next day for an hours consultation would be enough to end the friendship. Conversely if your boss reneged on a promised pay raise because “we’re all friends here” it would raise your red flags sky high. *
Still we can’t help but sliding back and forth between business and friendship modes, or else how would strangers ever become friends? With new acquaintances we start out cautious, more business-like. Gradually we build rapport. Sometimes rapport stops short of friendship making only for loyal business associates. But sometimes it converts into friendship and we discontinue keeping track of who owes what. *
I’ve noticed some interesting patterns and parallels related to this business/friendship dualism. I’ll share them here with links to relevant articles: *
1. Proprietary vs. Commodity goods: Generic drugs and bushels of wheat are commodity goods. They’re purchased solely on price. We don’t care who makes them because we don’t perceive a quality difference between different brands. It’s nothing personal. There’s no brand loyalty. In contrast, iphones and Porsches are proprietary goods. They are sold on their unique qualities which are proprietary to certain brands. Proprietary goods have loyal brand followings. People accept no substitutes, so the companies that make them have a kind of monopoly. We’re more generous in what we are willing to pay for these products. Apple products, for example are never discounted. *
Commodities are like business relationships. Proprietary goods are like friendships. In business, as with commodities, if you can get a better deal from someone else, go for it. In friendship as with proprietary goods, loyalty matters. *
2. Commodification and the pretend friend trend: These days a company like Apple, with its highly proprietary goods is an exception. The general trend is toward rapid erosion of proprietary status. Do you care who made the hard drive in your computer or the blender in your kitchen? Do you even know who made them? Brands are increasingly irrelevant. Even where you buy a good matters less than it used to. Search engines like Pricegrabber make it possible to buy anywhere the price is lowest. *
It’s a buyer’s market and businesses scramble to preserve, restore and build whatever proprietary status they can by pretending to be our friends. They try to convince us that they are like our family, congregation or tribe. They romance their products, hoping their customers will become BFFs (best friends forever). *
3. Underemployment and the pretend friend trend: Between commodification, outsourcing, automation, the maturation of the tech boom, and the current economic downturn, employers are tightening back on what they offer to employees. To soften this hardening, and make employees want to contribute more for less, corporations lean into the rhetoric of friendship: “Our company is a family,” “It’s all for one and one for all around here.” “There’s no I in team,” “You are the company,” “We want to empower you.” Some of this rhetoric grew out of an earnest effort during the boom decades to make corporate life more user-friendly. But these days it has become increasingly disingenuous. When the going gets tough, the tough get smarmy. *
4. Romantic love as the ultimate proprietary good: Corporations romance their products, and romantics do too. To fall in love is to form an exclusive brand-loyal proprietary relationship with another person. We dream of a BFF, someone with whom to say mutually “I won’t shop around. You’re it for me. I’d accept no substitutes. You’re so special I’d pay and do anything to be with you.” The pretend friend trend plays out here too. A “player” is someone who romances because talk is cheap. He says friend-like things while undertaking the business of grabbing the fun and leaving, because it’s nothing personal. *
5. Commodification of all social life: Modernity, technology and our general commitment to practicality seems to promote a decline in loyalty overall to church, state, land, family, tribe, community, partner and friends. Business looks increasingly like the sadder but wiser default mode. Lily Tomlin said “No matter how cynical you get, you just can’t keep up.” Is Match.com the romantic equivalent of Pricegrabber? The science spirit debate, modernism vs. romanticism, even the fundamentalist “moral backlash” play out as a war over this trend, whether our business or practical inclinations are saving or ruining us. *
6. Being in it vs. being outside observing it: Business vs. friendship dualism is a product of the ins and outs of logic. Logic is largely about making distinctions, deciding what belongs within or outside of which relationships, categories, or sets. We experience this personally as deciding whether we are in a particular relationship or not. Sometimes it’s just obvious. We’re in. Sometimes we step back to wonder, should I be in this relationship? *
Being all the way in parallels friendship mode. Wondering if you should be in parallels business mode. In friendship mode, you don’t need to keep track of who owes what because you identify with the the relationship itself. But if a friendship starts to feel unbalanced, you may take a perspective outside the relationship asking “is this fair?” At that point you’ve been triggered into business mode, observing the relationship from the outside, keeping track in order to answer that question. *
7. Rewarding for performance or effort: Who do you reward, the person who performs best or the person who works hardest? Imagine you’re the owner of a small struggling business. You have two sales people and have to lay one off. One works very hard but doesn’t bring in as much business as the other, who makes less effort but delivers a lot more business. So who goes, the hardworking under-performer or slouchy super-performer? In business you’d fire the hardworking under-performer. *
Now imagine you have two children. One is a natural. Without even trying he’s good at everything. He has been offered placement in a summer school for gifted children that costs $3000. Your other child works very hard and yet underperforms on all fronts. The school counselor suggests a remedial program for him that costs $3000. You can’t afford both the summer school and the remedial program, so who do you invest in? Even the word “invest” is repugnant when you’re talking about your children. You spend the $3000 on the remedial program because family is family, and performance isn’t everything. *
In other words in business you reward or measure merit primarily on performance. In friendship (and family is very intimate friendship) you don’t measure merit exclusively on performance, but on effort, or context in general. *
In politics, the Right and Left wing split on rewarding for performance vs. effort. The right argues that only performance should be rewarded. The left says, effort counts. At least in their political theory, the right wants more interactions to be run in business mode and the left wants more interactions to be run in friendship mode. *
8. Friendship, family, love: In an unfair world, we can only afford to make things fair with a select few. We create concentric circles or spheres of fairness. The closest fairness relationship we choose is with a spouse or partner. In the bargain come our children and inversely we come with our parent’s partnership. Out from that come our broader family and friends, and out from that our business associates. *
9. Update rates: How often do you step outside of a relationship to update your assessment of its value? With partners and family, perhaps very rarely. You’re all the way in it. With casual friends, you may reassess a little more frequently. In business you update in real-time. You leave the meter running. Love can be defined as a slow update rate. Unconditional love is no update rate–no matter how disadvantageous a relationship gets, you don’t notice because you never re-assess. And at the other end of the continuum, business is a continual update rate. It’s still a relationship, but because of the running tab, either party can presumably exit anytime and still end up with a square deal. By keeping track and equalizing as you go, you maintain both freedom to end it and safety in knowing that it will end fairly. *
10. Is love it’s own category? Sex changes everything. Here’s another great chapter from Dan Ariel’s book “Predictably Irrational” about studies showing that we’re terrible at predicting how we’d think and act under the influence of sexual arousal. This chapter comes right after the chapter cited above on the difference between business and friendship mode, so it does make you wonder if maybe there’s a third category. There might be but I have another theory: *
11. Dating is the tension between business and friendship taken to the extreme: Who would you want to let deep into your inner fairness circle where, in unconditional love, you can forget all about keeping track? Whoever it is, you had better vet this person carefully before you let them in, or your heart and wallet will be torn to shreds. Because romantic love is the most intense form of friendship, it has to start out as the most intense form of business. If you don’t keep track up front, you won’t be safe merging. In this it’s the ultimate ambigamist paradox: Dating is the very serious and careful business of transcending business altogether. It’s shopping for a person with whom you can relax and stop shopping. *
*The theory has grown more complex than this with various sub-modes of relationship enumerated, but this is nonetheless a common first approximation. *
See Original Post: http://everydaypsychology.co.cc/?p=20750
***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
SEC Adopts Additional Compensation and CorporateGovernance Disclosure for 2010 Proxy - Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
CLIENT MEMORANDUM **
SEC Adopts Additional Compensation and CorporateGovernance Disclosure for 2010 Proxy
Davis Polk Client Memorandum *
At an open meeting today, the SEC voted to adopt amendments intended to enhance compensation andcorporate governance disclosures. The new rule, which becomes effective February 28, 2010, wasadopted substantially as proposed with some changes described below. The SEC deferred considerationof changes to the proxy solicitation rules until it considers the proxy access proposal. Chairman Mary L.Schapiro reaffirmed her commitment to bring final proxy access rules to a vote “early next year.” *
This summary was based on oral discussions at the SEC’s open meeting. We will discuss the new rule inmore detail as part of a broader discussion on planning for the 2010 proxy season on Wednesday,January 6, 2010 in a webcast entitled “Planning for the 2010 Proxy Season: Evolving Issues, New Rules.”Details and a link to the webcast to follow. *
- Material risks arising from compensation policies. The new rule will require a discussion and analysisof compensation practices or policies for employees, if the risks arising from such policies or practices are“reasonably likely” to have a “material adverse effect” on the company. The proposal would haverequired disclosure if the risks arising from such policies or practices “may” have a “material effect” on themcompany. The disclosure will not be part of the CD&A, as the requirement will cover all employees andnot just executive officers. Smaller reporting companies will be exempt. *
- Changes to reporting the value of equity awards. The new rule will require that the value of optionsand stock awards reported in the summary compensation table and director compensation table bedisclosed at the aggregate “grant date fair value” of such awards. The previous rule required disclosureof the annual accounting expense instead. The grant date fair value approach, widely preferred by mostusers of reported compensation data, may affect not only the total compensation reported but also thecomposition of the named executive officer group. The new rule will also require companies torecompute the information for all the years shown in the tables. Additionally, the new rule clarifies thatawards subject to performance conditions are to be reported based on the probable outcome ofperformance conditions rather than the maximum potential value of the award, which is to be disclosed in a footnote to the table. *
- Directors and director nominees. The new rule will require disclosure for each director and newnominees regarding the particular experience, qualifications, attributes or skills that make the individual qualified to serve as a director. The new rule does not contain a similar requirement related to service on a board committee as was proposed. Additionally, the amendment requires disclosure of any public company directorships held at any time during the past five years instead of only current directorships, and lengthens the time period for which disclosure of legal proceedings involving directors or executive officers is required from five to ten years. While not specifically proposed, the amendment expands the list of legal proceedings covered by the rule to include those based on mail or wire fraud or fraud inconnection with any business entity; violations of federal or state securities, commodities, banking orinsurance laws and regulations or settlements to these actions; and disciplinary sanctions or ordersimposed by any stock commodities or derivatives exchange or other self-regulatory organization.Settlements of private civil litigation need not be disclosed. *
- Considerations of diversity in the nominations process. The new rule will require disclosure ofwhether and if so how, a nominating committee considers diversity in identifying directors. If a companyhas a diversity policy, the new rule will require disclosure of how the policy is implemented and how theboard assesses the effectiveness of its policies. According to Chairman Schapiro, companies will have the ability to define diversity “as broadly or as narrowly as they choose” as the rule will not have a setdefinition. *
- Board leadership structure and role in risk oversight. The new rule will require disclosure of acompany’s board leadership structure and a discussion of why the company believes that this boardleadership structure is the best structure for the company, including a discussion of whether and why thecompany has chosen to combine or separate the CEO and board chairperson positions. If one personserves as both the CEO and chair, the company must state whether and why it has a lead independentdirector and such director’s role. Companies must also disclose the extent of the board’s role in the riskoversight of the company. *
- Compensation consultants. The new rule will require specified disclosure of the fees and services paidto compensation consultants and their affiliates if they provide both consulting services relating toexecutive or director compensation and additional services, if the cost of such additional servicesexceeds $120,000. *
- Accelerated vote result reporting. A new Form 8-K item will require that annual meeting voting resultsbe reported within four business days of a company’s annual meeting, instead of on Form 10-Q or Form10-K. Where results will not be known by the deadline, companies will be permitted to disclosepreliminary voting results and file an amended 8-K reporting the final voting results within four businessdays after the final results are known.
