Darling, Do You Really Want To Reject Me? Psychology Today
In the Name of Love [Parallels for Reducing Pain While Communicating Rejection In Any Context]
A Philosopher Looks at Our Deepest Emotions
by Aaron Ben-Zeév
Excerpts:
Adhering to Romantic Ideology, which assumes that love is eternal, eternal, not susceptible to waning, and invulnerable to any threat, complicates and intensifies the painful situation of the rejected person. In such a case, it is harder to interpret romantic rejection as a normal behavior which could happen to anyone. There is no evaluative (or ideological) framework in which the rejected lover can find consolation. On the contrary, the framework he or she believes in denies such an option, as the Carpenters ask about the reason why the sun goes on shining and the sea rushes to shore: "Don't they know it's the end of the world, because you don't love me anymore?"
The pain of romantic separation is exacerbated by the feeling of personal failure, because of the expectation that it should be otherwise (even when the current divorce rate is quite high). This may explain why people take romantic separation, and in particular romantic rejection, in such a harsh manner. It is evident that the separated or rejected lover can find another lover who may even be more suitable; nevertheless, some lovers cannot stand the separation or rejection and commit suicide or kill their beloved. Romantic rejection is painful not merely because of the event itself, but also because of the damage it inflicts upon our self-esteem, which is determined to some extent by the way people evaluate us. Public knowledge of our failures typically hurts our self-esteem.
It is interesting to mention that men often take romantic rejection in a more dramatic manner than women: men are three to four times more likely than women to commit suicide after a love affair has decayed.
When our responsibility for a certain event is reduced, emotional intensity decreases as well (see here). Accordingly, people are less distressed by rejection when it is due to external circumstances. Such circumstances reduce the relevancy of the event to the rejectee's self-esteem and hence reduce the event's strength.
Accordingly, the reasons people prefer to give for refusing dates are primarily impersonal, uncontrollable, and unstable, even though the true reasons may be quite different. The major reason for telling such "white lies" is concern about the rejectee's possible emotional reaction.
People are less distressed by rejection when it is due to impersonal reasons ("I'm going out of town") than when it is due to their own characteristics ("You're a boring person"). A common excuse in this regard is "You are too good for me."
People are also less upset by uncontrollable reasons (the rejector has to study that night) than controllable ones (the rejector does not want to go to a movie that night). Reducing controllability here reduces emotional intensity.
In addition, reasons that are unstable and temporary (the rejector is ill) are less disheartening than more stable, permanent reasons (the rejector is engaged to be married). Unstable, temporary reasons diminish the reality of the rejection somewhat and hence emotional intensity is reduced (see here).
The above considerations can be encapsulated in the following statement that a lover might express: "Darling, if you want to reject my love, please do it in a considerate manner-if possible, one that will lead me to think that actually it is I who wish to reject you."
Read full article: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-the-name-love/200910/darling-do-you-really-want-reject-me
***********************************************************************
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, October 31, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
Directors Say Their Risk Has Increased Since Last Year, According to PricewaterhouseCoopers & Corporate Board Member Survey | Reuters
Directors Say Their Risk Has Increased Since Last Year, According to PricewaterhouseCoopers & Corporate Board Member Survey Reuters
Directors Say Their Risk Has Increased Since Last Year, According to PricewaterhouseCoopers & Corporate Board Member Survey
Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:21am EDT >
69% Say Risk as Director has Increased - Nearly a Twofold Jump from 38% in2008 >
NEW YORK, Oct. 29 /PRNewswire/ -- According to the 8th Annual "What DirectorsThink" survey released today by PricewaterhouseCoopers and Corporate BoardMember magazine, directors are very focused on risk: 69 percent believe theirrisk as a director has increased during the prior 12 months -- a substantialjump from the 38 percent who answered so in 2008. Seventy-five percent ofdirectors surveyed also state that responsibility for risk management restswith the full board. >
Overall, respondents are cautiously optimistic about their ability to monitortheir companies' multitude of risks: 88 percent of directors consider theirboard to be capable, and they rate risk first among responsibilities to whichdirectors should pay the greatest attention, after their focus onprofitability and shareholder value. However, while most directors indicatethey have sufficient board meeting time to comply with their duties asdirectors, 66 percent would prefer to increase the amount of time spentdiscussing risk management. >
In addition to risk management, the current business environment is amongboards' highest of priorities. When asked how their board meeting time shouldbe spent, more than half (60 percent) of the respondents say they should spendmore board meeting time discussing the effects of changes in the economy. >
Yet, while directors want to spend more time on the uncertainties of theeconomy during their meetings, when asked, What keeps you up at night?, fewerthan 25 percent say they worry about the ability of the CEO to manage throughthe current challenges. Instead, 59 percent cite unknown risks in response tothe question of what keeps them up at night. >
Catherine Bromilow, a partner in PricewaterhouseCoopers' Corporate GovernanceGroup, said, "Directors' focus on risk management is particularly timely,given our expectation that companies will have to provide new disclosuresabout their boards' risk oversight in upcoming proxy statements." >
Corporate Board Member president and CEO, TK Kerstetter, said, "Every yearwhen the survey results are announced, we stress the importance of the keyfoundational duties of a board. One is selecting and retaining the rightCEO/management team and second is the responsibility of overseeing riskmanagement, particularly catastrophic risk. >
Kerstetter added, "Even a board with a great corporate governance structurewill be challenged this year by monitoring the risk levels of itsorganization, especially if they have global operations." >
This marks the eighth year for the annual "What Directors Think" survey, whichmeasures the opinions of more than 1,000 directors serving on the boards ofthe top 2,000 publicly traded companies (by revenue) listed with the NYSEEuronext, the NYSE Amex, and the NASDAQ OMX Group stock exchanges. The 2009survey findings are highlighted in Fourth Quarter 2009 Corporate Board Memberissue and can be found on the Corporate Board Member website athttp://www.boardmember.com/. Additional findings and analysis will be published in asupplement mailing in the coming months. >
About PricewaterhouseCoopersPricewaterhouseCoopers (http://www.pwc.com/) provides industry-focused assurance, taxand advisory services to build public trust and enhance value for its clientsand their stakeholders. More than 163,000 people in 151 countries across ournetwork share their thinking, experience and solutions to develop freshperspectives and practical advice. >
"PricewaterhouseCoopers" refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP or, as thecontext requires, the PricewaterhouseCoopers global network or other memberfirms of the network, each of which is a separate and independent legalentity. >
About Corporate Board MemberCorporate Board Member is the leading information resource for senior officersand directors of publicly traded corporations and large private companies. Thequarterly publication provides readers with decision-making tools to deal withthe corporate governance challenges confronting their boards. Corporate BoardMember further extends its governance leadership through an online resourcecenter, conferences, director training programs, roundtables, and timelyresearch. The magazine maintains the most comprehensive, up-to-date databaseof directors and officers serving on boards of publicly traded companieslisted with the NYSE Euronext, The NASDAQ OMX Group and NYSE Amex stockexchanges. Headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee with an editorial office inNew York, Corporate Board Member is published by Board Member Inc. and is thesister publication of Bank Director magazine, the leading information resourcefor officers and directors of financial institutions. For more information,visit http://www.boardmember.com/. >
SOURCE PricewaterhouseCoopers >
Steven Silber, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, +1-646-471-4059,steven.g.silber@us.pwc.com; or Kimberly James, Corporate Board Member,+1-615-309-3203, kjames@boardmember.com; or Marisha Mistry, Edelman,+1-212-704-4592, marisha.mistry@edelman.com >
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved >
***********************************************************************
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.
Directors Say Their Risk Has Increased Since Last Year, According to PricewaterhouseCoopers & Corporate Board Member Survey
Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:21am EDT >
69% Say Risk as Director has Increased - Nearly a Twofold Jump from 38% in2008 >
NEW YORK, Oct. 29 /PRNewswire/ -- According to the 8th Annual "What DirectorsThink" survey released today by PricewaterhouseCoopers and Corporate BoardMember magazine, directors are very focused on risk: 69 percent believe theirrisk as a director has increased during the prior 12 months -- a substantialjump from the 38 percent who answered so in 2008. Seventy-five percent ofdirectors surveyed also state that responsibility for risk management restswith the full board. >
Overall, respondents are cautiously optimistic about their ability to monitortheir companies' multitude of risks: 88 percent of directors consider theirboard to be capable, and they rate risk first among responsibilities to whichdirectors should pay the greatest attention, after their focus onprofitability and shareholder value. However, while most directors indicatethey have sufficient board meeting time to comply with their duties asdirectors, 66 percent would prefer to increase the amount of time spentdiscussing risk management. >
In addition to risk management, the current business environment is amongboards' highest of priorities. When asked how their board meeting time shouldbe spent, more than half (60 percent) of the respondents say they should spendmore board meeting time discussing the effects of changes in the economy. >
Yet, while directors want to spend more time on the uncertainties of theeconomy during their meetings, when asked, What keeps you up at night?, fewerthan 25 percent say they worry about the ability of the CEO to manage throughthe current challenges. Instead, 59 percent cite unknown risks in response tothe question of what keeps them up at night. >
Catherine Bromilow, a partner in PricewaterhouseCoopers' Corporate GovernanceGroup, said, "Directors' focus on risk management is particularly timely,given our expectation that companies will have to provide new disclosuresabout their boards' risk oversight in upcoming proxy statements." >
Corporate Board Member president and CEO, TK Kerstetter, said, "Every yearwhen the survey results are announced, we stress the importance of the keyfoundational duties of a board. One is selecting and retaining the rightCEO/management team and second is the responsibility of overseeing riskmanagement, particularly catastrophic risk. >
Kerstetter added, "Even a board with a great corporate governance structurewill be challenged this year by monitoring the risk levels of itsorganization, especially if they have global operations." >
This marks the eighth year for the annual "What Directors Think" survey, whichmeasures the opinions of more than 1,000 directors serving on the boards ofthe top 2,000 publicly traded companies (by revenue) listed with the NYSEEuronext, the NYSE Amex, and the NASDAQ OMX Group stock exchanges. The 2009survey findings are highlighted in Fourth Quarter 2009 Corporate Board Memberissue and can be found on the Corporate Board Member website athttp://www.boardmember.com/. Additional findings and analysis will be published in asupplement mailing in the coming months. >
About PricewaterhouseCoopersPricewaterhouseCoopers (http://www.pwc.com/) provides industry-focused assurance, taxand advisory services to build public trust and enhance value for its clientsand their stakeholders. More than 163,000 people in 151 countries across ournetwork share their thinking, experience and solutions to develop freshperspectives and practical advice. >
"PricewaterhouseCoopers" refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP or, as thecontext requires, the PricewaterhouseCoopers global network or other memberfirms of the network, each of which is a separate and independent legalentity. >
About Corporate Board MemberCorporate Board Member is the leading information resource for senior officersand directors of publicly traded corporations and large private companies. Thequarterly publication provides readers with decision-making tools to deal withthe corporate governance challenges confronting their boards. Corporate BoardMember further extends its governance leadership through an online resourcecenter, conferences, director training programs, roundtables, and timelyresearch. The magazine maintains the most comprehensive, up-to-date databaseof directors and officers serving on boards of publicly traded companieslisted with the NYSE Euronext, The NASDAQ OMX Group and NYSE Amex stockexchanges. Headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee with an editorial office inNew York, Corporate Board Member is published by Board Member Inc. and is thesister publication of Bank Director magazine, the leading information resourcefor officers and directors of financial institutions. For more information,visit http://www.boardmember.com/. >
SOURCE PricewaterhouseCoopers >
Steven Silber, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, +1-646-471-4059,steven.g.silber@us.pwc.com; or Kimberly James, Corporate Board Member,+1-615-309-3203, kjames@boardmember.com; or Marisha Mistry, Edelman,+1-212-704-4592, marisha.mistry@edelman.com >
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved >
***********************************************************************
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.
Can We Break the Tyranny of Quarterly Results? - Is the U.S. Killing Its Innovation Machine? - Harvard Business Review
Can We Break the Tyranny of Quarterly Results? - Is the U.S. Killing Its Innovation Machine? - Harvard Business Review
Access article: http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/hbr/restoring-american-competitiveness/2009/10/can-we-break-the-tyranny-of-qu.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.
Access article: http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/hbr/restoring-american-competitiveness/2009/10/can-we-break-the-tyranny-of-qu.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.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Employers and Workers Have Different View of Recession
Employers and Workers Have Different View of Recession
Employers and Workers Have Different View of Recession >
Oct. 16, 2009 — Employers and workers are perceiving the impact of the recession much differently, which could lead to employers facing mass talent drains as the labor market begins to turn around, according to new research. >
Monster.com and the Human Capital Institute (HCI) found that employers are vastly overrating the morale of their employees as 84% indicated a belief that their workforce is content to simply to have a job while only 58% of workers feel that way. >
“Today’s employers feel that employees are loyal due to the economic times, but the reality is they are not,” said Katherine Jones, HCI Research Fellow. “Because of this, there is a strong likelihood that when the economy turns for the better, employers could find themselves with valued employees jumping ship. This places pressure on them to put retention measures in place now.” >
Jesse Harriott, senior vice president and chief knowledge officer at Monster, said, “While this environment has created a prime opportunity to acquire top talent and increase selective hiring, it is also a time for employers to prepare their workforces strategically for moving forward in a redefined, healthier economy. However, to do that, they need to better understand the mindset of their employees. As the economy rebounds, those workplaces that have not invested in their people could face a mass exodus of employees, potentially crippling the business.” >
Key findings: >
- 57% of workers believe employers are exploiting the recession to drive longer hours and lower pay from their workforces. <
- 58% believe employers are less concerned about employee retention, and 50% of workers are more concerned about top performers leaving than before the recession. <
- 43% of workers believe employers are now less tolerant of dissent and challenges to authority. Only 26% excuse their employers for requiring layoffs and longer hours because they believe their employer’s hands were forced by the recession. <
- 48% of workers say their productivity has been affected by a fear of being laid-off. >
“There is no denying this environment has been tough for both employers and workers, but the resentment workers have built should be cause for concern for employers, particularly if they have had to impose longer hours, lower pay, decreased benefits or have become a less flexible workplace,” Harriott said. “However, there are always opportunities for employers to understand and listen to the current attitudes of their workforce and make communication a priority. When the economy rebounds, it is the companies who have made the investment in their workforce, and maintained solid talent management practices, that will be poised to retain their top talent.” >
About the SurveyThe findings come from a survey conducted by Monster and HCI in May/June 2009 of more than 700 companies and 5,000 workers in the United States. The three-part research series can be found at http://hiring.monster.com/hr/hr-best-practices/market-intelligence/featured.aspx. >
Contents © 2009 WorldatWork. No part of this article may be reproduced, excerpted or redistributed in any form without express written permission from WorldatWork. >
Read original post: http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimComment?id=35111
***********************************************************************
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.