If you have any questions regarding the matters covered in this publication, please contact any of thelawyers listed below or your regular Davis Polk contact
- Ning Chiu 212 450 4908 ning.chiu@davispolk.com
- William M. Kelly 650 752 2003 william.kelly@davispolk.com
- Barbara Nims 212 450 4591 barbara.nims@davispolk.com
- Richard J. Sandler 212 450 4224 richard.sandler@davispolk.com
- Mutya Fonte Harsch 212 450 4289 mutya.harsch@davispolk.com
© 2009 Davis Polk & Wardwell LLPNotice: This is a summary that we believe may be of interest to you for general information. It is not a full analysis of the matters presented and should not be relied upon as legal advice. If you would rather not receive these memoranda, please respond to thisemail and indicate that you would like to be removed from our distribution list. If you have any questions about the matters covered in this publication, the names and office locations of all of our partners appear on our website, davispolk.com.
Access original post: http://www.davispolk.com/files/Publication/74d05f7d-dd28-449d-aec9-f99c233d4699/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/5d5462cf-49e5-4c6e-b269-fb8562c4b26a/121609_proxy_season.pdf
***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
CLIENT MEMORANDUM **
SEC Adopts Additional Compensation and CorporateGovernance Disclosure for 2010 Proxy
Davis Polk Client Memorandum *
At an open meeting today, the SEC voted to adopt amendments intended to enhance compensation andcorporate governance disclosures. The new rule, which becomes effective February 28, 2010, wasadopted substantially as proposed with some changes described below. The SEC deferred considerationof changes to the proxy solicitation rules until it considers the proxy access proposal. Chairman Mary L.Schapiro reaffirmed her commitment to bring final proxy access rules to a vote “early next year.” *
This summary was based on oral discussions at the SEC’s open meeting. We will discuss the new rule inmore detail as part of a broader discussion on planning for the 2010 proxy season on Wednesday,January 6, 2010 in a webcast entitled “Planning for the 2010 Proxy Season: Evolving Issues, New Rules.”Details and a link to the webcast to follow. *
- Material risks arising from compensation policies. The new rule will require a discussion and analysisof compensation practices or policies for employees, if the risks arising from such policies or practices are“reasonably likely” to have a “material adverse effect” on the company. The proposal would haverequired disclosure if the risks arising from such policies or practices “may” have a “material effect” on themcompany. The disclosure will not be part of the CD&A, as the requirement will cover all employees andnot just executive officers. Smaller reporting companies will be exempt. *
- Changes to reporting the value of equity awards. The new rule will require that the value of optionsand stock awards reported in the summary compensation table and director compensation table bedisclosed at the aggregate “grant date fair value” of such awards. The previous rule required disclosureof the annual accounting expense instead. The grant date fair value approach, widely preferred by mostusers of reported compensation data, may affect not only the total compensation reported but also thecomposition of the named executive officer group. The new rule will also require companies torecompute the information for all the years shown in the tables. Additionally, the new rule clarifies thatawards subject to performance conditions are to be reported based on the probable outcome ofperformance conditions rather than the maximum potential value of the award, which is to be disclosed in a footnote to the table. *
- Directors and director nominees. The new rule will require disclosure for each director and newnominees regarding the particular experience, qualifications, attributes or skills that make the individual qualified to serve as a director. The new rule does not contain a similar requirement related to service on a board committee as was proposed. Additionally, the amendment requires disclosure of any public company directorships held at any time during the past five years instead of only current directorships, and lengthens the time period for which disclosure of legal proceedings involving directors or executive officers is required from five to ten years. While not specifically proposed, the amendment expands the list of legal proceedings covered by the rule to include those based on mail or wire fraud or fraud inconnection with any business entity; violations of federal or state securities, commodities, banking orinsurance laws and regulations or settlements to these actions; and disciplinary sanctions or ordersimposed by any stock commodities or derivatives exchange or other self-regulatory organization.Settlements of private civil litigation need not be disclosed. *
- Considerations of diversity in the nominations process. The new rule will require disclosure ofwhether and if so how, a nominating committee considers diversity in identifying directors. If a companyhas a diversity policy, the new rule will require disclosure of how the policy is implemented and how theboard assesses the effectiveness of its policies. According to Chairman Schapiro, companies will have the ability to define diversity “as broadly or as narrowly as they choose” as the rule will not have a setdefinition. *
- Board leadership structure and role in risk oversight. The new rule will require disclosure of acompany’s board leadership structure and a discussion of why the company believes that this boardleadership structure is the best structure for the company, including a discussion of whether and why thecompany has chosen to combine or separate the CEO and board chairperson positions. If one personserves as both the CEO and chair, the company must state whether and why it has a lead independentdirector and such director’s role. Companies must also disclose the extent of the board’s role in the riskoversight of the company. *
- Compensation consultants. The new rule will require specified disclosure of the fees and services paidto compensation consultants and their affiliates if they provide both consulting services relating toexecutive or director compensation and additional services, if the cost of such additional servicesexceeds $120,000. *
- Accelerated vote result reporting. A new Form 8-K item will require that annual meeting voting resultsbe reported within four business days of a company’s annual meeting, instead of on Form 10-Q or Form10-K. Where results will not be known by the deadline, companies will be permitted to disclosepreliminary voting results and file an amended 8-K reporting the final voting results within four businessdays after the final results are known.
If you have any questions regarding the matters covered in this publication, please contact any of thelawyers listed below or your regular Davis Polk contact
- Ning Chiu 212 450 4908 ning.chiu@davispolk.com
- William M. Kelly 650 752 2003 william.kelly@davispolk.com
- Barbara Nims 212 450 4591 barbara.nims@davispolk.com
- Richard J. Sandler 212 450 4224 richard.sandler@davispolk.com
- Mutya Fonte Harsch 212 450 4289 mutya.harsch@davispolk.com
© 2009 Davis Polk & Wardwell LLPNotice: This is a summary that we believe may be of interest to you for general information. It is not a full analysis of the matters presented and should not be relied upon as legal advice. If you would rather not receive these memoranda, please respond to thisemail and indicate that you would like to be removed from our distribution list. If you have any questions about the matters covered in this publication, the names and office locations of all of our partners appear on our website, davispolk.com.
Access original post: http://www.davispolk.com/files/Publication/74d05f7d-dd28-449d-aec9-f99c233d4699/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/5d5462cf-49e5-4c6e-b269-fb8562c4b26a/121609_proxy_season.pdf
***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
SEC Approves Proxy Disclosure Rules | Directorship | Boardroom Intelligence
SEC Approves Proxy Disclosure Rules Directorship Boardroom Intelligence
Directorship
Saturday December 26, 2009 *
SEC Approves Proxy Disclosure RulesRevisions improve risk, compensation and corporate governance information *
by Mary Helen Gillespie December 16, 2009 *
The Securities and Exchange Commission today voted 4-1 in favor of revising proxy disclosure rules to improve and increase risk, compensation and corporate governance information for shareholders. *
The rules, which go into effect Feb. 28, 2010, increase accountability for directors and company executives to ensure that investors clearly understand:Whether a company’s compensation policies and practices are likely to increase the firm’s risk exposure.*
- The value of stock and option awards granted to company executives and directors.
- The background and qualifications of directors and board nominees.
- How an individual board defines diversity when nominating director candidates.
- The role the board’s leadership structure plays in risk oversight.
- How a compensation consultant retained by a board could create the possible perception of a conflict of interest.*
SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro said the proxy disclosure rules advance “good” corporate governance by holding directors and officers accountable for their behavior and decisions. *
“But accountability is impossible without transparency. After all, shareholders are the owners of our publicly traded companies. Yet owners cannot responsibly exercise their oversight without good information about the issues that drive voting decisions,” Schapiro said. *
The new rules, proposed in July, also demand more timely public disclosure of the results of shareholder meetings. *
Irv Becker, national practice leader of executive compensation for the Hay Group, said the new proxy rules change the scope of a board’s compensation committee to include reviews not only of top executives but of highly paid employees across the organization. *
“In the past, compensation committees did not have to look at a sales incentive or a trading plan. This requires [that] an organization develop an inventory of all incentive plans and elevate the most material and risky of those plans to be reviewed by the compensation committee. It won’t overwhelm the compensation committee, the burden will be for the HR team,” he said. And these rules will require reviews across all industries, not just financial services. For example, a large pharmaceutical company with a global sales force might find an incentive plan is structured in a way that could lead to individual “bad behavior” and corporate reputation risk. *
“It’s a process that should be happening to make sure that all incentive plans are aligned with the current strategy of the company,” Becker said.*
Commissioner Kathleen L. Casey voted against the proxy release, saying that while she supported the bulk of the new rules, she disagreed with the requirement of mandated disclosure on a “person-by-person basis” of board nominees. Such an approach “unduly intrudes on a board’s ability to operate,” she said. Casey also rejected the methodology for defining diversity on a company-by-company basis.*
Commissioner Luis A. Aguilar said the diversity rule was an important first step “to aiding an investor’s ability to assess a company’s commitment to developing and maintaining a diverse board.” He noted that during the public comment period for the proxy disclosure rules, approximately 90 percent of letters expressed direct support for the disclosure of information related to the race and gender diversity of a board.*
The commission also voted 5-0 to approve rules to enhance the custody controls that apply to investment advisers, safeguards that developed directly from the Bernard Madoff scandal and other recent Ponzi frauds where investment advisers misappropriated investor assets. Under the new rules, advisers will be subject at least annually to a surprise exam by an independent auditor who would be required to notify the SEC within 24 hours of any suspected material discrepancies or missing assets. In addition to the surprise exam, any entity that holds client assets–advisers, affiliates, or operationally independent affiliates–must undergo an annual review of custody controls by an independent accountant. *
Commissioner Troy A. Paredes said the surprise exams and independent audits help to strike the right balance but “do not substitute for investor diligence and care.” Investors, he said, “must be alert to warning signs of misconduct.” *
Read original post: http://www.directorship.com/sec-approves-proxy-disclosure-rules/
***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
Directorship
Saturday December 26, 2009 *
SEC Approves Proxy Disclosure RulesRevisions improve risk, compensation and corporate governance information *
by Mary Helen Gillespie December 16, 2009 *
The Securities and Exchange Commission today voted 4-1 in favor of revising proxy disclosure rules to improve and increase risk, compensation and corporate governance information for shareholders. *
The rules, which go into effect Feb. 28, 2010, increase accountability for directors and company executives to ensure that investors clearly understand:Whether a company’s compensation policies and practices are likely to increase the firm’s risk exposure.*
- The value of stock and option awards granted to company executives and directors.
- The background and qualifications of directors and board nominees.
- How an individual board defines diversity when nominating director candidates.
- The role the board’s leadership structure plays in risk oversight.