Employers and Workers Have Different View of Recession >
Oct. 16, 2009 — Employers and workers are perceiving the impact of the recession much differently, which could lead to employers facing mass talent drains as the labor market begins to turn around, according to new research. >
Monster.com and the Human Capital Institute (HCI) found that employers are vastly overrating the morale of their employees as 84% indicated a belief that their workforce is content to simply to have a job while only 58% of workers feel that way. >
“Today’s employers feel that employees are loyal due to the economic times, but the reality is they are not,” said Katherine Jones, HCI Research Fellow. “Because of this, there is a strong likelihood that when the economy turns for the better, employers could find themselves with valued employees jumping ship. This places pressure on them to put retention measures in place now.” >
Jesse Harriott, senior vice president and chief knowledge officer at Monster, said, “While this environment has created a prime opportunity to acquire top talent and increase selective hiring, it is also a time for employers to prepare their workforces strategically for moving forward in a redefined, healthier economy. However, to do that, they need to better understand the mindset of their employees. As the economy rebounds, those workplaces that have not invested in their people could face a mass exodus of employees, potentially crippling the business.” >
Key findings: >
- 57% of workers believe employers are exploiting the recession to drive longer hours and lower pay from their workforces. <
- 58% believe employers are less concerned about employee retention, and 50% of workers are more concerned about top performers leaving than before the recession. <
- 43% of workers believe employers are now less tolerant of dissent and challenges to authority. Only 26% excuse their employers for requiring layoffs and longer hours because they believe their employer’s hands were forced by the recession. <
- 48% of workers say their productivity has been affected by a fear of being laid-off. >
“There is no denying this environment has been tough for both employers and workers, but the resentment workers have built should be cause for concern for employers, particularly if they have had to impose longer hours, lower pay, decreased benefits or have become a less flexible workplace,” Harriott said. “However, there are always opportunities for employers to understand and listen to the current attitudes of their workforce and make communication a priority. When the economy rebounds, it is the companies who have made the investment in their workforce, and maintained solid talent management practices, that will be poised to retain their top talent.” >
About the SurveyThe findings come from a survey conducted by Monster and HCI in May/June 2009 of more than 700 companies and 5,000 workers in the United States. The three-part research series can be found at http://hiring.monster.com/hr/hr-best-practices/market-intelligence/featured.aspx. >
Contents © 2009 WorldatWork. No part of this article may be reproduced, excerpted or redistributed in any form without express written permission from WorldatWork. >
Read original post: http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimComment?id=35111
***********************************************************************
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, October 27, 2009
Myths that Undermine Decision-Making - BusinessWeek
Myths that Undermine Decision-Making - BusinessWeek
BusinessWeek>
ViewpointMyths that Undermine Decision-Making >
If executives and their teams would examine some common misconceptions, an often flawed decision-making process could be improved, writes Bob Frisch>
By Bob Frisch
When executive teams find themselves unhappy with the dynamics of decision-making, they often seek psychological solutions, going through exercises in teamwork, trust, communications, and the like. But through the course of a career spent facilitating these teams, I've found that most of the problems aren't in their psyches, but in the widespread myths about the teams themselves. CEOs and their teams need to take a hard look at these myths, recognize reality, and fix the way they make decisions. >
Myth 1: A Single Team Makes All of the Big Decisions >
Most corporations have in place a top executive team that typically consists of the CEO and direct reports. The rest of the company assumes that all major decisions are made or ratified by that august group. >
The reality is that decisions at the highest levels of companies are made in many forums, formal and informal. For example, the go or no-go for an acquisition may be made in ad hoc meetings involving the CEO, chief financial officer, head of business development, and the president of an operating unit. Many decisions don't require the entire executive team, but only a handful of executives—which ones depends on the nature of the decision. >
But when the real decision-making teams and processes aren't overtly recognized, confusion about the locus of authority often results. Executive-team members who are repeatedly presented with "done deals" feel disempowered. Before you know it, the group is undergoing trust-building exercises when they should be coming to a common understanding about how various types of decisions will be made. >
Myth 2: The Executive Team Is a Body of Equals >
Because executives are peers, functional heads on the executive team might believe that they have the same decision rights in meetings as operating executives. And consequently, small operations could expect the same voice at the table as large ones. Think of the U.S. Senate, where Rhode Island carries the same weight as California. >
But in reality, some people and some functions carry much more weight than others. It's more like the House of Representatives, where California has more votes than Rhode Island, and the Speaker of the House has more influence than a freshman congressman. Often the executive team isn't serving as deliberative body at all, but an advisory one much like the President's Cabinet. >
Problems arise when the team isn't clear about which model of decision-making is in play—Senate, House, or Cabinet. Are they being asked to decide? Are they being asked to advise? Are they being informed about a decision that has already been made? Is it "majority rule"? Are the more powerful members brokering a decision? Is buy-in really needed from the smaller constituencies? Was a decision brokered before the meeting started? It's surprising how often members of a top team involved in a discussion have entirely different views of what kind of input they're being asked for and, afterward, different views of what purpose the discussion served in coming to a decision. >
The solution is not to choose one model of decision rights but simply for the CEO to make clear in advance of a meeting where the group is in the decision-making process, and what is expected from the discussion. This simple step improves discussion quality and heads off confusion and dissatisfaction among team members. >
Myth 3: Team Members Should Always Adopt a CEO Perspective >
Many CEOs expect members at top-team meetings to take off their functional hats and adopt a holistic or companywide perspective. Top executives owe it to the CEO to provide the wisdom gained from their general business experience and their understanding of the company's strategy and objectives. >
But asking everyone always to think like a CEO can be counterproductive. The head of human resources, for example, may not have much to say from a generalist's perspective about a proposal for a new plant. He or she may, however, have opinions about hiring or labor relations at the plant. But raising those issues is often perceived by the CEO and other team members as parochial, and the HR head would be accused of being an ineffective team member. And, so, much of the value of functional expertise is lost from the discussion. >
As with models of power, the answer is not to choose the generalist or functional perspective, but to recognize which model is desirable for different types of decisions, make it explicit, and overtly manage it. >
By addressing all three myths, CEOs build a formalized and flexible range of decision-making environments. Decision-making groups are recognized and chartered, and the nature of any individual's role at any point in any decision is made explicit. With the ability to choose which configuration is most appropriate when, the CEO can then unleash the full power of conscious decision-making. And the Top Team can settle into the central role it ought to have with clarity of purpose, process, role, and outcomes. >
Bob Frisch is the managing partner of the Strategic Offsites Group in Boston. >
Read Original Post: http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/oct2009/ca20091023_024669.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.
BusinessWeek>
Viewpoint
If executives and their teams would examine some common misconceptions, an often flawed decision-making process could be improved, writes Bob Frisch>
By Bob Frisch
When executive teams find themselves unhappy with the dynamics of decision-making, they often seek psychological solutions, going through exercises in teamwork, trust, communications, and the like. But through the course of a career spent facilitating these teams, I've found that most of the problems aren't in their psyches, but in the widespread myths about the teams themselves. CEOs and their teams need to take a hard look at these myths, recognize reality, and fix the way they make decisions. >
Myth 1: A Single Team Makes All of the Big Decisions >
Most corporations have in place a top executive team that typically consists of the CEO and direct reports. The rest of the company assumes that all major decisions are made or ratified by that august group. >
The reality is that decisions at the highest levels of companies are made in many forums, formal and informal. For example, the go or no-go for an acquisition may be made in ad hoc meetings involving the CEO, chief financial officer, head of business development, and the president of an operating unit. Many decisions don't require the entire executive team, but only a handful of executives—which ones depends on the nature of the decision. >
But when the real decision-making teams and processes aren't overtly recognized, confusion about the locus of authority often results. Executive-team members who are repeatedly presented with "done deals" feel disempowered. Before you know it, the group is undergoing trust-building exercises when they should be coming to a common understanding about how various types of decisions will be made. >
Myth 2: The Executive Team Is a Body of Equals >
Because executives are peers, functional heads on the executive team might believe that they have the same decision rights in meetings as operating executives. And consequently, small operations could expect the same voice at the table as large ones. Think of the U.S. Senate, where Rhode Island carries the same weight as California. >
But in reality, some people and some functions carry much more weight than others. It's more like the House of Representatives, where California has more votes than Rhode Island, and the Speaker of the House has more influence than a freshman congressman. Often the executive team isn't serving as deliberative body at all, but an advisory one much like the President's Cabinet. >
Problems arise when the team isn't clear about which model of decision-making is in play—Senate, House, or Cabinet. Are they being asked to decide? Are they being asked to advise? Are they being informed about a decision that has already been made? Is it "majority rule"? Are the more powerful members brokering a decision? Is buy-in really needed from the smaller constituencies? Was a decision brokered before the meeting started? It's surprising how often members of a top team involved in a discussion have entirely different views of what kind of input they're being asked for and, afterward, different views of what purpose the discussion served in coming to a decision. >
The solution is not to choose one model of decision rights but simply for the CEO to make clear in advance of a meeting where the group is in the decision-making process, and what is expected from the discussion. This simple step improves discussion quality and heads off confusion and dissatisfaction among team members. >
Myth 3: Team Members Should Always Adopt a CEO Perspective >
Many CEOs expect members at top-team meetings to take off their functional hats and adopt a holistic or companywide perspective. Top executives owe it to the CEO to provide the wisdom gained from their general business experience and their understanding of the company's strategy and objectives. >
But asking everyone always to think like a CEO can be counterproductive. The head of human resources, for example, may not have much to say from a generalist's perspective about a proposal for a new plant. He or she may, however, have opinions about hiring or labor relations at the plant. But raising those issues is often perceived by the CEO and other team members as parochial, and the HR head would be accused of being an ineffective team member. And, so, much of the value of functional expertise is lost from the discussion. >
As with models of power, the answer is not to choose the generalist or functional perspective, but to recognize which model is desirable for different types of decisions, make it explicit, and overtly manage it. >
By addressing all three myths, CEOs build a formalized and flexible range of decision-making environments. Decision-making groups are recognized and chartered, and the nature of any individual's role at any point in any decision is made explicit. With the ability to choose which configuration is most appropriate when, the CEO can then unleash the full power of conscious decision-making. And the Top Team can settle into the central role it ought to have with clarity of purpose, process, role, and outcomes. >
Bob Frisch is the managing partner of the Strategic Offsites Group in Boston. >
Read Original Post: http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/oct2009/ca20091023_024669.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.