- How a compensation consultant retained by a board could create the possible perception of a conflict of interest.*
SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro said the proxy disclosure rules advance “good” corporate governance by holding directors and officers accountable for their behavior and decisions. *
“But accountability is impossible without transparency. After all, shareholders are the owners of our publicly traded companies. Yet owners cannot responsibly exercise their oversight without good information about the issues that drive voting decisions,” Schapiro said. *
The new rules, proposed in July, also demand more timely public disclosure of the results of shareholder meetings. *
Irv Becker, national practice leader of executive compensation for the Hay Group, said the new proxy rules change the scope of a board’s compensation committee to include reviews not only of top executives but of highly paid employees across the organization. *
“In the past, compensation committees did not have to look at a sales incentive or a trading plan. This requires [that] an organization develop an inventory of all incentive plans and elevate the most material and risky of those plans to be reviewed by the compensation committee. It won’t overwhelm the compensation committee, the burden will be for the HR team,” he said. And these rules will require reviews across all industries, not just financial services. For example, a large pharmaceutical company with a global sales force might find an incentive plan is structured in a way that could lead to individual “bad behavior” and corporate reputation risk. *
“It’s a process that should be happening to make sure that all incentive plans are aligned with the current strategy of the company,” Becker said.*
Commissioner Kathleen L. Casey voted against the proxy release, saying that while she supported the bulk of the new rules, she disagreed with the requirement of mandated disclosure on a “person-by-person basis” of board nominees. Such an approach “unduly intrudes on a board’s ability to operate,” she said. Casey also rejected the methodology for defining diversity on a company-by-company basis.*
Commissioner Luis A. Aguilar said the diversity rule was an important first step “to aiding an investor’s ability to assess a company’s commitment to developing and maintaining a diverse board.” He noted that during the public comment period for the proxy disclosure rules, approximately 90 percent of letters expressed direct support for the disclosure of information related to the race and gender diversity of a board.*
The commission also voted 5-0 to approve rules to enhance the custody controls that apply to investment advisers, safeguards that developed directly from the Bernard Madoff scandal and other recent Ponzi frauds where investment advisers misappropriated investor assets. Under the new rules, advisers will be subject at least annually to a surprise exam by an independent auditor who would be required to notify the SEC within 24 hours of any suspected material discrepancies or missing assets. In addition to the surprise exam, any entity that holds client assets–advisers, affiliates, or operationally independent affiliates–must undergo an annual review of custody controls by an independent accountant. *
Commissioner Troy A. Paredes said the surprise exams and independent audits help to strike the right balance but “do not substitute for investor diligence and care.” Investors, he said, “must be alert to warning signs of misconduct.” *
Read original post: http://www.directorship.com/sec-approves-proxy-disclosure-rules/
***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Finding Innovation Under the Tree - Our Editors - Harvard Business Review
Finding Innovation Under the Tree - Our Editors - Harvard Business Review
Harvard Business Review **
Finding Innovation Under the Tree ***
10:08 AM Thursday December 24, 2009 **
by Julia Kirby *
Harvard Business School *
I'm the mother of a nine-year-old boy, so I needed no introduction to SpinMaster's toys. Bakugan was a craze that tore through our town, and tore through again. What I remember is my own reaction the first time I saw one of these intricately engineered balls spring open into a battle-poised creature. "Whoa. How cool is that?," I said to my husband. And then, inevitably, "Why didn't they have these when we were kids?" *
Since SpinMaster is no one-trick pony, I wanted to find out what kind of thinking consistently produces hits like this. What lessons have the company's innovators learned along the way that we could all benefit from? Harary told me that as SpinMaster grew from a one-product startup to an innovation machine employing 700 people, there are three things he had to learn to appreciate the importance of: *
- Patience.*** Inventors are always pitching new toys to SpinMaster — there's no shortage of ideas — and they can generate all kinds of excitement, and urgency, in a conference room. "You've got to be truthful with yourself," Harary says, "and ask: Is this item or technology truly innovative? Is it new or unique? Does it have the magic?" *
- Champions. *** Ideas, no matter how cool, don't bring themselves to market. Every one of them needs "someone who can carry the ball from end to end, and take it to the end zone." That means someone who not only believes in the project and has the vision, but has the capability to put together the right team of people, and not get distracted by other projects. *
- Staying Power.*** Organizations have a depressing tendency to want to move on as soon as the going gets tough for a project, and when tempting new ideas beckon. Harary listed all the roadblocks that can make a team lose momentum: "getting the item to come in at cost, the item not working like you expect it to, competitors trying to knock your concept off, people telling you the item simply won't be commercially viable ..." The antsiness that results isn't unique to people who work with toys. It's hard, but imperative, for any new product developer "to stick to your vision, be financially committed to it, and ignore the naysayers." *
What's the moment of truth for an innovation at SpinMaster? Harary says it's the reaction to the prototype. But it may surprise you to learn that he's not talking about that moment when an inspired tinkerer walks in with a gadget — say, a little remote controlled car that can drive up a wall and across the ceiling. It's much later, after that concept has been subjected to all the engineering and development required to make it work well, and able to be mass produced at the desired cost. When Harary first saw the idea that became SpinMaster's 2009 award winner, it could stay on the wall or ceiling for just a few minutes. Months later, he stood in a room and watched an engineered prototype defy gravity for 10 minutes. "Then you know," says Harary. "At that point, we knew it could work." *
For me, of course, the Air Hogs Zero Gravity Micro has a different moment of truth. And it happens under a tree in a matter of hours. *
But let me refer back to point one above. Patience, my dear, patience. *
Acess Original Post With embedded link to the Air Hogs Zero Gravity Micro: http://blogs.hbr.org/hbr/hbreditors/2009/12/finding_innovation_under_the_t.html?cm_mmc=npv-_-DAILY_ALERT-_-AWEBER-_-DATE
***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
Harvard Business Review **
Finding Innovation Under the Tree ***
10:08 AM Thursday December 24, 2009 **
by Julia Kirby *
Harvard Business School *
I'm the mother of a nine-year-old boy, so I needed no introduction to SpinMaster's toys. Bakugan was a craze that tore through our town, and tore through again. What I remember is my own reaction the first time I saw one of these intricately engineered balls spring open into a battle-poised creature. "Whoa. How cool is that?," I said to my husband. And then, inevitably, "Why didn't they have these when we were kids?" *
Since SpinMaster is no one-trick pony, I wanted to find out what kind of thinking consistently produces hits like this. What lessons have the company's innovators learned along the way that we could all benefit from? Harary told me that as SpinMaster grew from a one-product startup to an innovation machine employing 700 people, there are three things he had to learn to appreciate the importance of: *
- Patience.*** Inventors are always pitching new toys to SpinMaster — there's no shortage of ideas — and they can generate all kinds of excitement, and urgency, in a conference room. "You've got to be truthful with yourself," Harary says, "and ask: Is this item or technology truly innovative? Is it new or unique? Does it have the magic?" *
- Champions. *** Ideas, no matter how cool, don't bring themselves to market. Every one of them needs "someone who can carry the ball from end to end, and take it to the end zone." That means someone who not only believes in the project and has the vision, but has the capability to put together the right team of people, and not get distracted by other projects. *
- Staying Power.*** Organizations have a depressing tendency to want to move on as soon as the going gets tough for a project, and when tempting new ideas beckon. Harary listed all the roadblocks that can make a team lose momentum: "getting the item to come in at cost, the item not working like you expect it to, competitors trying to knock your concept off, people telling you the item simply won't be commercially viable ..." The antsiness that results isn't unique to people who work with toys. It's hard, but imperative, for any new product developer "to stick to your vision, be financially committed to it, and ignore the naysayers." *
What's the moment of truth for an innovation at SpinMaster? Harary says it's the reaction to the prototype. But it may surprise you to learn that he's not talking about that moment when an inspired tinkerer walks in with a gadget — say, a little remote controlled car that can drive up a wall and across the ceiling. It's much later, after that concept has been subjected to all the engineering and development required to make it work well, and able to be mass produced at the desired cost. When Harary first saw the idea that became SpinMaster's 2009 award winner, it could stay on the wall or ceiling for just a few minutes. Months later, he stood in a room and watched an engineered prototype defy gravity for 10 minutes. "Then you know," says Harary. "At that point, we knew it could work." *
For me, of course, the Air Hogs Zero Gravity Micro has a different moment of truth. And it happens under a tree in a matter of hours. *
But let me refer back to point one above. Patience, my dear, patience. *
Acess Original Post With embedded link to the Air Hogs Zero Gravity Micro: http://blogs.hbr.org/hbr/hbreditors/2009/12/finding_innovation_under_the_t.html?cm_mmc=npv-_-DAILY_ALERT-_-AWEBER-_-DATE
***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Planned 2.5% Pay Increase Lowest in Last Decade, Study Finds
Planned 2.5% Pay Increase Lowest in Last Decade, Study Finds
WorldatWork.com - Newsline *
Planned 2.5% Pay Increase Lowest in Last Decade, Study Finds ***
Dec. 9, 2009 — U.S. employees can expect median pay increases of 2.5% in 2010, which is the lowest planned increase in the last decade, according to a new study. *
The study by Hay Group found that this amount is one-half of 1% lower than when Hay Group conducted a similar study in July 2009 that forecasted a 2010 median pay budget increase of 3%. *
Planned increases are generally consistent for executives, middle management, supervisory and clerical positions. After factoring in the consumer price index growth forecast for 2010 at 1.8%, the result is a ‘real’ gain of 0.7%. *
“While these increases are greater than the 1.9% that employees actually received in 2009, the market is still tempering its outlook for 2010 as is evident by the swing from 3% increase budgets in the summer to 2.5% increases today. About a quarter of organizations decreased their salary budget increase estimates in the last four months,” said Mel Stark, vice president in the reward practice at Hay Group. “There are several things at play here,” Stark said. “Many organizations put the brakes on salary increases in 2009 and a number of organizations had salary freezes due to tough economic conditions and company performance. The improved outlook for salary increases is due to both a more positive economic outlook as well as a feeling by management that it is difficult to provide nominal increases to organization workforces who have been asked to do more with less during difficult times.” *
Hay Group’s research found that base salary increases are healthier in select industry sectors, such as life sciences, energy and financial services, and not as strong in the health care, health insurance and industrial sectors. “The economy does not impact each industry sector equally,” Stark said. “Therefore, pay increase fluctuations tend to flex with industry performance. While these salary increase numbers are lower than we’ve seen in recent years, the primary concern for most employees right now is still job security. Relatively speaking, a smaller base salary increase is not as concerning to employees as continued employment.” *
Marie Dufrense, a leader in Hay Group’s Benefits Consulting Practice, said, “Organizations have also focused their attention on continuing to manage their investment in employee benefits programs.” Approximately 40% of organizations reported in early 2009 that they had either reduced or eliminated their 401(k) employer contributions and of those, at least 30% reported recently that they are planning to reinstate the matches as of 2010. Of those organizations with defined benefit plans, they reported that more than 35% of them were freezing their plans in some form and based on the latest data there is no intent to reverse this trend. *
According to the Hay research, most organizations have looked carefully at their health-care costs for 2010 and are increasing employee costs either through direct increases in contributions or changes to deductibles and copayments. Other alternatives being considered include additional medical options and designs that encourage behavioral changes in utilizing medical services. According to Dufresne, this is the year where a real focus on cost control is being implemented by most employers in an effort to not only control current year increases but to better manage future costs. *