Ken Auletta: 10 things Google has taught us - Oct. 26, 2009
Ken Auletta: 10 things Google has taught us - Oct. 26, 2009
CNN Monday; Fortune 10/26/2009
Fortune >
10 things Google has taught us <
What makes it so revolutionary? <
Ken Auletta, author of a new book on the company, shares his insights on why it's uniquely successful and what that means for the media world >
By Ken Auletta, contributor<>
NEW YORK (Fortune) -- In researching his new book, Googled: the End of the World as We Know It, to be published next week by Penguin Press, author Ken Auletta had extensive access to the company's inner workings and reported widely on its impact on the media landscape.>
In a Fortune.com exclusive, he offers ten enduring lessons dawn from his journey into Google's realm: >
1.) Passion wins >
Start with the words of advice -- "Don't settle" -- that Larry Page offered the Stanford graduating class in 2002. This intensity was revealed in the zeal with which he and Sergey Brin inspired the entire company to "serve the user," to take more risks, to radically improve search. >
Or as CEO Eric Schmidt told me: while he assumed that "Google would be an important company; the founders always assumed that Google would be a defining company." >
A moment after venture capitalist Michael Moritz finished describing Google as "a rare" company, I asked Moritz, an early investor in both Yahoo and Google (GOOG, Fortune 500), whether he felt the same enthusiasm for Yahoo (YHOO, Fortune 500). >
He winced, hesitated, then finally said: "Yahoo is a company I've been close to for a long time and feel a lot of affection and loyalty towards. But within the first 18 months to two years of being associated with Google, I began to understand this was a very different company than Yahoo. It was rooted in the studies of the founders. Google was built on a foundation of Larry's and Sergey's intellectual pursuits. Yahoo was built on the foundations of Jerry's and David's interests. And there's a big gulf between those two." >
That deficit of passion, he suggested, was a reason that Jerry Yang and David Filo chose not to be fully engaged full-time with the company they created.>
2.) Focus is required >
Passion without focus can lead you astray. Bill Campbell, chairman of Intuit and a Silicon Valley mentor who spends a couple of days each week at Google, thinks the key to Google's success is "focused passion." He credits Schmidt for bringing a focus to the founders. >
In an interview with Betsy Morris of Fortune, Steve Jobs offered an interesting and, typically, upside-down perspective on focus: "People think focus means saying yes to the thing you've got to focus on. But that's not what it means at all. It means saying no to the 100 other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully. I'm actually as proud of the many things we haven't done as the things we have done." >
Media mogul Barry Diller, who had an unsettling session with Page and Brin in the early days of Google, when Page would not look up from his PDA to talk to him, now thinks what might be construed as rudeness was really focus. >
"They had their own method of communicating and processing," Diller said. "They give much less quarter than other people do to common business courtesies. They've stayed true to this. It's a spectacular strength. It means you never get de-focused by the crowd." >
3.) Vision is required too >
Without vision, even the most focused passion is a battery without a device. "Don't be evil" is a vague incantation. But Page and Brin's effort to make "all the world's information available,"and to first and foremost serve users, is a vision. >
It's one that successfully drove Google to index the Web, make news and books searchable, treat ads as information and to reject dollars if the ads were not "relevant," help users search for the best or cheapest products, find simple travel directions, store and search their e-mail, and share calendar information. >
Such a vision does not come from survey research. In his 2005 speech to graduating engineers at the University of Michigan, Page told them they didn't have to go to business school. He said he had read an entire shelf of business books when he was younger, and among the lessons he learned was that "many of the amazing insights that happen in business actually come from people who really aren't in the business." >
4.) A team culture is vital >
Google's allocation of 20% of employee time to projects of their own choice give them a sense of proprietorship. True to its open-source, wisdom-of-the-crowd ideals, Google has created a networked management that functions from the bottom-up as well as the top-down. In both directions, it unleashes ideas and effort. >
As Larry Page astutely observes: "There is a pattern in companies, even in technological companies, that the people who do the work -- the engineers, the programmers, the foot soldiers if you will -- typically get rolled over by the management ... you end up kind of demoralized. You want to have a culture where the people who are doing the work, the scientists and the engineers, are empowered. And that they are managed by people who deeply understand what they are doing." >
5.) Treat engineers as kings >
For most Valley companies, engineers are the equivalent of the television writer, the movie director, the book author. They are the creators. The 20% time Google grants its engineers gives them a sense that they are liberated to take risks, to follow their passions.>
Innovation, as Bill Campbell told The McKinsey Quarterly, comes when "the crazy guys have stature, where engineers really are important.... empowered engineers are the single most important thing that you can have in a company.">
It is no accident that Page and Brin and Schmidt spend so many hours each week in meetings with engineers. For most traditional media companies, the engineer is less central. >
However, as digital is now part of the mainstream, and as older media companies struggle to master its challenges, they would do well to heed the advice Google's David Eun offers: Don't do what these companies traditionally do and stick "the geeks in a corner." Instead, CEO's should have at their elbow "a top Chief Technical Officer." >
6.) Treat customers like a king >
An important reason Google is usually listed among the world's most trusted brands is that it conveys a sense that the user comes first. Advertising may produce 97% of Google's revenues, but to a user it doesn't feel that way. Google services are free, and they're user friendly, just as an iPod is. >
The lessons Larry Page took away from reading Donald A. Norman's The Design of Everyday Things while a graduate student at Stanford, helped shape Google's approach to its customers. Or as Page said, "Having an attitude that your customer or users are always right, and your goal is to build systems that work for them in a natural way, is a good attitude to have." >
To understand how Google earned the trust of its users, go back to its 2004 IPO. Again and again it referred to the users as sacrosanct: "We believe that our user focus is the foundation of our success to date. We also believe that this focus is critical for the creation of long-term value. We do not intend to compromise our user focus for short-term economic gain." >
By focusing on the user, Page and Brin provided an organizing principle for Google employees that echoed Sam Walton's adage: " 'If you don't listen to your customers, someone else will.'" >
7.) Every company is a frenemy >
What Lord Palmerston said of nations applies as well to corporations: There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests. A medium like the internet blurs the borders between companies, sometimes making it more difficult to sight a potential rival or to distinguish between ally and foe. >
Google started as a search engine, but quickly realized it could efficiently sell ads or aggregate news or search books or use its infrastructure to create cloud computing or expand into video by acquiring YouTube or expand into mobile devices. >
At the same time, Google's AdSense helps newspapers by supplying them with ad dollars; AdWords partners with ad agencies to sell products; YouTube is a coveted promotional platform for the television networks; Android software supplies an operating system for more than a few mobile telephone companies. >
These horizontal ambitions, coupled with the fears aroused by the speed of technological change, inevitably frays the bond of trust among companies. Most companies become frenemies, both cooperating and competing. >
8.) Don't ignore the human factor >
As a journalist, the deeper one burrows, the more complicated narratives and the people who populate them usually become. Among the enduring truths I keep bumping into when there is the luxury of time to get to know people or institutions, is that their decisions are often made for what are not, strictly speaking, reasons of logic. These can be ascribed to human factors. How to measure wisdom, judgment, sensitivity, relationships? >
Google has been wise in winning the trust of its users, in building a team culture, and in thinking long-term. But when you start from a blanket assumption that the old ways of doing things are probably wrong, as Google does, you're bound to make unwise mistakes. >
Page was unwise to assume Google could immediately digitize all books, just as Google was wrong to assume that it could devise formulas to better sell ads for newspapers and broadcast radio, two efforts it has since abandoned. Google has not always been wise in avoiding battles, in being insensitive to copyright, or privacy, or the concerns of government. >
9.) There are no certitudes >
Today, Google appears impregnable. But a decade ago so did AOL, and so did the combination of AOL Time Warner. >
"There is nothing about their model that makes them invulnerable," Clayton Christensen, the Harvard business historian and author of the seminal, The Innovators Dilemma, told me. "Think IBM. They had a 70% market share of mainframe computers. Then the government decided to challenge them. Then the PC emerged." >
Seemingly overnight, computing moved from mainframes to PCs. "Lots of companies are successful and are applauded by the financial community," Christensen said. "Then their stock price stalls because they are no longer surprising investors with their growth. So they strive to grow but forget the principles that made them great -- getting into the market quickly, not throwing money at the wrong thing. When you have so much money you become so patient that you wait too long. Look at Microsoft. No one can fault them for not investing in growth ideas. But none of these have grown up to be the next Windows." >
Maybe, Christensen added, we are now beginning to "see this at Google." The company has poured money into YouTube and Android and cloud computing, but has yet "to figure out the business model for each." >
10.) "Life is long but time is short." >
The words belong to Eric Schmidt, who explained: "Life is long in the sense that we have long memories. Time is short in that you have to move very quickly. But to me the most important thing to know is that life has a way of working things out. We forget so quickly what the problem was three or four years ago. So my personal view of life is that every problem is an opportunity." >
This is a reason to think and act boldly, as Google has, to take risks, and not to be anchored down by "long memories." >
Find this article at: http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/22/technology/auletta_maxims.fortune/index.htm
© 2007 Cable News Network LP, LLP.
***********************************************************************
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.
CNN Monday; Fortune 10/26/2009
Fortune >
10 things Google has taught us <
What makes it so revolutionary? <
Ken Auletta, author of a new book on the company, shares his insights on why it's uniquely successful and what that means for the media world >
By Ken Auletta, contributor<>
NEW YORK (Fortune) -- In researching his new book, Googled: the End of the World as We Know It, to be published next week by Penguin Press, author Ken Auletta had extensive access to the company's inner workings and reported widely on its impact on the media landscape.>
In a Fortune.com exclusive, he offers ten enduring lessons dawn from his journey into Google's realm: >
1.) Passion wins >
Start with the words of advice -- "Don't settle" -- that Larry Page offered the Stanford graduating class in 2002. This intensity was revealed in the zeal with which he and Sergey Brin inspired the entire company to "serve the user," to take more risks, to radically improve search. >
Or as CEO Eric Schmidt told me: while he assumed that "Google would be an important company; the founders always assumed that Google would be a defining company." >
A moment after venture capitalist Michael Moritz finished describing Google as "a rare" company, I asked Moritz, an early investor in both Yahoo and Google (GOOG, Fortune 500), whether he felt the same enthusiasm for Yahoo (YHOO, Fortune 500). >
He winced, hesitated, then finally said: "Yahoo is a company I've been close to for a long time and feel a lot of affection and loyalty towards. But within the first 18 months to two years of being associated with Google, I began to understand this was a very different company than Yahoo. It was rooted in the studies of the founders. Google was built on a foundation of Larry's and Sergey's intellectual pursuits. Yahoo was built on the foundations of Jerry's and David's interests. And there's a big gulf between those two." >
That deficit of passion, he suggested, was a reason that Jerry Yang and David Filo chose not to be fully engaged full-time with the company they created.>
2.) Focus is required >
Passion without focus can lead you astray. Bill Campbell, chairman of Intuit and a Silicon Valley mentor who spends a couple of days each week at Google, thinks the key to Google's success is "focused passion." He credits Schmidt for bringing a focus to the founders. >
In an interview with Betsy Morris of Fortune, Steve Jobs offered an interesting and, typically, upside-down perspective on focus: "People think focus means saying yes to the thing you've got to focus on. But that's not what it means at all. It means saying no to the 100 other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully. I'm actually as proud of the many things we haven't done as the things we have done." >
Media mogul Barry Diller, who had an unsettling session with Page and Brin in the early days of Google, when Page would not look up from his PDA to talk to him, now thinks what might be construed as rudeness was really focus. >
"They had their own method of communicating and processing," Diller said. "They give much less quarter than other people do to common business courtesies. They've stayed true to this. It's a spectacular strength. It means you never get de-focused by the crowd." >
3.) Vision is required too >
Without vision, even the most focused passion is a battery without a device. "Don't be evil" is a vague incantation. But Page and Brin's effort to make "all the world's information available,"and to first and foremost serve users, is a vision. >
It's one that successfully drove Google to index the Web, make news and books searchable, treat ads as information and to reject dollars if the ads were not "relevant," help users search for the best or cheapest products, find simple travel directions, store and search their e-mail, and share calendar information. >
Such a vision does not come from survey research. In his 2005 speech to graduating engineers at the University of Michigan, Page told them they didn't have to go to business school. He said he had read an entire shelf of business books when he was younger, and among the lessons he learned was that "many of the amazing insights that happen in business actually come from people who really aren't in the business." >
4.) A team culture is vital >
Google's allocation of 20% of employee time to projects of their own choice give them a sense of proprietorship. True to its open-source, wisdom-of-the-crowd ideals, Google has created a networked management that functions from the bottom-up as well as the top-down. In both directions, it unleashes ideas and effort. >
As Larry Page astutely observes: "There is a pattern in companies, even in technological companies, that the people who do the work -- the engineers, the programmers, the foot soldiers if you will -- typically get rolled over by the management ... you end up kind of demoralized. You want to have a culture where the people who are doing the work, the scientists and the engineers, are empowered. And that they are managed by people who deeply understand what they are doing." >
5.) Treat engineers as kings >
For most Valley companies, engineers are the equivalent of the television writer, the movie director, the book author. They are the creators. The 20% time Google grants its engineers gives them a sense that they are liberated to take risks, to follow their passions.>
Innovation, as Bill Campbell told The McKinsey Quarterly, comes when "the crazy guys have stature, where engineers really are important.... empowered engineers are the single most important thing that you can have in a company.">
It is no accident that Page and Brin and Schmidt spend so many hours each week in meetings with engineers. For most traditional media companies, the engineer is less central. >
However, as digital is now part of the mainstream, and as older media companies struggle to master its challenges, they would do well to heed the advice Google's David Eun offers: Don't do what these companies traditionally do and stick "the geeks in a corner." Instead, CEO's should have at their elbow "a top Chief Technical Officer." >
6.) Treat customers like a king >
An important reason Google is usually listed among the world's most trusted brands is that it conveys a sense that the user comes first. Advertising may produce 97% of Google's revenues, but to a user it doesn't feel that way. Google services are free, and they're user friendly, just as an iPod is. >
The lessons Larry Page took away from reading Donald A. Norman's The Design of Everyday Things while a graduate student at Stanford, helped shape Google's approach to its customers. Or as Page said, "Having an attitude that your customer or users are always right, and your goal is to build systems that work for them in a natural way, is a good attitude to have." >
To understand how Google earned the trust of its users, go back to its 2004 IPO. Again and again it referred to the users as sacrosanct: "We believe that our user focus is the foundation of our success to date. We also believe that this focus is critical for the creation of long-term value. We do not intend to compromise our user focus for short-term economic gain." >
By focusing on the user, Page and Brin provided an organizing principle for Google employees that echoed Sam Walton's adage: " 'If you don't listen to your customers, someone else will.'" >
7.) Every company is a frenemy >
What Lord Palmerston said of nations applies as well to corporations: There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests. A medium like the internet blurs the borders between companies, sometimes making it more difficult to sight a potential rival or to distinguish between ally and foe. >
Google started as a search engine, but quickly realized it could efficiently sell ads or aggregate news or search books or use its infrastructure to create cloud computing or expand into video by acquiring YouTube or expand into mobile devices. >
At the same time, Google's AdSense helps newspapers by supplying them with ad dollars; AdWords partners with ad agencies to sell products; YouTube is a coveted promotional platform for the television networks; Android software supplies an operating system for more than a few mobile telephone companies. >
These horizontal ambitions, coupled with the fears aroused by the speed of technological change, inevitably frays the bond of trust among companies. Most companies become frenemies, both cooperating and competing. >
8.) Don't ignore the human factor >
As a journalist, the deeper one burrows, the more complicated narratives and the people who populate them usually become. Among the enduring truths I keep bumping into when there is the luxury of time to get to know people or institutions, is that their decisions are often made for what are not, strictly speaking, reasons of logic. These can be ascribed to human factors. How to measure wisdom, judgment, sensitivity, relationships? >
Google has been wise in winning the trust of its users, in building a team culture, and in thinking long-term. But when you start from a blanket assumption that the old ways of doing things are probably wrong, as Google does, you're bound to make unwise mistakes. >
Page was unwise to assume Google could immediately digitize all books, just as Google was wrong to assume that it could devise formulas to better sell ads for newspapers and broadcast radio, two efforts it has since abandoned. Google has not always been wise in avoiding battles, in being insensitive to copyright, or privacy, or the concerns of government. >
9.) There are no certitudes >
Today, Google appears impregnable. But a decade ago so did AOL, and so did the combination of AOL Time Warner. >
"There is nothing about their model that makes them invulnerable," Clayton Christensen, the Harvard business historian and author of the seminal, The Innovators Dilemma, told me. "Think IBM. They had a 70% market share of mainframe computers. Then the government decided to challenge them. Then the PC emerged." >
Seemingly overnight, computing moved from mainframes to PCs. "Lots of companies are successful and are applauded by the financial community," Christensen said. "Then their stock price stalls because they are no longer surprising investors with their growth. So they strive to grow but forget the principles that made them great -- getting into the market quickly, not throwing money at the wrong thing. When you have so much money you become so patient that you wait too long. Look at Microsoft. No one can fault them for not investing in growth ideas. But none of these have grown up to be the next Windows." >
Maybe, Christensen added, we are now beginning to "see this at Google." The company has poured money into YouTube and Android and cloud computing, but has yet "to figure out the business model for each." >
10.) "Life is long but time is short." >
The words belong to Eric Schmidt, who explained: "Life is long in the sense that we have long memories. Time is short in that you have to move very quickly. But to me the most important thing to know is that life has a way of working things out. We forget so quickly what the problem was three or four years ago. So my personal view of life is that every problem is an opportunity." >
This is a reason to think and act boldly, as Google has, to take risks, and not to be anchored down by "long memories." >
Find this article at: http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/22/technology/auletta_maxims.fortune/index.htm
© 2007 Cable News Network LP, LLP.