One area of concern suggested by Hay Group’s data is the lack of meaningful differentiation between increases for average performers and top performers/high performers. “Organizations seem to be spreading their salary increases thin and provide a little bit to everyone,” Stark said. Top performers and high potentials are averaging 2.8% compared to the 2.5% for all employees. “Organizations really risk their top talent exiting to other organizations if they don’t feel that their contributions are being recognized, financially and non-financially,” Stark said. “The only way to do this on the salary increase side is to zero out increases for marginal performers. Recruiters are getting more active and there is always a market for top talent — even in the toughest of business environments.” *
From management’s perspective, organizations reported a primary concern is maintaining employee engagement levels during a continuing period of challenging business performance. “Managers are really challenged in maintaining a motivated workforce environment in the midst of layoffs, base salary freezes and lower bonuses. Recognizing employee’s contributions and ensuring meaningful and impactful work opportunities in a healthy work climate go a long way in this economic environment,” Stark said. *
About the SurveyHay Group’s forecast results are based on the latest data available from the Hay Group 2010 Salary Budget Spot Survey. This survey was conducted in November 2009 and contains responses from compensation & benefits professionals from more than 650 organizations across all major industry sectors. *
Contents © 2009 WorldatWork. No part of this article may be reproduced, excerpted or redistributed in any form without express written permission from WorldatWork. *
Access Original Post: http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimComment?id=35793
***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
WorldatWork.com - Newsline *
Planned 2.5% Pay Increase Lowest in Last Decade, Study Finds ***
Dec. 9, 2009 — U.S. employees can expect median pay increases of 2.5% in 2010, which is the lowest planned increase in the last decade, according to a new study. *
The study by Hay Group found that this amount is one-half of 1% lower than when Hay Group conducted a similar study in July 2009 that forecasted a 2010 median pay budget increase of 3%. *
Planned increases are generally consistent for executives, middle management, supervisory and clerical positions. After factoring in the consumer price index growth forecast for 2010 at 1.8%, the result is a ‘real’ gain of 0.7%. *
“While these increases are greater than the 1.9% that employees actually received in 2009, the market is still tempering its outlook for 2010 as is evident by the swing from 3% increase budgets in the summer to 2.5% increases today. About a quarter of organizations decreased their salary budget increase estimates in the last four months,” said Mel Stark, vice president in the reward practice at Hay Group. “There are several things at play here,” Stark said. “Many organizations put the brakes on salary increases in 2009 and a number of organizations had salary freezes due to tough economic conditions and company performance. The improved outlook for salary increases is due to both a more positive economic outlook as well as a feeling by management that it is difficult to provide nominal increases to organization workforces who have been asked to do more with less during difficult times.” *
Hay Group’s research found that base salary increases are healthier in select industry sectors, such as life sciences, energy and financial services, and not as strong in the health care, health insurance and industrial sectors. “The economy does not impact each industry sector equally,” Stark said. “Therefore, pay increase fluctuations tend to flex with industry performance. While these salary increase numbers are lower than we’ve seen in recent years, the primary concern for most employees right now is still job security. Relatively speaking, a smaller base salary increase is not as concerning to employees as continued employment.” *
Marie Dufrense, a leader in Hay Group’s Benefits Consulting Practice, said, “Organizations have also focused their attention on continuing to manage their investment in employee benefits programs.” Approximately 40% of organizations reported in early 2009 that they had either reduced or eliminated their 401(k) employer contributions and of those, at least 30% reported recently that they are planning to reinstate the matches as of 2010. Of those organizations with defined benefit plans, they reported that more than 35% of them were freezing their plans in some form and based on the latest data there is no intent to reverse this trend. *
According to the Hay research, most organizations have looked carefully at their health-care costs for 2010 and are increasing employee costs either through direct increases in contributions or changes to deductibles and copayments. Other alternatives being considered include additional medical options and designs that encourage behavioral changes in utilizing medical services. According to Dufresne, this is the year where a real focus on cost control is being implemented by most employers in an effort to not only control current year increases but to better manage future costs. *
One area of concern suggested by Hay Group’s data is the lack of meaningful differentiation between increases for average performers and top performers/high performers. “Organizations seem to be spreading their salary increases thin and provide a little bit to everyone,” Stark said. Top performers and high potentials are averaging 2.8% compared to the 2.5% for all employees. “Organizations really risk their top talent exiting to other organizations if they don’t feel that their contributions are being recognized, financially and non-financially,” Stark said. “The only way to do this on the salary increase side is to zero out increases for marginal performers. Recruiters are getting more active and there is always a market for top talent — even in the toughest of business environments.” *
From management’s perspective, organizations reported a primary concern is maintaining employee engagement levels during a continuing period of challenging business performance. “Managers are really challenged in maintaining a motivated workforce environment in the midst of layoffs, base salary freezes and lower bonuses. Recognizing employee’s contributions and ensuring meaningful and impactful work opportunities in a healthy work climate go a long way in this economic environment,” Stark said. *
About the SurveyHay Group’s forecast results are based on the latest data available from the Hay Group 2010 Salary Budget Spot Survey. This survey was conducted in November 2009 and contains responses from compensation & benefits professionals from more than 650 organizations across all major industry sectors. *
Contents © 2009 WorldatWork. No part of this article may be reproduced, excerpted or redistributed in any form without express written permission from WorldatWork. *
Access Original Post: http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimComment?id=35793
***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
Healing a Rift in Your Partnership [And the Psychology of Forgiveness]
Healing a Rift in Your Partnership
Gallup Management Journal **
RELEASE DATE: 22 December 2009 *
SOURCE: http://gmj.gallup.com/ **
CONTACT: The Gallup Management Journal **
INFORMATION: Editorial and Executive Offices **
1251 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2350 **
New York, NY 10020 **
888-274-5447 **
22 December 2009 *
Healing a Rift in Your Partnership **
Sweet or sour, revenge has a powerful pull that only forgiveness can overcome *
by Rodd Wagner and Gale Muller *
Adapted from Power of 2: How to Make the Most of Your Partnerships at Work and in Life (Gallup Press, November 2009) *
Excerpts:
So what should you do to get over a rough patch in your partnership? The most constructive strategies require you to find a middle ground between being aloof and submersing yourself in the emotions triggered by the event -- close enough to work through the situation, far enough to avoid reliving it. Those who find this middle ground are able to evaluate the reasons why they got upset without stirring up the original emotions. *
One of the best ways to resolve a past problem is to find the positive in it. With his success in his new partnerships, Katzenberg is philosophical about his time with Eisner. "I had 10 great years at Disney," he told a reporter in 2007. "I worked for Michael for 19 years and did very, very well with him. I don't even have any bad feelings. I don't feel any resentment. Nothing." *
A study of 304 students who were asked to recall "a harmful thing that someone you know did to you" found that the students who were instructed to think about the upside did much better working through it. "We would like for you to write about positive aspects of the experience," the researchers told the volunteers. "In which ways did the thing that this person did to you lead to positive consequences for you? Perhaps you became aware of personal strengths that you did not realize you had, perhaps a relationship became better or stronger as a result, or perhaps you grew or became a stronger or wiser person." *
The students who were given this assignment found the task "remarkably easy to complete," wrote the professors. They listed benefits such as discovering a previously unknown strength, becoming wiser and better at communicating, increased confidence, learning forgiveness, and even strengthening their relationship with the person who first aggravated them.
The students who looked for benefits were more forgiving -- less vengeful and less likely to avoid the offender -- than other volunteers who were instructed to dwell on the offense itself in their writing. *
Nonetheless, it takes a rare level of maturity and self-awareness to let the trespass pass. "In a former workplace I had a chance to undermine a coworker *
--------------------------------------------------------
Full Article : ****
When Michelangelo wanted to get back at his critic, Vatican Master of Ceremonies Biagio da Cesena, the artist painted him into the Sistine Chapel as Minos, judge of the underworld with a large snake curled around his legs as he watches the damned arrive in Hell. *
After William L. Shirer was betrayed by his former close collaborator Edward R. Morrow, Shirer wrote a novel featuring a character who was particularly spineless and hypocritical. It was a thinly veiled caricature of Murrow. *
But when things turn negative, a parallel set of emotions and reactions kicks in. The partners see themselves as pursuing opposing ends. Fairness becomes less about a considerate division of rewards and work and more about what one partner feels the other owes her. The counterpart's strengths don't seem so impressive any more. His personal ticks become full-fledged character flaws. At the nadir of collaboration, not only will the partners refuse to sacrifice for each other's benefit, they eagerly go out of their way to cause their one-time comrade pain. *
"There will be a day of reckoning," Terry Garnett told himself when Oracle CEO Larry Ellison fired him. Garnett eventually became chairman of Ingres, a competitor of Oracle. "I do hold grudges," Garnett told BusinessWeek. "Am I motivated by that? Absolutely." *
"I wish I'd never even met him" ***
The same emotional wiring that makes great partnerships so effective and rewarding creates corresponding and equally powerful negative forces if things go wrong. In a good collaboration, partners make statements such as "two heads are better than one." In a bad one, the two make comments such as "I would have been better off working by myself" or "I wish I'd never even met him." *
Two statements in Gallup's research differentiate good and bad partnerships on keeping the collaboration from going negative: *
- There have been times when either my collaborator or I have violated the other's trust. *
- When either of us has violated the other's trust, we have been able to forgive each other. *
Although minor disruptions occur in good and bad partnerships, serious violations of trust are rare in the best pairs. Only 18% of good partnerships suffer a real rift. Among poor partnerships, the number jumps to 40%. If such a breach occurs, those in a good partnership are better at working through it. When something serious enough to require forgiveness transpires, 85% of those in good partnerships do forgive. Those in poor partnerships patch things up only 14% of the time. *
Trust between two collaborators is like the rope between mountaineers on a snowy ledge. If the line is cut, the gravity of powerful negative emotions kicks in. The cord may have been separated one fiber at a time, as when a snide remark, showing up late for an important meeting, or letting a shared project slide a little leads to a matching dereliction from the other guy. Or it may have been sliced in two with one stroke, when one partner clearly betrays the other. In either case, the former collaborators become subject to an "irrational" desire to return wrong for wrong. *
Revenge is sweet. One brain-imaging study found that the enjoyment of striking back is processed in the same part of the brain that recognizes the pleasure of eating chocolate. The sweetest retaliation is more than a symbolic protest; it punishes the offender. Although the victim of the original offense gets nothing from the revenge except the satisfaction of seeing the other guy hurt, experiments have demonstrated that he is more than willing to pay to extract a cost from the other guy. Getting even can be as rewarding as reaching a major goal with someone else, making retribution a tempting alternative to collaboration. *
Why would such a negative force be so powerful? Evolutionary psychologists think it stems from the need to maintain order in primitive societies. "For thousands of years, human societies did not have the modern institutions of law enforcement -- impartial police and impartial judges that ensure the punishment of norm violations such as cheating in an economic exchange," noted one set of scholars. "Social norms had to be enforced by other measures, and private sanctions were one of these means." One economist even went so far as to call our willingness to punish bad guys "the cement of society." *
We rarely admit how much we enjoy revenge. Something in our upbringing tells us it's not right to feel that way, even though we do. But the evidence is all around. Think of how many action movies you've seen in which the emotional payoff at the end is seeing the bad guy get what's coming to him. "The powerful appeal of the revenge theme in mass entertainment," wrote one commentator, "is simply one more manifestation of the gap between private feelings about revenge and the public pretense that justice and vengeance have nothing, perish the uncivilized thought, to do with each other." *
In the movies, villains get impaled (Lethal Weapon 4), are forced out the back of an airborne plane (Air Force One), or get shot reaching for their guns (Dirty Harry). In real life, they suffer less violent but equally deserving fates. *
"Every time we were to meet with the CEO to present our recommendations, my boss would have me do the report and then he would put a new cover sheet on the report with his name as the author," one volunteer told a group of researchers studying revenge. "Then, at the meeting, he would refer all of the CEO's questions to me while taking all of the credit for the report. So, one day, I had finally had it. I did the report as requested. But on the day of the presentation to the CEO, I took a 'holiday' from work. At that meeting, the CEO asked my boss the questions and he could not answer any of them. The CEO investigated and my boss was fired. I was promoted to my boss' position." *
The retaliation reflex *
The human mind admires a good payback. "Poetic justice" occurs when it serves a larger purpose than just repaying harm inflicted on the victim, when it's ingenious, and when it makes the offender the instrument of his own demise. "Revenge may be more aesthetically pleasing when it is not simply a repetition of the provocation," wrote the scientists who reported the bad boss story. "To truly 'one-up' the harmdoer and impress others, the avenger may have to demonstrate some originality and creativity."*
The vicarious satisfaction, the smirk we get from hearing how the plagiarizing manager was exposed or how a former Disney CEO was mocked in, of all things, a children's movie only serves to demonstrate the real temptation of what scientists call "negative reciprocity" -- and its danger. The retaliation reflex may be "the cement of society," but it fractures partnerships. Vengeful feelings quickly get out of hand. Animosity can simmer for years. "A central problem in escalating feuds is that both parties use different arithmetics to calculate the balance," wrote the poetic justice researchers. *
One of the most difficult collaborative decisions you will face is whether to patch up a partnership if your counterpart violates your trust. There is no perfect answer. Anyone who tells you to just let it go is failing to consider the intensity of his own emotions under these circumstances. Problems serious enough to require wrestling with the decision are sparked by offenses that would justify writing off your partner. *
Yet failing to continue working together can forfeit the benefits of what was otherwise a solid combination. "Some of these relationships are too good to destroy just because somebody harms us," said Michael E. McCullough, an expert on the psychology of revenge and forgiveness. "We have to have a way of getting over the fact that we're going to get into squabbles [and] we're going to have conflicts of interest. Not only in the human species, but in non-human primates, you see evidence that when they harm each other they really are predisposed to try to patch those relationships back together." *
The more intriguing question is what to do if you were the one betrayed. You need a tremendous amount of discernment, self-control, ability to give your counterpart the benefit of the doubt, and desire for a better outcome to turn a vicious circle into a virtuous one. How you manage your own thinking is as important as the offense itself. In many cases, whether a person forgives the misdeed says less about the seriousness of the wrong than about the personality of the partner whose trust was abused. *
According to conventional wisdom that dates back as far as Aristotle, feelings of anger need to be vented or released to avoid having them build up to a much larger explosion. Sigmund Freud argued that if people didn't react forcefully to an emotional offense, they would continue to carry unresolved feelings. "Language attests to this fact of daily observation in such expressions as 'to give vent to one's feeling,' to be 'relieved by weeping,' etc.," he wrote. "If the reaction is suppressed, the affect remains united with the memory. An insult retaliated, be it only in words, is differently recalled than one that had to be taken in silence . . . the reaction of an injured person to a trauma has really only then a perfect 'cathartic' effect if it is expressed in an adequate reaction like revenge." *
Freud's advice has been repeated over the subsequent decades. "Punch a pillow or a punching bag. Punch with all the frenzy you can," states a 1993 book on anger management. "If you are angry at a particular person, imagine his or her face on the pillow or punching bag, and vent your rage physically and verbally. You will be doing violence to a pillow or punching bag so that you can stop doing violence to yourself by holding in poisonous anger." *
There's just one problem with this strategy: It doesn't work. By Freud's theory, if someone who was insulted by a colleague were to divert his anger into pounding nails for 10 minutes, he should have gotten much of the frustration out of his system. In 1959, a University of Iowa researcher tested this idea, allowing half his subjects the chance to hammer out their anger over such an insult. Then he observed as each of the volunteers got the chance to criticize the original offender. Those who spent time hammering nails were more, not less, hostile toward the person who insulted them. *
Hitting the punching bag *
In 2002, a professor at Iowa State University had hundreds of students write a brief political essay. He told them another student would comment on what they wrote, when in fact he had already prepared scathing reviews. He slammed the essays on their organization, originality, writing style, clarity, persuasiveness, and overall quality. On a scale ranging from -10 (very bad) to +10 (very good), every essay got a score between -8 and -10. He also attached a handwritten comment to each essay that read: "This is one of the worst essays I have read!" ("Previous research has shown that this procedure makes people quite angry," the professor added.) *
Some of the students were given boxing gloves and a 70-pound punching bag. They were instructed to hit it as much as they wanted while thinking of the person who criticized their essays. A picture of the purported offender's face was shown on a computer monitor. Others were made to just sit, waiting while the experimenter pretended to be fixing their partner's computer. Hitting the punching bag not only failed to alleviate anger and aggression, it increased the negative feelings. *
"The results from the present research show that venting to reduce anger is like using gasoline to put out a fire -- it only feeds the flame," wrote the professor. "By fueling aggressive thoughts and feelings, venting also increases aggressive responding. People who walloped the punching bag while thinking about the person who had provoked them were the most angry and the most aggressive." *
Taken together, a number of recent studies indicate that the more one entertains the anger or recalls the bad event, the less likely it is to be resolved, and therefore the less likely the partnership will survive the rift. What the academic journals call "rumination," what you probably call "stewing" or "fuming," only makes things worse. *
So what should you do to get over a rough patch in your partnership? The most constructive strategies require you to find a middle ground between being aloof and submersing yourself in the emotions triggered by the event -- close enough to work through the situation, far enough to avoid reliving it. Those who find this middle ground are able to evaluate the reasons why they got upset without stirring up the original emotions. *
One of the best ways to resolve a past problem is to find the positive in it. With his success in his new partnerships, Katzenberg is philosophical about his time with Eisner. "I had 10 great years at Disney," he told a reporter in 2007. "I worked for Michael for 19 years and did very, very well with him. I don't even have any bad feelings. I don't feel any resentment. Nothing." *
A study of 304 students who were asked to recall "a harmful thing that someone you know did to you" found that the students who were instructed to think about the upside did much better working through it. "We would like for you to write about positive aspects of the experience," the researchers told the volunteers. "In which ways did the thing that this person did to you lead to positive consequences for you? Perhaps you became aware of personal strengths that you did not realize you had, perhaps a relationship became better or stronger as a result, or perhaps you grew or became a stronger or wiser person." *
The students who were given this assignment found the task "remarkably easy to complete," wrote the professors. They listed benefits such as discovering a previously unknown strength, becoming wiser and better at communicating, increased confidence, learning forgiveness, and even strengthening their relationship with the person who first aggravated them. The students who looked for benefits were more forgiving -- less vengeful and less likely to avoid the offender -- than other volunteers who were instructed to dwell on the offense itself in their writing. *
Nonetheless, it takes a rare level of maturity and self-awareness to let the trespass pass. "In a former workplace I had a chance to undermine a coworker who'd previously earned my dislike," one reader wrote to BusinessWeek after the publication of a cover article on revenge. "Due to a computer malfunction, a 100-page document she was composing vanished. The loss guaranteed she'd never make her deadline. I watched her stress mount for a moment or two, but I couldn't resist pointing out something she didn't know. She'd accidentally cc'd me a recent draft of her document. Relief washed over her as she realized she'd make her deadline after all." *
"Why did I do that?" the writer asked himself. "I guess having whiffed the dregs of retribution, I realized something George Orwell once wrote: 'Revenge is sour.'" *
Rodd Wagner and Gale Muller recently completed five years of research identifying and analyzing the crucial dimensions of a successful partnership. Their book, Power of 2: How to Make the Most of Your Partnerships at Work and in Life, is the product of that research. *
Popular Topics Brand Engagement Business Consumers Customer Engagement Employee Engagement Innovation Leadership Performance Management Strengths-Based Development Workplace Subscribe Now!Rss FeedsGallup Home Gallup Poll Gallup Consulting Gallup Press Gallup University Copyright ©2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use Privacy Statement Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.Gallup®, A8™, Business Impact Analysis™, CE11®, Clifton StrengthsFinder®, the 34 Clifton StrengthsFinder theme names, Customer Engagement Index™, Drop Club®, Emotional Economy™, Employee Engagement Index™, Employee Outlook Index™, Follow This Path™, Gallup Brain®, Gallup Consulting®, Gallup Management Journal®, GMJ®, Gallup Press®, Gallup Publishing™, Gallup Tuesday Briefing®, Gallup University®, HumanSigma®, I10™, L3™, PrincipalInsight™, Q12®, SE25™, SF34®, SRI®, Strengths Spotlight™, Strengths-Based Selling™, StrengthsCoach™, StrengthsFinder®, StrengthsQuest™, TeacherInsight™, The Gallup Path®, and The Gallup Poll® are trademarks of Gallup, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. These materials are provided for noncommercial, personal use only. Reproduction prohibited without the express permission of Gallup, Inc.
Access Original Article and Gallup Managment Journal: http://gmj.gallup.com/content/124766/Healing-Rift-Partnership.aspx#1
***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
Gallup Management Journal **
RELEASE DATE: 22 December 2009 *
SOURCE: http://gmj.gallup.com/ **
CONTACT: The Gallup Management Journal **
INFORMATION: Editorial and Executive Offices **
1251 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2350 **
New York, NY 10020 **
888-274-5447 **
22 December 2009 *
Healing a Rift in Your Partnership **
Sweet or sour, revenge has a powerful pull that only forgiveness can overcome *
by Rodd Wagner and Gale Muller *
Adapted from Power of 2: How to Make the Most of Your Partnerships at Work and in Life (Gallup Press, November 2009) *
Excerpts:
So what should you do to get over a rough patch in your partnership? The most constructive strategies require you to find a middle ground between being aloof and submersing yourself in the emotions triggered by the event -- close enough to work through the situation, far enough to avoid reliving it. Those who find this middle ground are able to evaluate the reasons why they got upset without stirring up the original emotions. *
One of the best ways to resolve a past problem is to find the positive in it. With his success in his new partnerships, Katzenberg is philosophical about his time with Eisner. "I had 10 great years at Disney," he told a reporter in 2007. "I worked for Michael for 19 years and did very, very well with him. I don't even have any bad feelings. I don't feel any resentment. Nothing." *
A study of 304 students who were asked to recall "a harmful thing that someone you know did to you" found that the students who were instructed to think about the upside did much better working through it. "We would like for you to write about positive aspects of the experience," the researchers told the volunteers. "In which ways did the thing that this person did to you lead to positive consequences for you? Perhaps you became aware of personal strengths that you did not realize you had, perhaps a relationship became better or stronger as a result, or perhaps you grew or became a stronger or wiser person." *
The students who were given this assignment found the task "remarkably easy to complete," wrote the professors. They listed benefits such as discovering a previously unknown strength, becoming wiser and better at communicating, increased confidence, learning forgiveness, and even strengthening their relationship with the person who first aggravated them.