***********************************************************************
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.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Positive Psychology News Daily » Inside the Love Lab: Seven Principles of Making Marriage Work
Positive Psychology News Daily » Inside the Love Lab: Seven Principles of Making Marriage Work
Inside the Love Lab: Seven Principles of Making Marriage Work
By Laura L.C. Johnson on October 24, 2009 – 11:07 pm No Comment
Laura L.C. Johnson, MBA, MA, is working toward licensure as a marriage and family therapist in California. Visit http://www.lauralcjohnson.com/. Laura practices a positive therapy approach to help her clients learn skills to build positive emotions, optimism and resilience while decreasing unhelpful thinking, behaviors and emotions. Full bio.
Laura writes on the 25th of each month, and her past articles are here.
In the “Love Lab,” researchers claim they can predict with 91% accuracy whether a couple will thrive or fail after watching and listening to them for just five minutes. The Love Lab is actually Dr. John Gottman’s Relationship Research Institute near the University of Washington in Seattle. Gottman and his team have been studying how couples argue and resolve conflict and have followed hundreds of couples over time to see if their marriages last. Using a scientific approach, they have found four negative factors that can predict divorce and seven positive principles that predict marital success.
The Four Horsemen>
Gottman says he looks for certain kinds of negativity, which he calls the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse,” to predict a relationship’s failure: >
The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work>
Based on Gottman’s research, he has developed seven principles that help improve a marriage’s chances of success: >
1. Enhance Your Love Maps - Emotionally intelligent couples are familiar with the details of each other’s world. They remember the major events in each other’s history and keep up to date as the facts and feelings of their partner’s world changes. They know each other’s goals, worries and hopes in life. >
2. Nurture Your Fondness and Admiration - This is one of the most critical elements in a rewarding and long-lasting marriage. It involves feeling that your partner is still worthy of honor and respect in spite of their flaws. Gottman found that 94% of the time when couples put a positive spin on their marriage’s history, they are likely to have a happy future.>
3. Turn Toward Each Other Instead of Away - When a partner makes a bid for your attention, affection, humor or support, turning toward your partner is the basis of emotional connection. The real secret is to turn to turn toward each other in little ways every day. >
4. Let Your Partner Influence You - The happiest marriages were those where the husband was able to convey honor and respect for their wife and did not resist sharing power and decision making. These husbands actively search for common ground instead of insisting on getting their way. Gottman found women were more likely to let their husbands influence them by taking their opinions and feelings into account. >
5. Solve Your Solvable Problems - Resolving conflict involves five steps: soften your startup, learn to make and receive repair attempts, soothe yourself and each other, compromise and be tolerant of each other’s faults. Some suggested practices include:>
6. Overcome Gridlock - Ending gridlock doesn’t mean solving the problem, but rather moving from gridlock to dialogue. Some steps are: >
7. Create Shared Meaning - See if you can agree on the fundamentals in life. Create an atmosphere where you can speak candidly and respectfully about your values and dreams. Accept and respect that you each may have some dreams that the other doesn’t share. >
How the Principles Work >
Gottman did a nine-month follow-up of 640 couples who attended a two-day workshop where couples were trained in the seven principles for making marriage work. He found that the relapse rate, or return to their previous level of marital distress, was only 20% for couples who attended the workshop versus 30% to 50% for standard marital therapy. >
References: >
Driver, J. L. & Gottman, J. M. (2004). Daily marital interactions and positive affect during marital conflict among newlywed couples. Family Process, 43 (3), 301-314.>
Gottman, J. Making Marriage Work >
Gottman, J. M., Driver, J. & Tabares, A. T. (2002). Building the sound marital house: An empirically derived couple therapy. In Gurman, A.S. & Jacobson, N. S. (Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (pp. 373-399). New York: Guilford. >
Gottman, J. M. & Levenson, R. W. (2002). A two-factor model for predicting when a couple will divorce: Exploratory analysis using 14-year longitudinal data. Family Process, 41 (1), 83-96. >
Gottman, J. M. & Notarius, C. I. (2002). Marital research in the 20th century and a research agenda for the 21st century. Family Process, 41 (2), 159-197. >
Gottman, J. M. & Carrere, S. (2000). Welcome to the love lab. Psychology Today, September/Ocober Issue, 42-87. >
Gottman, J. & Silver, N. (2000). The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work: A Practical Guide from the Country’s Foremost Relationship Expert. New York: Three Rivers Press. >
Read original post: http://positivepsychologynews.com/news/laura-lc-johnson/200910244255
***********************************************************************
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.
Inside the Love Lab: Seven Principles of Making Marriage Work
By Laura L.C. Johnson on October 24, 2009 – 11:07 pm No Comment
Laura L.C. Johnson, MBA, MA, is working toward licensure as a marriage and family therapist in California. Visit http://www.lauralcjohnson.com/. Laura practices a positive therapy approach to help her clients learn skills to build positive emotions, optimism and resilience while decreasing unhelpful thinking, behaviors and emotions. Full bio.
Laura writes on the 25th of each month, and her past articles are here.
In the “Love Lab,” researchers claim they can predict with 91% accuracy whether a couple will thrive or fail after watching and listening to them for just five minutes. The Love Lab is actually Dr. John Gottman’s Relationship Research Institute near the University of Washington in Seattle. Gottman and his team have been studying how couples argue and resolve conflict and have followed hundreds of couples over time to see if their marriages last. Using a scientific approach, they have found four negative factors that can predict divorce and seven positive principles that predict marital success.
The Four Horsemen>
Gottman says he looks for certain kinds of negativity, which he calls the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse,” to predict a relationship’s failure: >
Criticism – Global negative statements about yourRepair attempts are efforts a couple makes to deescalate tension during conflict – “to put on the brakes so flooding is prevented.” The Four Horsemen alone predict divorce with 82% accuracy but when you add in the failure of repair attempts, the accuracy goes to 90+%.>
partner’s character or personality.>
Contempt – Sarcasm, cynicism, name-calling, eye-rolling,
sneering, mockery and hostile humor can be poisonous because they convey
disgust.
Defensiveness – This is a way of blaming your
partner and can escalate the conflict. >
Stonewalling – A partner may disengage from the
relationship, signaled by looking away without saying anything and acting as
though he/she doesn’t care about what the other is saying. >
The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work>
Based on Gottman’s research, he has developed seven principles that help improve a marriage’s chances of success: >
1. Enhance Your Love Maps - Emotionally intelligent couples are familiar with the details of each other’s world. They remember the major events in each other’s history and keep up to date as the facts and feelings of their partner’s world changes. They know each other’s goals, worries and hopes in life. >
2. Nurture Your Fondness and Admiration - This is one of the most critical elements in a rewarding and long-lasting marriage. It involves feeling that your partner is still worthy of honor and respect in spite of their flaws. Gottman found that 94% of the time when couples put a positive spin on their marriage’s history, they are likely to have a happy future.>
3. Turn Toward Each Other Instead of Away - When a partner makes a bid for your attention, affection, humor or support, turning toward your partner is the basis of emotional connection. The real secret is to turn to turn toward each other in little ways every day. >
4. Let Your Partner Influence You - The happiest marriages were those where the husband was able to convey honor and respect for their wife and did not resist sharing power and decision making. These husbands actively search for common ground instead of insisting on getting their way. Gottman found women were more likely to let their husbands influence them by taking their opinions and feelings into account. >
5. Solve Your Solvable Problems - Resolving conflict involves five steps: soften your startup, learn to make and receive repair attempts, soothe yourself and each other, compromise and be tolerant of each other’s faults. Some suggested practices include:>
• Complain but don’t blame. <
• Make statements that start with “I” instead of “You.” <
• Describe what is happening, don’t evaluate or judge. <
• Be clear, polite and appreciative. <
• Don’t store things up. >
6. Overcome Gridlock - Ending gridlock doesn’t mean solving the problem, but rather moving from gridlock to dialogue. Some steps are: >
• Learn to uncover your partner’s dreams.<
• Understand why each of you feels so strongly about the gridlocked
issue.<
• Soothe each other to avoid flooding.<
• End the gridlock by making peace with the issue, accepting the
differences between you, talking without hurting each other and compromising.
>
7. Create Shared Meaning - See if you can agree on the fundamentals in life. Create an atmosphere where you can speak candidly and respectfully about your values and dreams. Accept and respect that you each may have some dreams that the other doesn’t share. >
How the Principles Work >
Gottman did a nine-month follow-up of 640 couples who attended a two-day workshop where couples were trained in the seven principles for making marriage work. He found that the relapse rate, or return to their previous level of marital distress, was only 20% for couples who attended the workshop versus 30% to 50% for standard marital therapy. >
References: >
Driver, J. L. & Gottman, J. M. (2004). Daily marital interactions and positive affect during marital conflict among newlywed couples. Family Process, 43 (3), 301-314.>
Gottman, J. Making Marriage Work >
Gottman, J. M., Driver, J. & Tabares, A. T. (2002). Building the sound marital house: An empirically derived couple therapy. In Gurman, A.S. & Jacobson, N. S. (Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (pp. 373-399). New York: Guilford. >
Gottman, J. M. & Levenson, R. W. (2002). A two-factor model for predicting when a couple will divorce: Exploratory analysis using 14-year longitudinal data. Family Process, 41 (1), 83-96. >
Gottman, J. M. & Notarius, C. I. (2002). Marital research in the 20th century and a research agenda for the 21st century. Family Process, 41 (2), 159-197. >
Gottman, J. M. & Carrere, S. (2000). Welcome to the love lab. Psychology Today, September/Ocober Issue, 42-87. >
Gottman, J. & Silver, N. (2000). The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work: A Practical Guide from the Country’s Foremost Relationship Expert. New York: Three Rivers Press. >
Read original post: http://positivepsychologynews.com/news/laura-lc-johnson/200910244255
***********************************************************************
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 Science of Speed-Dating - Part I | Psychology Today
The Science of Speed-Dating - Part I Psychology Today
Evolved Primate
Identity, decision making and human behavior from an integrated social science perspective.
by Daniel R. Hawes
October 22, 2009, Behavioral Economics
The Science of Speed-Dating - Part I
Excerpts:
As a main result from this study, we find that people perceive reciprocity in two different flavors, when it comes to romance. While in non-romantic contexts, we are quick to like those who like us back, in romantic contexts we like only those who like us back exclusively. That is, the authors find that the effect of reciprocity differs "depending on whether it is exhibited uniquely toward a particular individual (with positive reciprocal effects) or toward individuals in general (with negative reciprocal effects)."
So if we took any one of our Speed Daters and found that he or she only liked one other person enough to be interested in meeting again, we would usually find that this liking was a match. I.e. the liked person would also want to meet our Speed Dater again. In contrast, if we took a Speed Dater who felt like a number of participants were worthwhile meeting again, we would generally have a difficult time finding anybody who actually liked them back. The authors do not really delve into the sadness of this finding, but conclude that
***********************************************************************
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.
Evolved Primate
Identity, decision making and human behavior from an integrated social science perspective.
by Daniel R. Hawes
October 22, 2009, Behavioral Economics
The Science of Speed-Dating - Part I
Excerpts:
As a main result from this study, we find that people perceive reciprocity in two different flavors, when it comes to romance. While in non-romantic contexts, we are quick to like those who like us back, in romantic contexts we like only those who like us back exclusively. That is, the authors find that the effect of reciprocity differs "depending on whether it is exhibited uniquely toward a particular individual (with positive reciprocal effects) or toward individuals in general (with negative reciprocal effects)."
So if we took any one of our Speed Daters and found that he or she only liked one other person enough to be interested in meeting again, we would usually find that this liking was a match. I.e. the liked person would also want to meet our Speed Dater again. In contrast, if we took a Speed Dater who felt like a number of participants were worthwhile meeting again, we would generally have a difficult time finding anybody who actually liked them back. The authors do not really delve into the sadness of this finding, but conclude that
"the emergence of these effects in a 4-min interaction governed by strong
social-desirability concerns and conversational norms suggests that humans
possess an impressive, highly attuned ability to assess such subtleties of
romantic attraction. In fact, the need to feel special or unique could be a
broad motivation that stretches across people's social
lives. The importance of this need is certainly pronounced in established
intimate relationships and friendships; the present study permits the additional
conjecture that the need to feel special plays a central role even within the
first few moments of a romantic encounter."Read full post: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolved-primate/200910/the-science-speed-dating-part-i
***********************************************************************
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, October 24, 2009
Your Money - Four Talks About Money to Have Before Marriage - NYTimes.com
Your Money - Four Talks About Money to Have Before Marriage - NYTimes.com
New York TimesOctober 24, 2009Your Money >
Money Talks to Have Before Marriage >
By RON LIEBER>
Divorce tends to be emotionally gut-wrenching for the people who go through it (not to mention those around them). But most couples don’t realize that divorce can also be among the most ruinous financial moves anyone can make. >
Sure, you could bet big and lose on a single stock or money manager. Or your small business could go bankrupt, taking your life savings with it. But divorce and the costs that often come with it — from legal bills to the sudden need for an additional residence — affect far more people. >
The risk that any marriage will end in divorce is about 45 percent, according to David Popenoe, a professor of sociology emeritus at Rutgers University. The chances fall to about 40 percent for first marriages and decline further for college-educated couples, people from intact families and couples who share the same religion. >
Given the various financial complications, I’ve long wanted to devote a series of columns to divorce and money. This week, I’ll start with a topic that could save some marriages if more people made it a priority. It’s crucial to air and resolve financial disagreements beforehand. >
“It’s almost impossible to be hooked up to somebody who has the same balance of spender and saver as you, or expansiveness versus conservativeness or financial circumstances,” says Gregory A. Kuhlman, a New York City psychologist who runs marriage success training programs with his wife, Patricia Schell Kuhlman>
He adds that the mix gets even more volatile with second marriages, when couples may have children, ingrained financial habits and savings or other assets that necessitate the discussion of a prenuptial agreement. “Success in marriage is only partly attributable to compatibility. It’s about how you manage those differences and whether you have a style for doing so that is successful.” >
What follows is a list of four financial issues that ought to be near the top of the discussion list before getting married. Please add to the list in the comments of the online version of this article.>
ANCESTRY When Lisa J. B. Peterson started her Boston-based financial planning firm, Lantern Financial, she knew she wanted to focus her practice on young professionals. She quickly realized that many of them could use premarital financial counseling and built a program called Harmoney around their needs. >One of the first things she asks clients about is what she refers to as their financial ancestry. “It’s looking back at your own personal past,” she says. “How did your parents deal with money, how does that impact how you deal with it, and how might that impact the couple’s relationship?” >
Because so many of our money behaviors are learned, she asks couples to share their earliest money memories — whether their father hid money from their mother or how either parent fretted over the funds available. This can be a particularly intense discussion for people whose parents were divorced, and the stories are sometimes accompanied by tears. “Money is so emotional, and people forget that,” Ms. Peterson says. “You think that it’s just numbers.”>
CREDIT While it’s about the least romantic subject imaginable, your credit history holds a chunk of your permanent financial record. It follows naturally from the ancestry conversation, and Lantern Financial pulls credit reports and scores for its clients. >
Molly Milinazzo and Scott Donovan, an engaged couple who live in the Dorchester section of Boston and are both 24 years old, were relieved to discover that their scores were within about 15 points of one another when they went through the Harmoney program in May. “A lot of people end up surprised, and it’s best to keep those kinds of surprises at bay,” Ms. Milinazzo says.>
Full disclosure on the credit front is useful for two reasons. First, a credit report is, in part, a catalog of past mistakes and overall habits — loan payments you missed or department store credit cards you didn’t really need. That in itself is a good starting point for a discussion about what you’ve learned (or still need to learn) about handling money. >
There’s an immediate practical side to this, too. If there are errors or low credit scores that a couple can improve, there may still be time to make the fixes so that the couple can get the best rates on a loan for their first home a year or two later. >
CONTROL Figuring out who will pay the bills each month may not seem to be an important conversation or assignment. But it gets tricky when both people want to take it on. “People understand that in a relationship, money is control,” says Jeff Kostis, a financial planner in Vernon Hills, Ill., who walks engaged couples and newlyweds through a checklist of questions. “If you’re not paying the bills, you don’t know where the money is going, and you feel like ‘He doesn’t want me to go out with my friends’ or ‘She doesn’t want me to play in the fantasy football pool.’ ” >
For two people who have both been on their own for a while and don’t want to give up doing the monthly financial chores their own way, Mr. Kostis suggests, at a minimum, regular household meetings complete with Quicken or other spreadsheets so that the person writing the checks can keep the other one up to speed. With more stubborn couples, he might suggest handing the controls back and forth at the beginning of each year. >
Mr. Kuhlman, who explains the counseling approach he and his wife take with clients at stayhitched.com, says it shouldn’t be surprising that control issues come up constantly when talking about money. “It’s concrete, you can see it,” he says. “It’s not ephemeral or less measurable, like affection.” >
A few things that he suggests couples discuss early on: If one person is making most or all of the money, does that person get to make most or all of the financial decisions? If you’re the car aficionado or have researched all of the local school options for the children, do you get to make the decisions about those things? “These are the kinds of things that don’t come out when you’re dating,” he says. >
AFFLUENCE Here’s another question that tends not to come up during courtship: Just how rich do we want to be one day? Mr. Kuhlman refers to this more politely as the “desired level of affluence.” “Are our career paths going to be something that pulls us together? Or, more often, are they things that will tend to pull us apart, where we’ll really have to be proactive to make sure it’s under control?” he says. >
Mr. Kostis might put it a bit more bluntly, say to a spouse of an aspiring investment banker or corporate lawyer: Are you O.K. with acting essentially as a single parent, with your partner working 80 hours a week until the age of 80? “Not that there is a right or wrong answer,” he says. “It’s just about understanding, going into the marriage, what that would really mean.” >
He adds that people in the financial advice business often joke that they spend half their time talking about money and the other half acting as marriage counselor. “But it’s the same communication style,” he says. “You’re giving people permission to be honest without having someone jump down their throat for giving the answer that they really want to give.” >
What did your divorce cost you? Write to rlieber@nytimes.com.>
Access Original Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/your-money/24money.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.
New York TimesOctober 24, 2009Your Money >
Money Talks to Have Before Marriage >
By RON LIEBER>
Divorce tends to be emotionally gut-wrenching for the people who go through it (not to mention those around them). But most couples don’t realize that divorce can also be among the most ruinous financial moves anyone can make. >
Sure, you could bet big and lose on a single stock or money manager. Or your small business could go bankrupt, taking your life savings with it. But divorce and the costs that often come with it — from legal bills to the sudden need for an additional residence — affect far more people. >
The risk that any marriage will end in divorce is about 45 percent, according to David Popenoe, a professor of sociology emeritus at Rutgers University. The chances fall to about 40 percent for first marriages and decline further for college-educated couples, people from intact families and couples who share the same religion. >
Given the various financial complications, I’ve long wanted to devote a series of columns to divorce and money. This week, I’ll start with a topic that could save some marriages if more people made it a priority. It’s crucial to air and resolve financial disagreements beforehand. >
“It’s almost impossible to be hooked up to somebody who has the same balance of spender and saver as you, or expansiveness versus conservativeness or financial circumstances,” says Gregory A. Kuhlman, a New York City psychologist who runs marriage success training programs with his wife, Patricia Schell Kuhlman>
He adds that the mix gets even more volatile with second marriages, when couples may have children, ingrained financial habits and savings or other assets that necessitate the discussion of a prenuptial agreement. “Success in marriage is only partly attributable to compatibility. It’s about how you manage those differences and whether you have a style for doing so that is successful.” >
What follows is a list of four financial issues that ought to be near the top of the discussion list before getting married. Please add to the list in the comments of the online version of this article.>
ANCESTRY When Lisa J. B. Peterson started her Boston-based financial planning firm, Lantern Financial, she knew she wanted to focus her practice on young professionals. She quickly realized that many of them could use premarital financial counseling and built a program called Harmoney around their needs. >One of the first things she asks clients about is what she refers to as their financial ancestry. “It’s looking back at your own personal past,” she says. “How did your parents deal with money, how does that impact how you deal with it, and how might that impact the couple’s relationship?” >
Because so many of our money behaviors are learned, she asks couples to share their earliest money memories — whether their father hid money from their mother or how either parent fretted over the funds available. This can be a particularly intense discussion for people whose parents were divorced, and the stories are sometimes accompanied by tears. “Money is so emotional, and people forget that,” Ms. Peterson says. “You think that it’s just numbers.”>
CREDIT While it’s about the least romantic subject imaginable, your credit history holds a chunk of your permanent financial record. It follows naturally from the ancestry conversation, and Lantern Financial pulls credit reports and scores for its clients. >
Molly Milinazzo and Scott Donovan, an engaged couple who live in the Dorchester section of Boston and are both 24 years old, were relieved to discover that their scores were within about 15 points of one another when they went through the Harmoney program in May. “A lot of people end up surprised, and it’s best to keep those kinds of surprises at bay,” Ms. Milinazzo says.>
Full disclosure on the credit front is useful for two reasons. First, a credit report is, in part, a catalog of past mistakes and overall habits — loan payments you missed or department store credit cards you didn’t really need. That in itself is a good starting point for a discussion about what you’ve learned (or still need to learn) about handling money. >
There’s an immediate practical side to this, too. If there are errors or low credit scores that a couple can improve, there may still be time to make the fixes so that the couple can get the best rates on a loan for their first home a year or two later. >
CONTROL Figuring out who will pay the bills each month may not seem to be an important conversation or assignment. But it gets tricky when both people want to take it on. “People understand that in a relationship, money is control,” says Jeff Kostis, a financial planner in Vernon Hills, Ill., who walks engaged couples and newlyweds through a checklist of questions. “If you’re not paying the bills, you don’t know where the money is going, and you feel like ‘He doesn’t want me to go out with my friends’ or ‘She doesn’t want me to play in the fantasy football pool.’ ” >
For two people who have both been on their own for a while and don’t want to give up doing the monthly financial chores their own way, Mr. Kostis suggests, at a minimum, regular household meetings complete with Quicken or other spreadsheets so that the person writing the checks can keep the other one up to speed. With more stubborn couples, he might suggest handing the controls back and forth at the beginning of each year. >
Mr. Kuhlman, who explains the counseling approach he and his wife take with clients at stayhitched.com, says it shouldn’t be surprising that control issues come up constantly when talking about money. “It’s concrete, you can see it,” he says. “It’s not ephemeral or less measurable, like affection.” >
A few things that he suggests couples discuss early on: If one person is making most or all of the money, does that person get to make most or all of the financial decisions? If you’re the car aficionado or have researched all of the local school options for the children, do you get to make the decisions about those things? “These are the kinds of things that don’t come out when you’re dating,” he says. >
AFFLUENCE Here’s another question that tends not to come up during courtship: Just how rich do we want to be one day? Mr. Kuhlman refers to this more politely as the “desired level of affluence.” “Are our career paths going to be something that pulls us together? Or, more often, are they things that will tend to pull us apart, where we’ll really have to be proactive to make sure it’s under control?” he says. >
Mr. Kostis might put it a bit more bluntly, say to a spouse of an aspiring investment banker or corporate lawyer: Are you O.K. with acting essentially as a single parent, with your partner working 80 hours a week until the age of 80? “Not that there is a right or wrong answer,” he says. “It’s just about understanding, going into the marriage, what that would really mean.” >
He adds that people in the financial advice business often joke that they spend half their time talking about money and the other half acting as marriage counselor. “But it’s the same communication style,” he says. “You’re giving people permission to be honest without having someone jump down their throat for giving the answer that they really want to give.” >
What did your divorce cost you? Write to rlieber@nytimes.com.>
Access Original Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/your-money/24money.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.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Don't Let Your Strength Become Your Weakness - Gill Corkindale - HarvardBusiness.org#####
Don't Let Your Strength Become Your Weakness - Gill Corkindale - HarvardBusiness.org#####
Harvard Business Publishing>
Voices » Gill Corkindale » >
Don't Let Your Strength Become Your Weakness >
2:21 PM Wednesday October 21, 2009 >
Tags:Leadership, Managing yourself, Personal effectiveness >
One of the first things I ask my new clients to do is write down three of their key strengths and three of their flaws. Typically, strengths might be attention to detail, focus, and drive; flaws can be delegation, lack of creativity, and people-management skills. I then ask clients to look carefully at what they have written. Often, they will stare at the paper and then at me. They will ask me to explain. Rarely do they see the connection. >
The fact is that our flaws are often the mirror image of our strengths, and it's important to realize that we should not over-develop our strengths, causing them to turn into flaws. There is always an optimal point: confidence that doesn't border on arrogance, wit that doesn't slide into sarcasm, and diligence that doesn't become perfectionism. I have observed many leaders who have fallen into the strengths/weaknesses trap. Having been praised and rewarded for demonstrating particular strengths throughout their careers, they become blind to the shadow sides of these strengths. Often, this blind spot can derail a career. >
I was therefore very interested to read about some new research that delves into leaders' dark sides. The researchers interviewed 18,000 U.K. leaders over a decade (1999 to 2009) to discover what derailed them under pressure. They identified 11 derailers — strengths which turned into flaws under pressure. These include shrewd-mistrustful; charming-manipulative; vivacious-dramatic; and diligent-perfectionist. These "Dark Side Characteristics" were present in 85 percent of the leaders surveyed, with 16 percent having three dark-side characteristics. >
Interestingly, the most common dark side characteristic in the U.K. is dutiful-dependent, that is being too appeasing and accommodating when under pressure. Additionally, a quarter of U.K. leaders also tended to withdraw from difficult situations and become remote. >
The implications of these findings are significant for companies battling with the uncertainties of the new economic era. Consider, for example, a company whose senior executive team is uniformly dutiful: what happens when they encounter a crisis or an all-powerful CEO drives their strategy in the wrong direction? Common sense dictates that they should meet the crisis head on or challenge the CEO, yet the research suggests they are more likely to jointly keep their heads down. This behaviour was revealed at the Royal Bank of Scotland as it came under severe pressure last year: it became apparent that the senior team had not properly challenged the strategy or called the CEO to account. >
I am sure that we can all come up with examples of managers and leaders who are unaware of the shadow side of their enthusiasm (volatility), charm (manipulativeness) or focus, (passive aggression). All too often they are aware only of the positive effects of their personalities, screening out the negative impact on those surrounding them. If they remain impervious to feedback — or the organizational culture doesn't support individual feedback — then senior leaders can be in serious danger of sabotaging their careers as well as their companies. A leader embarking on a senior role should remember that there are many things beyond his or her control that can derail them: they should not add their own blind spot to that list. >
So what can organizations and individuals do? >
1. Look out for potential derailers at the recruitment stage. Don't be dazzled by outstanding performance in one area only to overlook a lack of basic competences in other areas. Tough, results-focused executives might be desirable, but these traits must be balanced with some understanding of how to manage people. Similarly, recognize that success in one company does not necessarily mean guaranteed success in another organizational culture. >
2. Ensure that careers are managed in a sustainable way. Many organizations fast-track high fliers beyond their real capabilities, ignoring their limitations and flaws until they emerge in times of pressure. This can be highly damaging to the individual, team, and organization. >
3. Use feedback and psychometric tests to raise awareness. Regular 360 feedback surveys can help executives and top teams (including the CEO) identify, understand, and analyze the real impact of their flaws. Psychometric tests such as the HDS can also help executives understand where the fault lines lie in their personalities. Using this information, they should work on a personal strategy to manage these flaws, either through coaching or training programmes. >
4. Understand how traits vary across generations. The research found, for example, that members of Generation Y are more compliant and dutiful than other generations, which could make them reluctant to take decisions or challenge the status quo. Generation Xers, meanwhile, have more social skills, but can be perceived as being superficial or manipulative if they overplay their hands. >
Access Original Post To Obtain Related Links Or To Add Comments: http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/corkindale/2009/10/dont_let_your_strength_become.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.