The students who looked for benefits were more forgiving -- less vengeful and less likely to avoid the offender -- than other volunteers who were instructed to dwell on the offense itself in their writing. *
Nonetheless, it takes a rare level of maturity and self-awareness to let the trespass pass. "In a former workplace I had a chance to undermine a coworker *
--------------------------------------------------------
Full Article : ****
When Michelangelo wanted to get back at his critic, Vatican Master of Ceremonies Biagio da Cesena, the artist painted him into the Sistine Chapel as Minos, judge of the underworld with a large snake curled around his legs as he watches the damned arrive in Hell. *
After William L. Shirer was betrayed by his former close collaborator Edward R. Morrow, Shirer wrote a novel featuring a character who was particularly spineless and hypocritical. It was a thinly veiled caricature of Murrow. *
We rarely admit how much we enjoy revenge. Something in our upbringing tells
us it's not right to feel that way. ****
And it's widely believed that Jeffrey Katzenberg -- of whom Disney CEO
Michael Eisner once said, "I think I hate the little midget" -- modeled "pushy,
vain and real-estate hungry" Lord Farquaad, the villain of the movie Shrek,
after his former boss. *
When a partnership is going well, all kinds of wonderfully unselfish things happen. Partners change their goals to better match each other's objectives. They strive to be fair to each other. They focus on their counterparts' strengths. They overlook each other's foibles. At the zenith of collaboration, both partners make great personal sacrifices for the other's happiness. *
But when things turn negative, a parallel set of emotions and reactions kicks in. The partners see themselves as pursuing opposing ends. Fairness becomes less about a considerate division of rewards and work and more about what one partner feels the other owes her. The counterpart's strengths don't seem so impressive any more. His personal ticks become full-fledged character flaws. At the nadir of collaboration, not only will the partners refuse to sacrifice for each other's benefit, they eagerly go out of their way to cause their one-time comrade pain. *
"There will be a day of reckoning," Terry Garnett told himself when Oracle CEO Larry Ellison fired him. Garnett eventually became chairman of Ingres, a competitor of Oracle. "I do hold grudges," Garnett told BusinessWeek. "Am I motivated by that? Absolutely." *
"I wish I'd never even met him" ***
The same emotional wiring that makes great partnerships so effective and rewarding creates corresponding and equally powerful negative forces if things go wrong. In a good collaboration, partners make statements such as "two heads are better than one." In a bad one, the two make comments such as "I would have been better off working by myself" or "I wish I'd never even met him." *
Two statements in Gallup's research differentiate good and bad partnerships on keeping the collaboration from going negative: *
- There have been times when either my collaborator or I have violated the other's trust. *
- When either of us has violated the other's trust, we have been able to forgive each other. *
Although minor disruptions occur in good and bad partnerships, serious violations of trust are rare in the best pairs. Only 18% of good partnerships suffer a real rift. Among poor partnerships, the number jumps to 40%. If such a breach occurs, those in a good partnership are better at working through it. When something serious enough to require forgiveness transpires, 85% of those in good partnerships do forgive. Those in poor partnerships patch things up only 14% of the time. *
Trust between two collaborators is like the rope between mountaineers on a snowy ledge. If the line is cut, the gravity of powerful negative emotions kicks in. The cord may have been separated one fiber at a time, as when a snide remark, showing up late for an important meeting, or letting a shared project slide a little leads to a matching dereliction from the other guy. Or it may have been sliced in two with one stroke, when one partner clearly betrays the other. In either case, the former collaborators become subject to an "irrational" desire to return wrong for wrong. *
Revenge is sweet. One brain-imaging study found that the enjoyment of striking back is processed in the same part of the brain that recognizes the pleasure of eating chocolate. The sweetest retaliation is more than a symbolic protest; it punishes the offender. Although the victim of the original offense gets nothing from the revenge except the satisfaction of seeing the other guy hurt, experiments have demonstrated that he is more than willing to pay to extract a cost from the other guy. Getting even can be as rewarding as reaching a major goal with someone else, making retribution a tempting alternative to collaboration. *
Why would such a negative force be so powerful? Evolutionary psychologists think it stems from the need to maintain order in primitive societies. "For thousands of years, human societies did not have the modern institutions of law enforcement -- impartial police and impartial judges that ensure the punishment of norm violations such as cheating in an economic exchange," noted one set of scholars. "Social norms had to be enforced by other measures, and private sanctions were one of these means." One economist even went so far as to call our willingness to punish bad guys "the cement of society." *
We rarely admit how much we enjoy revenge. Something in our upbringing tells us it's not right to feel that way, even though we do. But the evidence is all around. Think of how many action movies you've seen in which the emotional payoff at the end is seeing the bad guy get what's coming to him. "The powerful appeal of the revenge theme in mass entertainment," wrote one commentator, "is simply one more manifestation of the gap between private feelings about revenge and the public pretense that justice and vengeance have nothing, perish the uncivilized thought, to do with each other." *
In the movies, villains get impaled (Lethal Weapon 4), are forced out the back of an airborne plane (Air Force One), or get shot reaching for their guns (Dirty Harry). In real life, they suffer less violent but equally deserving fates. *
Common sense (confirmed in the research) indicates what needs to be done by the offender: Apologize. Make your good intentions clear. ****
"Every time we were to meet with the CEO to present our recommendations, my boss would have me do the report and then he would put a new cover sheet on the report with his name as the author," one volunteer told a group of researchers studying revenge. "Then, at the meeting, he would refer all of the CEO's questions to me while taking all of the credit for the report. So, one day, I had finally had it. I did the report as requested. But on the day of the presentation to the CEO, I took a 'holiday' from work. At that meeting, the CEO asked my boss the questions and he could not answer any of them. The CEO investigated and my boss was fired. I was promoted to my boss' position." *
The retaliation reflex *
The human mind admires a good payback. "Poetic justice" occurs when it serves a larger purpose than just repaying harm inflicted on the victim, when it's ingenious, and when it makes the offender the instrument of his own demise. "Revenge may be more aesthetically pleasing when it is not simply a repetition of the provocation," wrote the scientists who reported the bad boss story. "To truly 'one-up' the harmdoer and impress others, the avenger may have to demonstrate some originality and creativity."*
The vicarious satisfaction, the smirk we get from hearing how the plagiarizing manager was exposed or how a former Disney CEO was mocked in, of all things, a children's movie only serves to demonstrate the real temptation of what scientists call "negative reciprocity" -- and its danger. The retaliation reflex may be "the cement of society," but it fractures partnerships. Vengeful feelings quickly get out of hand. Animosity can simmer for years. "A central problem in escalating feuds is that both parties use different arithmetics to calculate the balance," wrote the poetic justice researchers. *
One of the most difficult collaborative decisions you will face is whether to patch up a partnership if your counterpart violates your trust. There is no perfect answer. Anyone who tells you to just let it go is failing to consider the intensity of his own emotions under these circumstances. Problems serious enough to require wrestling with the decision are sparked by offenses that would justify writing off your partner. *
Yet failing to continue working together can forfeit the benefits of what was otherwise a solid combination. "Some of these relationships are too good to destroy just because somebody harms us," said Michael E. McCullough, an expert on the psychology of revenge and forgiveness. "We have to have a way of getting over the fact that we're going to get into squabbles [and] we're going to have conflicts of interest. Not only in the human species, but in non-human primates, you see evidence that when they harm each other they really are predisposed to try to patch those relationships back together." *
Common sense (confirmed in the research) indicates what needs to be done
by the offender: Apologize. Make your good intentions clear. Make a peace
offering. Be demonstrably more reliable to rebuild trust. *
The more intriguing question is what to do if you were the one betrayed. You need a tremendous amount of discernment, self-control, ability to give your counterpart the benefit of the doubt, and desire for a better outcome to turn a vicious circle into a virtuous one. How you manage your own thinking is as important as the offense itself. In many cases, whether a person forgives the misdeed says less about the seriousness of the wrong than about the personality of the partner whose trust was abused. *
According to conventional wisdom that dates back as far as Aristotle, feelings of anger need to be vented or released to avoid having them build up to a much larger explosion. Sigmund Freud argued that if people didn't react forcefully to an emotional offense, they would continue to carry unresolved feelings. "Language attests to this fact of daily observation in such expressions as 'to give vent to one's feeling,' to be 'relieved by weeping,' etc.," he wrote. "If the reaction is suppressed, the affect remains united with the memory. An insult retaliated, be it only in words, is differently recalled than one that had to be taken in silence . . . the reaction of an injured person to a trauma has really only then a perfect 'cathartic' effect if it is expressed in an adequate reaction like revenge." *
Freud's advice has been repeated over the subsequent decades. "Punch a pillow or a punching bag. Punch with all the frenzy you can," states a 1993 book on anger management. "If you are angry at a particular person, imagine his or her face on the pillow or punching bag, and vent your rage physically and verbally. You will be doing violence to a pillow or punching bag so that you can stop doing violence to yourself by holding in poisonous anger." *
"I guess having whiffed the dregs of retribution, I realized something
George Orwell once wrote: 'Revenge is sour.'" ****
There's just one problem with this strategy: It doesn't work. By Freud's theory, if someone who was insulted by a colleague were to divert his anger into pounding nails for 10 minutes, he should have gotten much of the frustration out of his system. In 1959, a University of Iowa researcher tested this idea, allowing half his subjects the chance to hammer out their anger over such an insult. Then he observed as each of the volunteers got the chance to criticize the original offender. Those who spent time hammering nails were more, not less, hostile toward the person who insulted them. *
Hitting the punching bag *
In 2002, a professor at Iowa State University had hundreds of students write a brief political essay. He told them another student would comment on what they wrote, when in fact he had already prepared scathing reviews. He slammed the essays on their organization, originality, writing style, clarity, persuasiveness, and overall quality. On a scale ranging from -10 (very bad) to +10 (very good), every essay got a score between -8 and -10. He also attached a handwritten comment to each essay that read: "This is one of the worst essays I have read!" ("Previous research has shown that this procedure makes people quite angry," the professor added.) *
Some of the students were given boxing gloves and a 70-pound punching bag. They were instructed to hit it as much as they wanted while thinking of the person who criticized their essays. A picture of the purported offender's face was shown on a computer monitor. Others were made to just sit, waiting while the experimenter pretended to be fixing their partner's computer. Hitting the punching bag not only failed to alleviate anger and aggression, it increased the negative feelings. *
"The results from the present research show that venting to reduce anger is like using gasoline to put out a fire -- it only feeds the flame," wrote the professor. "By fueling aggressive thoughts and feelings, venting also increases aggressive responding. People who walloped the punching bag while thinking about the person who had provoked them were the most angry and the most aggressive." *
Taken together, a number of recent studies indicate that the more one entertains the anger or recalls the bad event, the less likely it is to be resolved, and therefore the less likely the partnership will survive the rift. What the academic journals call "rumination," what you probably call "stewing" or "fuming," only makes things worse. *
So what should you do to get over a rough patch in your partnership? The most constructive strategies require you to find a middle ground between being aloof and submersing yourself in the emotions triggered by the event -- close enough to work through the situation, far enough to avoid reliving it. Those who find this middle ground are able to evaluate the reasons why they got upset without stirring up the original emotions. *
One of the best ways to resolve a past problem is to find the positive in it. With his success in his new partnerships, Katzenberg is philosophical about his time with Eisner. "I had 10 great years at Disney," he told a reporter in 2007. "I worked for Michael for 19 years and did very, very well with him. I don't even have any bad feelings. I don't feel any resentment. Nothing." *
A study of 304 students who were asked to recall "a harmful thing that someone you know did to you" found that the students who were instructed to think about the upside did much better working through it. "We would like for you to write about positive aspects of the experience," the researchers told the volunteers. "In which ways did the thing that this person did to you lead to positive consequences for you? Perhaps you became aware of personal strengths that you did not realize you had, perhaps a relationship became better or stronger as a result, or perhaps you grew or became a stronger or wiser person." *
The students who were given this assignment found the task "remarkably easy to complete," wrote the professors. They listed benefits such as discovering a previously unknown strength, becoming wiser and better at communicating, increased confidence, learning forgiveness, and even strengthening their relationship with the person who first aggravated them. The students who looked for benefits were more forgiving -- less vengeful and less likely to avoid the offender -- than other volunteers who were instructed to dwell on the offense itself in their writing. *
Nonetheless, it takes a rare level of maturity and self-awareness to let the trespass pass. "In a former workplace I had a chance to undermine a coworker who'd previously earned my dislike," one reader wrote to BusinessWeek after the publication of a cover article on revenge. "Due to a computer malfunction, a 100-page document she was composing vanished. The loss guaranteed she'd never make her deadline. I watched her stress mount for a moment or two, but I couldn't resist pointing out something she didn't know. She'd accidentally cc'd me a recent draft of her document. Relief washed over her as she realized she'd make her deadline after all." *
"Why did I do that?" the writer asked himself. "I guess having whiffed the dregs of retribution, I realized something George Orwell once wrote: 'Revenge is sour.'" *
Rodd Wagner and Gale Muller recently completed five years of research identifying and analyzing the crucial dimensions of a successful partnership. Their book, Power of 2: How to Make the Most of Your Partnerships at Work and in Life, is the product of that research. *
Popular Topics Brand Engagement Business Consumers Customer Engagement Employee Engagement Innovation Leadership Performance Management Strengths-Based Development Workplace Subscribe Now!Rss FeedsGallup Home Gallup Poll Gallup Consulting Gallup Press Gallup University Copyright ©2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use Privacy Statement Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.Gallup®, A8™, Business Impact Analysis™, CE11®, Clifton StrengthsFinder®, the 34 Clifton StrengthsFinder theme names, Customer Engagement Index™, Drop Club®, Emotional Economy™, Employee Engagement Index™, Employee Outlook Index™, Follow This Path™, Gallup Brain®, Gallup Consulting®, Gallup Management Journal®, GMJ®, Gallup Press®, Gallup Publishing™, Gallup Tuesday Briefing®, Gallup University®, HumanSigma®, I10™, L3™, PrincipalInsight™, Q12®, SE25™, SF34®, SRI®, Strengths Spotlight™, Strengths-Based Selling™, StrengthsCoach™, StrengthsFinder®, StrengthsQuest™, TeacherInsight™, The Gallup Path®, and The Gallup Poll® are trademarks of Gallup, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. These materials are provided for noncommercial, personal use only. Reproduction prohibited without the express permission of Gallup, Inc.
Access Original Article and Gallup Managment Journal: http://gmj.gallup.com/content/124766/Healing-Rift-Partnership.aspx#1
***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Don’t Sink Your Success by Ignoring Relationships | GiANT Impact
Don’t Sink Your Success by Ignoring Relationships GiANT Impact
Giant Impact - leadership Wired *
Don’t Sink Your Success by Ignoring Relationships
John Paul Jones is regarded as The Father of the American Navy, and rightly so given his heroic courage in battle and his devotion to America's struggle for independence. Yet sadly, Jones alienated himself from the country he loved, dying penniless and alone in France at the age of 45. Why did the war hero's story end so dismally? The answer is simple: John Paul Jones never valued relationships. *
Talent and Temper *
John Paul Jones was born in Scotland under the given name of John Paul. He achieved notoriety as a 21-year old sailor when he safely piloted a ship back to port after its captain and first mate had succumbed to yellow fever. The feat won him the respect of the ship's owners, who made him the vessel's captain and gave him a commission on its profits. *
John Paul's success in Scotland was short-lived, though. Soon after being named as captain, he became enraged with a sailor and demanded that the man be whipped. The flogging ordered by John Paul was so severe that the man later died from his wounds. Although he avoided criminal charges and kept his command, John Paul's reputation never recovered, nor did he learn his lesson. *
A few years later, John Paul slaughtered a mutinous shipmate after a dispute over wages. Rather than stand trail for his actions, he fled to America, changing his name to John Paul Jones. Thus began a familiar trend, Jones' spectacular skill and talent would gain him renown, but then
his relational incompetence would undermine the success. *
A Fresh Start Runs Afoul *
John Paul Jones arrived in America at the dawn of the Revolutionary War. He enlisted in the American Navy and distinguished himself as a privateer captain, preying upon British commercial ships. Duly promoted, he then led a daring mission all the way to mainland Great Britain, raiding a coastal town and capturing a warship. His gallantry brought much needed credibility to the American cause abroad, and gained him popularity at home. *
However, after returning to American shores, John Paul Jones did not receive the official recognition that he felt he deserved. Feeling slighted, he launched scathing criticisms at the politicians by whom he felt overlooked. Although he had vanquished his enemies in combat, John Paul Jones' disrespect and arrogance turned his would-be friends into adversaries. *
Fame without Fortune *
John Paul Jones next military adventure brought him to the pinnacle of his fame. In a battle on the high seas, two of his primary cannons malfunctioned and left him outgunned and outmanned against a British warship, the Serapis. Repeatedly battered by the guns of his opponent, Jones' ship, the Bonhomme Richard, caught fire and began to go down. Sensing victory, the British commander asked if Jones was ready to surrender, receiving the famous reply, "I have not yet begun to fight!" *
Jones rallied his crew and rammed his sinking vessel into the side of the Serapis. Then, his men tied together the two warships with grappling hooks, hopped aboard the Serapis, and engaged in intense hand-to-hand combat. By the time the skirmish ended, the Americans had won control of the Serapis and had forced the British to surrender. *
Elevated to celebrity status after the improbable victory, John Paul Jones nonetheless managed to estrange himself after returning home. First, he took all of the credit for his military triumph, discounting the bravery of his men. Then, he wrote several self-aggrandizing accounts of the battle and sent them to newspapers in America and Europe. His blatant and excessive self-promotion rankled politicians and further alienated him from those in power. Next, he sailed out to sea, only to be embarrassed when his crew mutinied and left him stranded in France. Finally, after returning home, he lobbied tirelessly to be named First Admiral of the United States Navy. Denied his request and having worn out his welcome, John Paul Jones left America for good and spent the remainder of his days vainly chasing personal glory in the service of foreign governments. *
Summary *
The life of John Paul Jones is indicative of a leader with loads of talent but no regard for relationships. Prickly, self-focused, and egotistical, such leaders sabotage their success by pushing away everyone in their lives. Regardless of their accomplishments, leaders never attain fulfillment until they learn to win with people. *
Access Original Article: http://www.giantimpact.com/articles/read/dont_sink_your_success_by_ignoring_relationships/ *
"This article is used by permission from Leadership Wired, GiANT Impact's premiere leadership newsletter, available for free subscription at http://www.giantimpact.com/." *
***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
Giant Impact - leadership Wired *
Don’t Sink Your Success by Ignoring Relationships
John Paul Jones is regarded as The Father of the American Navy, and rightly so given his heroic courage in battle and his devotion to America's struggle for independence. Yet sadly, Jones alienated himself from the country he loved, dying penniless and alone in France at the age of 45. Why did the war hero's story end so dismally? The answer is simple: John Paul Jones never valued relationships. *
Talent and Temper *
John Paul Jones was born in Scotland under the given name of John Paul. He achieved notoriety as a 21-year old sailor when he safely piloted a ship back to port after its captain and first mate had succumbed to yellow fever. The feat won him the respect of the ship's owners, who made him the vessel's captain and gave him a commission on its profits. *
John Paul's success in Scotland was short-lived, though. Soon after being named as captain, he became enraged with a sailor and demanded that the man be whipped. The flogging ordered by John Paul was so severe that the man later died from his wounds. Although he avoided criminal charges and kept his command, John Paul's reputation never recovered, nor did he learn his lesson. *
A few years later, John Paul slaughtered a mutinous shipmate after a dispute over wages. Rather than stand trail for his actions, he fled to America, changing his name to John Paul Jones. Thus began a familiar trend, Jones' spectacular skill and talent would gain him renown, but then
his relational incompetence would undermine the success. *
A Fresh Start Runs Afoul *
John Paul Jones arrived in America at the dawn of the Revolutionary War. He enlisted in the American Navy and distinguished himself as a privateer captain, preying upon British commercial ships. Duly promoted, he then led a daring mission all the way to mainland Great Britain, raiding a coastal town and capturing a warship. His gallantry brought much needed credibility to the American cause abroad, and gained him popularity at home. *
However, after returning to American shores, John Paul Jones did not receive the official recognition that he felt he deserved. Feeling slighted, he launched scathing criticisms at the politicians by whom he felt overlooked. Although he had vanquished his enemies in combat, John Paul Jones' disrespect and arrogance turned his would-be friends into adversaries. *
Fame without Fortune *
John Paul Jones next military adventure brought him to the pinnacle of his fame. In a battle on the high seas, two of his primary cannons malfunctioned and left him outgunned and outmanned against a British warship, the Serapis. Repeatedly battered by the guns of his opponent, Jones' ship, the Bonhomme Richard, caught fire and began to go down. Sensing victory, the British commander asked if Jones was ready to surrender, receiving the famous reply, "I have not yet begun to fight!" *
Jones rallied his crew and rammed his sinking vessel into the side of the Serapis. Then, his men tied together the two warships with grappling hooks, hopped aboard the Serapis, and engaged in intense hand-to-hand combat. By the time the skirmish ended, the Americans had won control of the Serapis and had forced the British to surrender. *
Elevated to celebrity status after the improbable victory, John Paul Jones nonetheless managed to estrange himself after returning home. First, he took all of the credit for his military triumph, discounting the bravery of his men. Then, he wrote several self-aggrandizing accounts of the battle and sent them to newspapers in America and Europe. His blatant and excessive self-promotion rankled politicians and further alienated him from those in power. Next, he sailed out to sea, only to be embarrassed when his crew mutinied and left him stranded in France. Finally, after returning home, he lobbied tirelessly to be named First Admiral of the United States Navy. Denied his request and having worn out his welcome, John Paul Jones left America for good and spent the remainder of his days vainly chasing personal glory in the service of foreign governments. *
Summary *
The life of John Paul Jones is indicative of a leader with loads of talent but no regard for relationships. Prickly, self-focused, and egotistical, such leaders sabotage their success by pushing away everyone in their lives. Regardless of their accomplishments, leaders never attain fulfillment until they learn to win with people. *
Access Original Article: http://www.giantimpact.com/articles/read/dont_sink_your_success_by_ignoring_relationships/ *
"This article is used by permission from Leadership Wired, GiANT Impact's premiere leadership newsletter, available for free subscription at http://www.giantimpact.com/." *
***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
Making an Impression vs. Being Impressed | GiANT Impact
Making an Impression vs. Being Impressed GiANT Impact
Giant Impact *
Making an Impression vs. Being Impressed ***
By John C. Maxwell *
Admired for her beauty, Jennie Jerome (Winston Churchill's mother) glided through the loftiest social circles in Great Britain. Once, on consecutive nights, Ms. Jerome dined with England's premier politicians: Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli and his chief rival, William Gladstone. When questioned about her impressions of the two men, Ms. Jerome made the following observation:*
"When I left the dining room after sitting next to Gladstone, I thought he was the cleverest man in England. But when I sat next to Disraeli I left feeling that I was the cleverest woman." *
Perhaps you know leaders like Gladstone-confident individuals who exude wit, intelligence, and charisma. Whenever you're around them, you cannot help but notice their charm...because they make every effort to parade their brilliance in front of you. However, I'll wager that you'd prefer to follow someone like Disraeli, a leader who would rather draw out the best in you than strut his or her personal greatness. *
In relationships, be impressed with others instead of trying to make an impression. Throttle back on the urge to make your presence felt, and instead look for ways to esteem those around you. By expressing genuine interest in the people in your life, you'll win friends and gain favor. *
The 30-Second Rule ***
I've developed a simple rule in relationships to help me shift away from a selfish vantage point. Within the first 30 seconds of a conversation, I say something encouraging to the other person. Giving out compliments focuses me on the value of the other person and prevents me from being self-absorbed. Here are a few principles I've found helpful in following the 30-second rule: *
1) Give Others the "Triple A" Treatment: ***
o Attention **
o Affirmation **
o Appreciation **
Gossips speak endlessly about others, and bores talk only of themselves. A brilliant conversationalist is someone who speaks to you about yourself. These thoughtful persons attract friends and reap the benefits of likeability. *
2) Remember that the 30-Second Rule Gives Energy ***
People are energized and motivated when their leaders value them for who they are. On the other hand, they quickly disengage when they feel anonymous. Speaking encouraging words does wonders for a leader when it comes to inspiring a team and earning its loyalty. *
3) Practicing the 30-Second Rule Positions You for Success with People ***
Benjamin Franklin realized this truth when he wrote the following note to John Paul Jones: *
When we add to others, they are drawn to our side, but when we belittle others, they withdraw from our influence. *
4) Spend Time Creating an Encouraging Thought for Everyone You Know. ***
Before I meet with people, I pause to think about something encouraging I can say to them. This practice isn't complicated, but it does take some time, intentionality, and discipline. And the reward for practicing it is huge. *
SUMMARY *
Too many people, when in the presence of others, search for ways to make themselves look good. The key to the 30-Second Rule is reversing this practice. When spending time with people, search for ways to make them look good. Doing so uplifts them and ultimately raises their opinion of you as well. *
About
John C. Maxwell is an internationally respected leadership expert, speaker, and author who has sold more than 18 million books. Dr. Maxwell is the founder of EQUIP, a non-profit organization that has trained more than 5 million leaders in 126 countries worldwide. Each year he speaks to the leaders of diverse organizations, such as Fortune 500 companies, foreign governments, the National Football League, the United States Military Academy at West Point, and the United Nations. A New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Business Week best-selling author, Maxwell has written three books that have sold more than a million copies: The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, Developing the Leader Within You, and The 21 Indispensable Qualities of a Leader. His blog can be read at http://www.johnmaxwellonleadership.com/. *
Access Original Post: http://www.giantimpact.com/articles/read/making_an_impression_vs._being_impressed/ *
"This article is used by permission from Leadership Wired, GiANT Impact's premiere leadership newsletter, available for free subscription at http://www.giantimpact.com/."