Harvard Business Publishing>
Voices » Gill Corkindale » >
Don't Let Your Strength Become Your Weakness >
2:21 PM Wednesday October 21, 2009 >
Tags:Leadership, Managing yourself, Personal effectiveness >
One of the first things I ask my new clients to do is write down three of their key strengths and three of their flaws. Typically, strengths might be attention to detail, focus, and drive; flaws can be delegation, lack of creativity, and people-management skills. I then ask clients to look carefully at what they have written. Often, they will stare at the paper and then at me. They will ask me to explain. Rarely do they see the connection. >
The fact is that our flaws are often the mirror image of our strengths, and it's important to realize that we should not over-develop our strengths, causing them to turn into flaws. There is always an optimal point: confidence that doesn't border on arrogance, wit that doesn't slide into sarcasm, and diligence that doesn't become perfectionism. I have observed many leaders who have fallen into the strengths/weaknesses trap. Having been praised and rewarded for demonstrating particular strengths throughout their careers, they become blind to the shadow sides of these strengths. Often, this blind spot can derail a career. >
I was therefore very interested to read about some new research that delves into leaders' dark sides. The researchers interviewed 18,000 U.K. leaders over a decade (1999 to 2009) to discover what derailed them under pressure. They identified 11 derailers — strengths which turned into flaws under pressure. These include shrewd-mistrustful; charming-manipulative; vivacious-dramatic; and diligent-perfectionist. These "Dark Side Characteristics" were present in 85 percent of the leaders surveyed, with 16 percent having three dark-side characteristics. >
Interestingly, the most common dark side characteristic in the U.K. is dutiful-dependent, that is being too appeasing and accommodating when under pressure. Additionally, a quarter of U.K. leaders also tended to withdraw from difficult situations and become remote. >
The implications of these findings are significant for companies battling with the uncertainties of the new economic era. Consider, for example, a company whose senior executive team is uniformly dutiful: what happens when they encounter a crisis or an all-powerful CEO drives their strategy in the wrong direction? Common sense dictates that they should meet the crisis head on or challenge the CEO, yet the research suggests they are more likely to jointly keep their heads down. This behaviour was revealed at the Royal Bank of Scotland as it came under severe pressure last year: it became apparent that the senior team had not properly challenged the strategy or called the CEO to account. >
I am sure that we can all come up with examples of managers and leaders who are unaware of the shadow side of their enthusiasm (volatility), charm (manipulativeness) or focus, (passive aggression). All too often they are aware only of the positive effects of their personalities, screening out the negative impact on those surrounding them. If they remain impervious to feedback — or the organizational culture doesn't support individual feedback — then senior leaders can be in serious danger of sabotaging their careers as well as their companies. A leader embarking on a senior role should remember that there are many things beyond his or her control that can derail them: they should not add their own blind spot to that list. >
So what can organizations and individuals do? >
1. Look out for potential derailers at the recruitment stage. Don't be dazzled by outstanding performance in one area only to overlook a lack of basic competences in other areas. Tough, results-focused executives might be desirable, but these traits must be balanced with some understanding of how to manage people. Similarly, recognize that success in one company does not necessarily mean guaranteed success in another organizational culture. >
2. Ensure that careers are managed in a sustainable way. Many organizations fast-track high fliers beyond their real capabilities, ignoring their limitations and flaws until they emerge in times of pressure. This can be highly damaging to the individual, team, and organization. >
3. Use feedback and psychometric tests to raise awareness. Regular 360 feedback surveys can help executives and top teams (including the CEO) identify, understand, and analyze the real impact of their flaws. Psychometric tests such as the HDS can also help executives understand where the fault lines lie in their personalities. Using this information, they should work on a personal strategy to manage these flaws, either through coaching or training programmes. >
4. Understand how traits vary across generations. The research found, for example, that members of Generation Y are more compliant and dutiful than other generations, which could make them reluctant to take decisions or challenge the status quo. Generation Xers, meanwhile, have more social skills, but can be perceived as being superficial or manipulative if they overplay their hands. >
Access Original Post To Obtain Related Links Or To Add Comments: http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/corkindale/2009/10/dont_let_your_strength_become.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.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Employees Want Feedback, Even if It’s Negative, Study Finds
Employees Want Feedback, Even if It’s Negative, Study Finds
WorldatWork.org >
Employees Want Feedback, Even if It’s Negative, Study Finds >
Oct. 9, 2009 — Communication — even if it’s negative — is what employees are craving, according to a new study that found 66% of employees believe they have too little interaction with their boss. The Leadership IQ study speculates that this is an indication that this could be driven by the recession because this number is up from 53% in May, 2008, the last time this study was conducted. >
The study found that while 67% of employees say they get too little positive feedback, 51% also say they get too little constructive criticism from their boss. Perhaps most troubling is that employees who said they didn't get enough feedback were 43% less likely to recommend their company to others as a great organization to work for. >
Study results show that 53% of employees say that when their boss does praise excellent performance, the feedback does not provide enough useful information to help them repeat it. And 65% of employees say that when their boss criticizes poor performance, they don't provide enough useful information to help employees correct the issue. >
"Managers are neglecting one of the most fundamental aspects of their job; providing feedback. Especially in these stressful times, employees are desperate for feedback and interaction with their boss. And when they don't get it, their job performance suffers,” said Mark Murphy, chairman of Leadership IQ. “But perhaps worse than the lack of interaction, is the finding that when managers actually do give feedback, more than half of employees say that the feedback is useless. The whole point of feedback is to improve poor performance or reinforce great performance. And this study shows that's just not happening. >
"We know that this has worsened, at least in part, because of the recession. When times get tough, managers become avoidant. Focusing on spreadsheets seems a lot easier than talking to employees,” Murphy said. “Not only might you get hit with questions you can't answer, but when your own stress levels are through the roof, the last thing many managers want is to meet the emotional needs of their employees. But this is precisely the time that employees really need lots of feedback, and they need it to be very high quality." >
About the StudyLeadership IQ surveyed 3,611 workers from 291 business and health-care organizations, predominantly in the United States and Canada. Employees were asked 21 questions about their relationship with their direct boss, their personal effectiveness, workforce issues and overall management effectiveness. The surveys were delivered to Leadership IQ subscribers, with 93% of respondents submitting their responses electronically, 5% via paper and 2% over the phone. Leadership IQ statisticians reviewed the data for accuracy and consistency and analyzed the valid submissions. >
Contents © 2009 WorldatWork. No part of this article may be reproduced, excerpted or redistributed in any form without express written permission from WorldatWork. >
See original post: http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimComment?id=34995
***********************************************************************
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.org >
Employees Want Feedback, Even if It’s Negative, Study Finds >
Oct. 9, 2009 — Communication — even if it’s negative — is what employees are craving, according to a new study that found 66% of employees believe they have too little interaction with their boss. The Leadership IQ study speculates that this is an indication that this could be driven by the recession because this number is up from 53% in May, 2008, the last time this study was conducted. >
The study found that while 67% of employees say they get too little positive feedback, 51% also say they get too little constructive criticism from their boss. Perhaps most troubling is that employees who said they didn't get enough feedback were 43% less likely to recommend their company to others as a great organization to work for. >
Study results show that 53% of employees say that when their boss does praise excellent performance, the feedback does not provide enough useful information to help them repeat it. And 65% of employees say that when their boss criticizes poor performance, they don't provide enough useful information to help employees correct the issue. >
"Managers are neglecting one of the most fundamental aspects of their job; providing feedback. Especially in these stressful times, employees are desperate for feedback and interaction with their boss. And when they don't get it, their job performance suffers,” said Mark Murphy, chairman of Leadership IQ. “But perhaps worse than the lack of interaction, is the finding that when managers actually do give feedback, more than half of employees say that the feedback is useless. The whole point of feedback is to improve poor performance or reinforce great performance. And this study shows that's just not happening. >
"We know that this has worsened, at least in part, because of the recession. When times get tough, managers become avoidant. Focusing on spreadsheets seems a lot easier than talking to employees,” Murphy said. “Not only might you get hit with questions you can't answer, but when your own stress levels are through the roof, the last thing many managers want is to meet the emotional needs of their employees. But this is precisely the time that employees really need lots of feedback, and they need it to be very high quality." >
About the StudyLeadership IQ surveyed 3,611 workers from 291 business and health-care organizations, predominantly in the United States and Canada. Employees were asked 21 questions about their relationship with their direct boss, their personal effectiveness, workforce issues and overall management effectiveness. The surveys were delivered to Leadership IQ subscribers, with 93% of respondents submitting their responses electronically, 5% via paper and 2% over the phone. Leadership IQ statisticians reviewed the data for accuracy and consistency and analyzed the valid submissions. >
Contents © 2009 WorldatWork. No part of this article may be reproduced, excerpted or redistributed in any form without express written permission from WorldatWork. >
See original post: http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimComment?id=34995
***********************************************************************
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.
Companies Plan to Reinstate 401(k) Matches - WSJ.com
Companies Plan to Reinstate 401(k) Matches - WSJ.com
OCTOBER 22, 2009
Companies Plan to Reinstate 401(k) Matches
By JILIAN MINCER
Many businesses are quietly restoring plans to match a portion of their employees' 401(k) contributions.
About half of the companies that suspended matches will be restoring them in 2010, says Byron Beebe, U.S. retirement market leader at Hewitt Associates.
The majority of employers never expected to make the suspension permanent, says Mr. Beebe. Already, some big companies, including American Express Co. and Motorola Inc., have announced that they would reinstate suspended matches in 2010.
Until recently, many employers have offered up to 6% of gross pay. Some companies are considering offering a lower match or using a tiered approach, which takes into account a person's length of employment.
Additionally, more companies are planning to make the match dependent on the company's profitability. Companies may also choose to distribute benefits at year-end, which means employees could miss out on the distribution if they leave before then.
About a quarter of the companies surveyed in August by Watson Wyatt expected to reinstate the match within the next six months; another 24% planned to do so within the next year. A similar trend occurred when the economy slipped after the dot-com bust.
See original article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703816204574487422993305320.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird
***********************************************************************
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.
OCTOBER 22, 2009
Companies Plan to Reinstate 401(k) Matches
By JILIAN MINCER
Many businesses are quietly restoring plans to match a portion of their employees' 401(k) contributions.
About half of the companies that suspended matches will be restoring them in 2010, says Byron Beebe, U.S. retirement market leader at Hewitt Associates.
The majority of employers never expected to make the suspension permanent, says Mr. Beebe. Already, some big companies, including American Express Co. and Motorola Inc., have announced that they would reinstate suspended matches in 2010.
Until recently, many employers have offered up to 6% of gross pay. Some companies are considering offering a lower match or using a tiered approach, which takes into account a person's length of employment.
Additionally, more companies are planning to make the match dependent on the company's profitability. Companies may also choose to distribute benefits at year-end, which means employees could miss out on the distribution if they leave before then.
About a quarter of the companies surveyed in August by Watson Wyatt expected to reinstate the match within the next six months; another 24% planned to do so within the next year. A similar trend occurred when the economy slipped after the dot-com bust.
See original article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703816204574487422993305320.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird
***********************************************************************
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.
Why Do We Procrastinate? - Rebecka Skarstam, Triple Helix Cambridge
The Triple Helix Cambridge
The Triple Helix, Easter 2009 >
Why Do We Procrastinate? <>
Rebecka Skarstam
Note From Jim: This is a very good summary of academic reserarch conducted on the subject of procrastination. For more information on the topic, search my blog for (1) posts containing the label of "goals", (2) for posts containing the key word "Pychyl" and (3) for posts containing the label "human performance" . You will also find related materials at my blog under the compendium of information collected under stored links for the catagory of "Goal Setting, Goal Pursuit, & Goal Attainment". Best - Jim.>
Excerpts: >
According to Timothy A. Pychyl, director of the Procrastination Research group at Carleton University “Procrastination is a needless, often irrational, voluntary delay of an intended action (or task) even when we know that this delay will most probably compromise ourperformance or task completion itself.” >
Studies done among teenagers show that the environment may be the main influence as procrastinators are more likely to have authoritarian parents [4]. However, a study done on monkeys indicates that there might be a genetic contribution as well. >
An estimated 40 percent of all people have experienced financial loss due to procrastination [6] and procrastination endangers health both in terms of the detrimental effects of increased stress and the delayed treatment of other health condition. >
In spite of the negative effects of procrastination, many procrastinators say that the habit is an advantage to them [8]. When asked why they procrastinate a common answerwas “I work better under pressure” However, this seems to be nothing more than self-deception for most people, as procrastinators generally produce inferior work to those who do not procrastinate [8].
Another misconception among procrastinators is that procrastination allows people to do the maximum amount of work with minimum amount of effort or pain [8]. It is true that when deadlines are distant, procrastinators have reduced stress levels and suffer less from illness than nonprocrastinators. However, this advantage is counteracted towards the end of the assignment when the effects of stress are reversed. Overall, people who start on time feel better and are in better health than those who procrastinate and start later [8]. >
But though fighting procrastination is difficult, it is not impossible, and in researching the phenomenon scientists have found several ways of minimising the habit. >
A study made at Hofstra University showed that people who made “implementation intentions” —goals with specification on when and where the task will be performed were up to eight times as likely to follow through on their commitment [9]. >
Another group found that when asked to reply to a questionnaire, students were more likely to reply and did so more quickly when the questions were concrete rather than abstract. This is in agreement with the action-identification theory, which states that individuals are more likely to execute a difficult task by thinking of the task on a more specific level and indicates that a person will procrastinate less if he or she is structuring the work in a more concrete way [10]. >
If you are already setting concrete implementation intentions, breaking the task up into smaller chunks and setting more goals might be your salvation. Dan Ariely and Klaus Wertenbroch asked their students to set their own deadlines and then awarded penalties for papers that were turned in late. Though setting the deadline for all papers at the end of the period would have given maximum amount of time for task completion, students who set evenly spaced deadlines generally scored better than those who did not [11].