***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
Giant Impact *
Making an Impression vs. Being Impressed ***
By John C. Maxwell *
Admired for her beauty, Jennie Jerome (Winston Churchill's mother) glided through the loftiest social circles in Great Britain. Once, on consecutive nights, Ms. Jerome dined with England's premier politicians: Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli and his chief rival, William Gladstone. When questioned about her impressions of the two men, Ms. Jerome made the following observation:*
"When I left the dining room after sitting next to Gladstone, I thought he was the cleverest man in England. But when I sat next to Disraeli I left feeling that I was the cleverest woman." *
Perhaps you know leaders like Gladstone-confident individuals who exude wit, intelligence, and charisma. Whenever you're around them, you cannot help but notice their charm...because they make every effort to parade their brilliance in front of you. However, I'll wager that you'd prefer to follow someone like Disraeli, a leader who would rather draw out the best in you than strut his or her personal greatness. *
In relationships, be impressed with others instead of trying to make an impression. Throttle back on the urge to make your presence felt, and instead look for ways to esteem those around you. By expressing genuine interest in the people in your life, you'll win friends and gain favor. *
The 30-Second Rule ***
I've developed a simple rule in relationships to help me shift away from a selfish vantage point. Within the first 30 seconds of a conversation, I say something encouraging to the other person. Giving out compliments focuses me on the value of the other person and prevents me from being self-absorbed. Here are a few principles I've found helpful in following the 30-second rule: *
1) Give Others the "Triple A" Treatment: ***
o Attention **
o Affirmation **
o Appreciation **
Gossips speak endlessly about others, and bores talk only of themselves. A brilliant conversationalist is someone who speaks to you about yourself. These thoughtful persons attract friends and reap the benefits of likeability. *
2) Remember that the 30-Second Rule Gives Energy ***
People are energized and motivated when their leaders value them for who they are. On the other hand, they quickly disengage when they feel anonymous. Speaking encouraging words does wonders for a leader when it comes to inspiring a team and earning its loyalty. *
3) Practicing the 30-Second Rule Positions You for Success with People ***
Benjamin Franklin realized this truth when he wrote the following note to John Paul Jones: *
"Hereafter, if you should observe an occasion to give your officers and friends
a little more praise than is their due, and confess more fault than you can
justly be charged with, you will only become the sooner for it, a great captain.
Criticizing and censuring almost everyone you have to do with will diminish
friends, increase enemies, and thereby hurt your affairs." *
When we add to others, they are drawn to our side, but when we belittle others, they withdraw from our influence. *
4) Spend Time Creating an Encouraging Thought for Everyone You Know. ***
Before I meet with people, I pause to think about something encouraging I can say to them. This practice isn't complicated, but it does take some time, intentionality, and discipline. And the reward for practicing it is huge. *
SUMMARY *
Too many people, when in the presence of others, search for ways to make themselves look good. The key to the 30-Second Rule is reversing this practice. When spending time with people, search for ways to make them look good. Doing so uplifts them and ultimately raises their opinion of you as well. *
About
John C. Maxwell is an internationally respected leadership expert, speaker, and author who has sold more than 18 million books. Dr. Maxwell is the founder of EQUIP, a non-profit organization that has trained more than 5 million leaders in 126 countries worldwide. Each year he speaks to the leaders of diverse organizations, such as Fortune 500 companies, foreign governments, the National Football League, the United States Military Academy at West Point, and the United Nations. A New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Business Week best-selling author, Maxwell has written three books that have sold more than a million copies: The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, Developing the Leader Within You, and The 21 Indispensable Qualities of a Leader. His blog can be read at http://www.johnmaxwellonleadership.com/. *
Access Original Post: http://www.giantimpact.com/articles/read/making_an_impression_vs._being_impressed/ *
"This article is used by permission from Leadership Wired, GiANT Impact's premiere leadership newsletter, available for free subscription at http://www.giantimpact.com/."
***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
The Right Way To Sell Yourself At Work - Forbes.com
The Right Way To Sell Yourself At Work - Forbes.com
Forbes.Com *
Business Basics **
The Right Way To Sell Yourself At Work ***
Helen Coster, 12.18.09, 8:40 PM ET *
Growing up, my parents taught me not to brag. We rolled our eyes at the longwinded Christmas letters that chronicled other families' accomplishments. We bit our tongues when a neighbor compared her son to Tom Cruise. My mother would hang good report cards on the refrigerator, but stash them in a drawer when we had company. "No one likes a braggart," she would say. "Just keep your head down and work hard, and people will notice." *
Well, not quite. The more time I spend in the workforce, the more I realize that my aversion to self-promotion can limit my career. I can't assume that people will notice when I do my job well. It's a career version of the old tree-forest expression: If a girl pulls an all-nighter and lands a big account, and there's no one there to see it, does she get promoted? *
Like it or not, self-promotion is part of responsible career management. People who tout their own achievements land plum assignments and promotions. Actions don't always speak louder than words. (See also: "Why Men Don't Promote Women More," by Shaun Rein.) *
Peggy Klaus, a communications and leadership coach and the author of Brag! The Art of Tooting Your Own Horn Without Blowing It, blames my squeamishness on "bragging myths"--the social, cultural and familial things that prevent us from talking about our accomplishments. People often fall into either of two equally unappealing camps: self-aggrandizing and boorish, or humble and ineffectual. It's hard to find a middle ground. But Klaus says that with the right form of communication, you can share your accomplishments without feeling like a thicker-haired version of Donald Trump. *
To start, Klaus recommends perfecting a "bragalogue"--a short, pithy story that incorporates a few bits of information about who you are and what you've done. Use it as an introduction when you meet people for the first time. When I flinched at the suggestion, she offered a convincing counter. "If you were asked to describe someone you care about, you could wax poetic," she said. "Why can't you do the same thing for yourself?" She encouraged me to think of a few positive things that I could say about my work, and be prepared to share them during fly-by encounters with my boss. *
William Arruda, the president of Reach Personal Branding, says that the first step in artful self-promotion is performance. "Building a strong personal brand isn't about telling people how great you are," he says. "It's about showing people how great you are." He adds that employees should understand where they can contribute the greatest value, and then demonstrate those things that make them exceptional. If you're creative, then draw on that creativity in team meetings. If you organize spreadsheets for every aspect of your personal life, then share your Type-A habits with your colleagues and become the office Excel whiz. Take on your organization's biggest problem. No one else wants to do it, so if you embrace that responsibility and succeed at it, people will notice. *
If you're an introvert, enlist other people to toot your horn. "Rather than tell everyone what you did, find other people who are comfortable describing your role," says Arruda. The strategy works both ways. If you spread the word about your colleagues' accomplishments, they should do the same for you. *
Accept recognition. When someone compliments your work, don't belittle your achievement by replying, "It wasn't that hard" or "It only took me a few hours." Instead, practice saying, "Thank you." Even better, show that you appreciate the recognition by saying, "Thank you. That's nice of you to notice." *
Create a Word document to keep track of your achievements. Every time you accomplish something, jot down an entry. Include what you did and why it was important. When possible, show how that achievement helped your company. Include positive comments that other people have made about your work. Review your "brag bag" before sitting down for your performance review. In doing so, you may actually be helping your boss. "At this time of absolute chaos in the workforce, bosses are often doing two or three jobs instead of one," says Peggy Klaus. "They don't have the bandwidth to remember what you do every day." Plus, bosses like good news. Klaus says that when you have a great success at work, you should send your boss a short, enthusiastic e-mail with the news. *
If you work hard, you need to make sure that people notice. Be proud of yourself, even if you don't look like Tom Cruise. *
Access Original Post: http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/18/self-promotion-job-leadership-careers-employment_print.html
***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
Forbes.Com *
Business Basics **
The Right Way To Sell Yourself At Work ***
Helen Coster, 12.18.09, 8:40 PM ET *
Growing up, my parents taught me not to brag. We rolled our eyes at the longwinded Christmas letters that chronicled other families' accomplishments. We bit our tongues when a neighbor compared her son to Tom Cruise. My mother would hang good report cards on the refrigerator, but stash them in a drawer when we had company. "No one likes a braggart," she would say. "Just keep your head down and work hard, and people will notice." *
Well, not quite. The more time I spend in the workforce, the more I realize that my aversion to self-promotion can limit my career. I can't assume that people will notice when I do my job well. It's a career version of the old tree-forest expression: If a girl pulls an all-nighter and lands a big account, and there's no one there to see it, does she get promoted? *
Like it or not, self-promotion is part of responsible career management. People who tout their own achievements land plum assignments and promotions. Actions don't always speak louder than words. (See also: "Why Men Don't Promote Women More," by Shaun Rein.) *
Peggy Klaus, a communications and leadership coach and the author of Brag! The Art of Tooting Your Own Horn Without Blowing It, blames my squeamishness on "bragging myths"--the social, cultural and familial things that prevent us from talking about our accomplishments. People often fall into either of two equally unappealing camps: self-aggrandizing and boorish, or humble and ineffectual. It's hard to find a middle ground. But Klaus says that with the right form of communication, you can share your accomplishments without feeling like a thicker-haired version of Donald Trump. *
To start, Klaus recommends perfecting a "bragalogue"--a short, pithy story that incorporates a few bits of information about who you are and what you've done. Use it as an introduction when you meet people for the first time. When I flinched at the suggestion, she offered a convincing counter. "If you were asked to describe someone you care about, you could wax poetic," she said. "Why can't you do the same thing for yourself?" She encouraged me to think of a few positive things that I could say about my work, and be prepared to share them during fly-by encounters with my boss. *
William Arruda, the president of Reach Personal Branding, says that the first step in artful self-promotion is performance. "Building a strong personal brand isn't about telling people how great you are," he says. "It's about showing people how great you are." He adds that employees should understand where they can contribute the greatest value, and then demonstrate those things that make them exceptional. If you're creative, then draw on that creativity in team meetings. If you organize spreadsheets for every aspect of your personal life, then share your Type-A habits with your colleagues and become the office Excel whiz. Take on your organization's biggest problem. No one else wants to do it, so if you embrace that responsibility and succeed at it, people will notice. *
If you're an introvert, enlist other people to toot your horn. "Rather than tell everyone what you did, find other people who are comfortable describing your role," says Arruda. The strategy works both ways. If you spread the word about your colleagues' accomplishments, they should do the same for you. *
Accept recognition. When someone compliments your work, don't belittle your achievement by replying, "It wasn't that hard" or "It only took me a few hours." Instead, practice saying, "Thank you." Even better, show that you appreciate the recognition by saying, "Thank you. That's nice of you to notice." *
Create a Word document to keep track of your achievements. Every time you accomplish something, jot down an entry. Include what you did and why it was important. When possible, show how that achievement helped your company. Include positive comments that other people have made about your work. Review your "brag bag" before sitting down for your performance review. In doing so, you may actually be helping your boss. "At this time of absolute chaos in the workforce, bosses are often doing two or three jobs instead of one," says Peggy Klaus. "They don't have the bandwidth to remember what you do every day." Plus, bosses like good news. Klaus says that when you have a great success at work, you should send your boss a short, enthusiastic e-mail with the news. *
If you work hard, you need to make sure that people notice. Be proud of yourself, even if you don't look like Tom Cruise. *
Access Original Post: http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/18/self-promotion-job-leadership-careers-employment_print.html
***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)