Procrastination is due to a failure of self-control and new research shows that this can be reversed by increasing the expectancy of success or by receiving affirmation in the form of positive feedback [12,13]. >
Finally, remember that procrastination endangers your health and finances and that the thought of the task is often more daunting than the task itself. In fact, a study published in 2000 showed that students’ perceptions of a task often change significantly for the better when they are actually doing it [6]. In the end, Nike’s “Just Do It” might be a good place to start if you want to live a procrastination free life. >
Access complete 2 page article: http://www.wiltshireyouth.org/journal/issue/7/why-do-we-procrastinate/pdf or at http://www.wiltshireyouth.org/journal, Issue 7, Easter 2009, "Why Do We Procrastinate? ">
------------------------------------------
- Jesus College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge U.K. >
- The Triple Helix, Inc. is an international non-profit organization (IRS 501c3) with 27 chapters involving over 800 students from the world’s most prestigious universities. Together these students form some of the world’s future leaders in science, business, and law. As a young but innovative leader in undergraduate journalism, The Triple Helix aims to produce one of the highest quality undergraduate publications in the next several years and to showcase the undergraduate voices of hundreds of students on some of the most pressing modern issues in science. As an unprecedented student-run forum for discussion and interdisciplinary thought, The Triple Helix unites students from all over the world with a diversity of intellectual interests and backgrounds. Through the fulfillment of our mission, The Triple Helix offers a unique, challenging, and exciting educational experience for all its staff and significantly contributes to the communities we are a part of. http://www.thetriplehelix.org/about >
***********************************************************************
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 Triple Helix, Easter 2009 >
Why Do We Procrastinate? <>
Rebecka Skarstam
Note From Jim: This is a very good summary of academic reserarch conducted on the subject of procrastination. For more information on the topic, search my blog for (1) posts containing the label of "goals", (2) for posts containing the key word "Pychyl" and (3) for posts containing the label "human performance" . You will also find related materials at my blog under the compendium of information collected under stored links for the catagory of "Goal Setting, Goal Pursuit, & Goal Attainment". Best - Jim.>
Excerpts: >
According to Timothy A. Pychyl, director of the Procrastination Research group at Carleton University “Procrastination is a needless, often irrational, voluntary delay of an intended action (or task) even when we know that this delay will most probably compromise ourperformance or task completion itself.” >
Studies done among teenagers show that the environment may be the main influence as procrastinators are more likely to have authoritarian parents [4]. However, a study done on monkeys indicates that there might be a genetic contribution as well. >
An estimated 40 percent of all people have experienced financial loss due to procrastination [6] and procrastination endangers health both in terms of the detrimental effects of increased stress and the delayed treatment of other health condition. >
In spite of the negative effects of procrastination, many procrastinators say that the habit is an advantage to them [8]. When asked why they procrastinate a common answerwas “I work better under pressure” However, this seems to be nothing more than self-deception for most people, as procrastinators generally produce inferior work to those who do not procrastinate [8].
Another misconception among procrastinators is that procrastination allows people to do the maximum amount of work with minimum amount of effort or pain [8]. It is true that when deadlines are distant, procrastinators have reduced stress levels and suffer less from illness than nonprocrastinators. However, this advantage is counteracted towards the end of the assignment when the effects of stress are reversed. Overall, people who start on time feel better and are in better health than those who procrastinate and start later [8]. >
But though fighting procrastination is difficult, it is not impossible, and in researching the phenomenon scientists have found several ways of minimising the habit. >
A study made at Hofstra University showed that people who made “implementation intentions” —goals with specification on when and where the task will be performed were up to eight times as likely to follow through on their commitment [9]. >
Another group found that when asked to reply to a questionnaire, students were more likely to reply and did so more quickly when the questions were concrete rather than abstract. This is in agreement with the action-identification theory, which states that individuals are more likely to execute a difficult task by thinking of the task on a more specific level and indicates that a person will procrastinate less if he or she is structuring the work in a more concrete way [10]. >
If you are already setting concrete implementation intentions, breaking the task up into smaller chunks and setting more goals might be your salvation. Dan Ariely and Klaus Wertenbroch asked their students to set their own deadlines and then awarded penalties for papers that were turned in late. Though setting the deadline for all papers at the end of the period would have given maximum amount of time for task completion, students who set evenly spaced deadlines generally scored better than those who did not [11].
Procrastination is due to a failure of self-control and new research shows that this can be reversed by increasing the expectancy of success or by receiving affirmation in the form of positive feedback [12,13]. >
Finally, remember that procrastination endangers your health and finances and that the thought of the task is often more daunting than the task itself. In fact, a study published in 2000 showed that students’ perceptions of a task often change significantly for the better when they are actually doing it [6]. In the end, Nike’s “Just Do It” might be a good place to start if you want to live a procrastination free life. >
Access complete 2 page article: http://www.wiltshireyouth.org/journal/issue/7/why-do-we-procrastinate/pdf or at http://www.wiltshireyouth.org/journal, Issue 7, Easter 2009, "Why Do We Procrastinate? ">
------------------------------------------
- Jesus College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge U.K. >
- The Triple Helix, Inc. is an international non-profit organization (IRS 501c3) with 27 chapters involving over 800 students from the world’s most prestigious universities. Together these students form some of the world’s future leaders in science, business, and law. As a young but innovative leader in undergraduate journalism, The Triple Helix aims to produce one of the highest quality undergraduate publications in the next several years and to showcase the undergraduate voices of hundreds of students on some of the most pressing modern issues in science. As an unprecedented student-run forum for discussion and interdisciplinary thought, The Triple Helix unites students from all over the world with a diversity of intellectual interests and backgrounds. Through the fulfillment of our mission, The Triple Helix offers a unique, challenging, and exciting educational experience for all its staff and significantly contributes to the communities we are a part of. http://www.thetriplehelix.org/about >
***********************************************************************
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, October 21, 2009
Centered leadership through the crisis [Passion, Effectiveness & Satisfaction]: McKinsey Survey results
- McKinsey Quarterly - Organization - Talent
The McKinsey Quarterly >
Centered leadership through the crisis: McKinsey Survey results>
Practicing each dimension of the centered-leadership model is linked to higher levels of personal and professional satisfaction. >
October 2009 • Joanna Barsh and Aaron De Smet >
Source: Organization Practice >
Leaders who master the art of leading from their core— using several dimensions of the model we call “centered leadership”—are likelier than others to be passionate about their work, effective as leaders, and satisfied with their lives, according to a recent survey of more than 1,000 executives.1 >
Centered leadership, a leadership model developed by McKinsey over the past five years, comprises five broad dimensions:
[1] meaning, or finding your strengths and putting them to work in the service of a purpose that inspires you;
[2] positive framing, or adopting a more constructive way to view your world and handle situations, even very difficult ones;
[3] connecting, or building stronger support networks and increasing your sense of belonging;
[4] engaging, or crossing the line to pursue opportunities you might avoid because of inherent risks or personal fears;
[5] and managing energy, or practicing ways to sustain and renew your energy.2 >
In September 2008, as the financial crisis erupted, we surveyed nearly 2,000 executives—men and women—from around the world on how they use these five dimensions of leadership. We found that using each dimension was associated with higher levels of personal and professional satisfaction.3 The new survey, conducted after one year of economic upheaval, assesses the dimensions taken together and shows that they seem to multiply each other’s effectiveness: respondents’ self-reported passion for their work, their effectiveness as leaders, and their satisfaction in life all increase markedly as they practice more elements of centered leadership (exhibit). In addition, the fact that 81 percent of responses to the 2009 survey came from female leaders in financial services—the hardest-hit industry—suggests that leadership driven by [1] building on one’s strengths, [2] recognizing and using emotions (positive and negative), [3] connectivity, and [4] managing energy works even under the most trying circumstance >
Only five respondents to the survey scored themselves in the top percentiles on all five dimensions of centered leadership. This finding suggests that the vast majority of executives can build greater centered-leadership capabilities. And though we can’t prove cause and effect yet, the strong correlation between those capabilities and effectiveness and happiness of leaders is well worth taking into consideration. >
About the Authors
Joanna Barsh is a director in McKinsey’s New York office, and Aaron De Smet is a principal in the Houston office. >
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of their colleague Josephine Mogelof to the research underlying this article and to McKinsey’s ongoing research on centered leadership. >
Read full article and review Chart: http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Centered_leadership_through_the_crisis_McKinsey_Survey_results_2453
***********************************************************************
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 McKinsey Quarterly >
Centered leadership through the crisis: McKinsey Survey results>
Practicing each dimension of the centered-leadership model is linked to higher levels of personal and professional satisfaction. >
October 2009 • Joanna Barsh and Aaron De Smet >
Source: Organization Practice >
Leaders who master the art of leading from their core— using several dimensions of the model we call “centered leadership”—are likelier than others to be passionate about their work, effective as leaders, and satisfied with their lives, according to a recent survey of more than 1,000 executives.1 >
Centered leadership, a leadership model developed by McKinsey over the past five years, comprises five broad dimensions:
[1] meaning, or finding your strengths and putting them to work in the service of a purpose that inspires you;
[2] positive framing, or adopting a more constructive way to view your world and handle situations, even very difficult ones;
[3] connecting, or building stronger support networks and increasing your sense of belonging;
[4] engaging, or crossing the line to pursue opportunities you might avoid because of inherent risks or personal fears;
[5] and managing energy, or practicing ways to sustain and renew your energy.2 >
In September 2008, as the financial crisis erupted, we surveyed nearly 2,000 executives—men and women—from around the world on how they use these five dimensions of leadership. We found that using each dimension was associated with higher levels of personal and professional satisfaction.3 The new survey, conducted after one year of economic upheaval, assesses the dimensions taken together and shows that they seem to multiply each other’s effectiveness: respondents’ self-reported passion for their work, their effectiveness as leaders, and their satisfaction in life all increase markedly as they practice more elements of centered leadership (exhibit). In addition, the fact that 81 percent of responses to the 2009 survey came from female leaders in financial services—the hardest-hit industry—suggests that leadership driven by [1] building on one’s strengths, [2] recognizing and using emotions (positive and negative), [3] connectivity, and [4] managing energy works even under the most trying circumstance >
Only five respondents to the survey scored themselves in the top percentiles on all five dimensions of centered leadership. This finding suggests that the vast majority of executives can build greater centered-leadership capabilities. And though we can’t prove cause and effect yet, the strong correlation between those capabilities and effectiveness and happiness of leaders is well worth taking into consideration. >
About the Authors
Joanna Barsh is a director in McKinsey’s New York office, and Aaron De Smet is a principal in the Houston office. >
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of their colleague Josephine Mogelof to the research underlying this article and to McKinsey’s ongoing research on centered leadership. >
Read full article and review Chart: http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Centered_leadership_through_the_crisis_McKinsey_Survey_results_2453
***********************************************************************
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.
Why Does CEO Succession Planning Produce So Few Successors? | Reuters
Why Does CEO Succession Planning Produce So Few Successors? Reuters
Read full article: http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS159700+20-Oct-2009+PRN20091020
***********************************************************************
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.
Read full article: http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS159700+20-Oct-2009+PRN20091020
***********************************************************************
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.
Getting It Wrong: Surprising Tips on How to Learn: Scientific American
Getting It Wrong: Surprising Tips on How to Learn: Scientific American
Scientific American>
Mind Matters - October 20, 2009 >
Getting It Wrong: Surprising Tips on How to Learn>
New research makes the case for hard tests, and suggests an unusual technique that anyone can use to learn >
By Henry L. Roediger and Bridgid Finn >
For years, many educators have championed “errorless learning," advising teachers (and students) to create study conditions that do not permit errors. For example, a classroom teacher might drill students repeatedly on the same multiplication problem, with very little delay between the first and second presentations of the problem, ensuring that the student gets the answer correct each time. >
The idea embedded in this approach is that if students make errors, they will learn the errors and be prevented (or slowed) in learning the correct information. But research by Nate Kornell, Matthew Hays and Robert Bjork at U.C.L.A. that recently appeared in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition reveals that this worry is misplaced. In fact, they found, learning becomes better if conditions are arranged so that students make errors.>
People remember things better, longer, if they are given very challenging tests on the material, tests at which they are bound to fail. In a series of experiments, they showed that if students make an unsuccessful attempt to retrieve information before receiving an answer, they remember the information better than in a control condition in which they simply study the information. Trying and failing to retrieve the answer is actually helpful to learning. It’s an idea that has obvious applications for education, but could be useful for anyone who is trying to learn new material of any kind. >
In one of their experiments, students were required to learn pairs of “weak associates,” words that are loosely related such as star-night or factory-plant. (If students are given the first word and asked to generate an associate, the probability of generating the target word is only 2 or 3 percent.) In the pretest condition, students were given the first word of the pair (star- ???) and told to try to generate the second member that they would have to later remember. They had 8 seconds to do so. Of course, almost by definition, they nearly always failed to generate the correct answer. They might generate bright in the case of star-???. At that point they were given the target pair (star–night) for 5 seconds. In the control condition, students were given the pair to study for 13 seconds, so in both conditions there were a total of 13 seconds of study time for the pair. >
The team found that students remembered the pairs much better when they first tried to retrieve the answer before it was shown to them. In a way this pretesting effect is counterintuitive: Studying a pair for 13 seconds produces worse recall than studying the pair for 5 seconds, if students in the latter condition spent the previous 8 seconds trying to retrieve or guess the answer. But the effect averaged about 10 percent better recall, and occurred both immediately after study and after a delay averaging 38 hours. >
Some readers may look askance at the use of word pairs, even though it is a favorite tactic of psychologists. In another article, in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Lindsey Richland, Nate Kornell and Liche Kao asked the same question, but they used more educationally relevant text material (an essay on vision). Students were asked to read the essay and prepare for a test on it. However, in the pretest condition they were asked questions about the passage before reading it such as “What is total color blindness caused by brain damage called?” Asking these kinds of question before reading the passage obviously focuses students’ attention on the critical concepts. To control this “direction of attention” issue, in the control condition students were either given additional time to study, or the researchers focused their attention on the critical passages in one of several ways: by italicizing the critical section, by bolding the key term that would be tested, or by a combination of strategies. However, in all the experiments they found an advantage in having students first guess the answers. The effect was about the same magnitude, around 10 percent, as in the previous set of experiments. >
This work has implications beyond the classroom. By challenging ourselves to retrieve or generate answers we can improve our recall. Keep that in mind next time you turn to Google for an answer, and give yourself a little more time to come up with the answer on your own. >
Students might consider taking the questions in the back of the textbook chapter and try to answer them before reading the chapter. (If there are no questions, convert the section headings to questions. If the heading is Pavlovian Conditioning, ask yourself What is Pavlovian conditioning?). Then read the chapter and answer the questions while reading it. When the chapter is finished, go back to the questions and try answering them again. For any you miss, restudy that section of the chapter. Then wait a few days and try to answer the questions again (restudying when you need to). Keep this practice up on all the chapters you read before the exam and you will be have learned the material in a durable manner and be able to retrieve it long after you have left the course. >
Of course, these are general-purpose strategies and work for any type of material, not just textbooks. And remember, even if you get the questions wrong as you self-test yourself during study the process is still useful, indeed much more useful than just studying. Getting the answer wrong is a great way to learn.>
See original post: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=getting-it-wrong
***********************************************************************
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.
Scientific American>
Mind Matters - October 20, 2009 >
Getting It Wrong: Surprising Tips on How to Learn>
New research makes the case for hard tests, and suggests an unusual technique that anyone can use to learn >
By Henry L. Roediger and Bridgid Finn >
For years, many educators have championed “errorless learning," advising teachers (and students) to create study conditions that do not permit errors. For example, a classroom teacher might drill students repeatedly on the same multiplication problem, with very little delay between the first and second presentations of the problem, ensuring that the student gets the answer correct each time. >
The idea embedded in this approach is that if students make errors, they will learn the errors and be prevented (or slowed) in learning the correct information. But research by Nate Kornell, Matthew Hays and Robert Bjork at U.C.L.A. that recently appeared in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition reveals that this worry is misplaced. In fact, they found, learning becomes better if conditions are arranged so that students make errors.>
People remember things better, longer, if they are given very challenging tests on the material, tests at which they are bound to fail. In a series of experiments, they showed that if students make an unsuccessful attempt to retrieve information before receiving an answer, they remember the information better than in a control condition in which they simply study the information. Trying and failing to retrieve the answer is actually helpful to learning. It’s an idea that has obvious applications for education, but could be useful for anyone who is trying to learn new material of any kind. >
In one of their experiments, students were required to learn pairs of “weak associates,” words that are loosely related such as star-night or factory-plant. (If students are given the first word and asked to generate an associate, the probability of generating the target word is only 2 or 3 percent.) In the pretest condition, students were given the first word of the pair (star- ???) and told to try to generate the second member that they would have to later remember. They had 8 seconds to do so. Of course, almost by definition, they nearly always failed to generate the correct answer. They might generate bright in the case of star-???. At that point they were given the target pair (star–night) for 5 seconds. In the control condition, students were given the pair to study for 13 seconds, so in both conditions there were a total of 13 seconds of study time for the pair. >
The team found that students remembered the pairs much better when they first tried to retrieve the answer before it was shown to them. In a way this pretesting effect is counterintuitive: Studying a pair for 13 seconds produces worse recall than studying the pair for 5 seconds, if students in the latter condition spent the previous 8 seconds trying to retrieve or guess the answer. But the effect averaged about 10 percent better recall, and occurred both immediately after study and after a delay averaging 38 hours. >
Some readers may look askance at the use of word pairs, even though it is a favorite tactic of psychologists. In another article, in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Lindsey Richland, Nate Kornell and Liche Kao asked the same question, but they used more educationally relevant text material (an essay on vision). Students were asked to read the essay and prepare for a test on it. However, in the pretest condition they were asked questions about the passage before reading it such as “What is total color blindness caused by brain damage called?” Asking these kinds of question before reading the passage obviously focuses students’ attention on the critical concepts. To control this “direction of attention” issue, in the control condition students were either given additional time to study, or the researchers focused their attention on the critical passages in one of several ways: by italicizing the critical section, by bolding the key term that would be tested, or by a combination of strategies. However, in all the experiments they found an advantage in having students first guess the answers. The effect was about the same magnitude, around 10 percent, as in the previous set of experiments. >
This work has implications beyond the classroom. By challenging ourselves to retrieve or generate answers we can improve our recall. Keep that in mind next time you turn to Google for an answer, and give yourself a little more time to come up with the answer on your own. >
Students might consider taking the questions in the back of the textbook chapter and try to answer them before reading the chapter. (If there are no questions, convert the section headings to questions. If the heading is Pavlovian Conditioning, ask yourself What is Pavlovian conditioning?). Then read the chapter and answer the questions while reading it. When the chapter is finished, go back to the questions and try answering them again. For any you miss, restudy that section of the chapter. Then wait a few days and try to answer the questions again (restudying when you need to). Keep this practice up on all the chapters you read before the exam and you will be have learned the material in a durable manner and be able to retrieve it long after you have left the course. >
Of course, these are general-purpose strategies and work for any type of material, not just textbooks. And remember, even if you get the questions wrong as you self-test yourself during study the process is still useful, indeed much more useful than just studying. Getting the answer wrong is a great way to learn.>
See original post: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=getting-it-wrong
***********************************************************************
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, October 20, 2009
The Power of Storytelling - Charlie Sheppard - MCS Communications
The Power of Storytelling >
By Charlie Sheppard <
MCS Communications <
Developing High Performance Cultures<
http://www.mcscllc.com/index.php <
To introduce new employees to its corporate culture, Nike tells them the story about a track coach and a waffle iron. All Restoration Hardware employees hear stories about their four values directly from their senior leadership team. Leaders know that employees need more than lofty mission statements and industry buzzwords. To understand and appreciate what their organization stands for, workers need to hear about its people, its values, and its history. Smart leaders tell stories. They periodically gather their "tribe" around the corporate campfire to recall the legends and share new tales. By touching the hearts as well as the minds of their employees, they create a legacy of experience that inspires generations. >
Storytelling is one of the most powerful tools in your leadership toolkit. To understand and appreciate what an organization stands for, workers need to hear from their leaders directly, clearly, consistently and often. They need to hear about the organization’s people, its values and its history. They need to understand what it takes to succeed. That’s why great leaders tell stories. >
Stories are often about the relationship of your team and your values. One of the interesting things that has been discovered is that your values are expressed in your stories. They reside in the narratives that people tell, and the behaviors that are consistent and compatible with those stories. There is a profound relationship between stories and values.>
Stories also stay with people longer than facts and figures because they reach the heart as well as the mind. The powerful way to persuade people is to unite an idea with an emotion in a compelling story. Stories have always been the "glue" connecting people with their cultures and with one another, and some social scientists say that humans are hardwired for storytelling. >
- Good stories strengthen your culture
- Good stories are succinct - they are easy for people to remember
- Good stories are relevant to the listener - they have a point and make an emotional impact
- Good stories make sense of something - they show you how to behave or solve a problem or why something happened the way it did >
For example, few would argue about Apple’s success at integrating different technologies into a compelling product. For Steve Jobs, he feels this is a result of deep collaboration between all of the relevant departments at Apple. He makes his point by talking about what happens when you don’t have deep collaboration through the parable of the concept car. "Here’s what you find at a lot of companies," Jobs says, "You know how you see a show car, and it’s really cool, and then four years later you see the production car, and it sucks? And you go, what happened? They had it! They had it in the palm of their hands! They grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory!” “What happened was, the designers came up with this really great idea. Then they take it to the engineers, and the engineers go, ‘Nah, we can’t do that. That’s impossible.’ And so it gets a lot worse. Then they take it to the manufacturing people, and they go, ‘We can’t build that!’ And it gets a lot worse.” He conveys the idea of deep collaboration quickly through this story.>
Nike uses the power of a story to ensure its employees understand the company’s heritage and philosophy. Founded more than 40 years ago, the company still uses a story about the late co-founder Bill Bowerman to keep staff motivated. The University of Oregon track coach was eating waffles for breakfast one morning when he was inspired to pour latex on his wife’s waffle iron. That impulsive act led to the development of Nike’s famed waffle soled running shoes. >
The other type of story to elicit the values of an organization is an advocacy story. Restoration Hardware systematically tells stories like this to make heroes of employees who go beyond the call of duty of fulfilling the company’s promise to its customers. While at a leadership conference at Restoration Hardware, Gary Friedman, the CEO, told a story about a manager who leads the shipping department at their main distribution center. There came a time when he wasn’t happy with how the trucks were being unloaded and loaded. He decided to move his desk and phone and computer to the actual loading ramp. With every truck that came in or went out he was right there moving the product around with his team until his standards for quality were established. He stayed out on the loading dock until everyone was doing the new behaviors. This kind of story helps you celebrate your corporate heroes. It is why at every State of the Union address the President will point to someone in the stands and tell their story to make a point. >
A scar stays with you forever and a good story should also. Use the scar model to build out a story that illustrates a key value for you.
S. Situation. The situation should be a little bit like a newspaper headline; it needs to “grab” people’s interest. Play up a detail of the story that catches people’s attention. Every good story is built on an unusual situation.
C. Challenge. What was the challenge or obstacle you had to overcome? It can be as momentous as starting a company or as simple as finding your keys. People who always have stories don’t have unusually eventful lives. They take note of ordinary challenges in daily life and recount them in entertaining ways.
A. Actions. Explain how you found a solution. How did you overcome the embarrassing situation? Include bits of humor where appropriate. A funny story is highly memorable, and a witty comment inserted periodically into a serious story provides necessary comic relief. Briefly and clearly describe how you met the challenge.
R. Results. Explain the impact of your actions. Tie the point of the story to the core value you want to emphasize.
What is the core story of your organization? Of your team? Of your leadership? How frequently and how effectively are you telling it? Your culture is dependent on the stories you tell.>
----------------------------
Charlie Sheppard is President of Management Communication Systems, Inc., a company on the forefront of next-generation behavioral assessment technologies. MCS is an organizational development consulting company that focuses its efforts on helping organizations create high performance cultures. He brings experience in organizational development, specializing in the assessment, design, and delivery of development programs with an emphasis on strategic alignment, leadership development, team development, and negotiation skills. By developing innovative technologies and delivering creative solutions, MCS is an active partner in the selection process, in the creation of effective teams, and in ongoing organizational development. Charlie coordinates the activities of MCS's consultants and serves the firm as the lead developer of assessment technologies and courseware.
***********************************************************************
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.
By Charlie Sheppard <
MCS Communications <
Developing High Performance Cultures<
http://www.mcscllc.com/index.php <
To introduce new employees to its corporate culture, Nike tells them the story about a track coach and a waffle iron. All Restoration Hardware employees hear stories about their four values directly from their senior leadership team. Leaders know that employees need more than lofty mission statements and industry buzzwords. To understand and appreciate what their organization stands for, workers need to hear about its people, its values, and its history. Smart leaders tell stories. They periodically gather their "tribe" around the corporate campfire to recall the legends and share new tales. By touching the hearts as well as the minds of their employees, they create a legacy of experience that inspires generations. >
Storytelling is one of the most powerful tools in your leadership toolkit. To understand and appreciate what an organization stands for, workers need to hear from their leaders directly, clearly, consistently and often. They need to hear about the organization’s people, its values and its history. They need to understand what it takes to succeed. That’s why great leaders tell stories. >
Stories are often about the relationship of your team and your values. One of the interesting things that has been discovered is that your values are expressed in your stories. They reside in the narratives that people tell, and the behaviors that are consistent and compatible with those stories. There is a profound relationship between stories and values.>
Stories also stay with people longer than facts and figures because they reach the heart as well as the mind. The powerful way to persuade people is to unite an idea with an emotion in a compelling story. Stories have always been the "glue" connecting people with their cultures and with one another, and some social scientists say that humans are hardwired for storytelling. >
- Good stories strengthen your culture
- Good stories are succinct - they are easy for people to remember
- Good stories are relevant to the listener - they have a point and make an emotional impact
- Good stories make sense of something - they show you how to behave or solve a problem or why something happened the way it did >
For example, few would argue about Apple’s success at integrating different technologies into a compelling product. For Steve Jobs, he feels this is a result of deep collaboration between all of the relevant departments at Apple. He makes his point by talking about what happens when you don’t have deep collaboration through the parable of the concept car. "Here’s what you find at a lot of companies," Jobs says, "You know how you see a show car, and it’s really cool, and then four years later you see the production car, and it sucks? And you go, what happened? They had it! They had it in the palm of their hands! They grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory!” “What happened was, the designers came up with this really great idea. Then they take it to the engineers, and the engineers go, ‘Nah, we can’t do that. That’s impossible.’ And so it gets a lot worse. Then they take it to the manufacturing people, and they go, ‘We can’t build that!’ And it gets a lot worse.” He conveys the idea of deep collaboration quickly through this story.>
Nike uses the power of a story to ensure its employees understand the company’s heritage and philosophy. Founded more than 40 years ago, the company still uses a story about the late co-founder Bill Bowerman to keep staff motivated. The University of Oregon track coach was eating waffles for breakfast one morning when he was inspired to pour latex on his wife’s waffle iron. That impulsive act led to the development of Nike’s famed waffle soled running shoes. >
The other type of story to elicit the values of an organization is an advocacy story. Restoration Hardware systematically tells stories like this to make heroes of employees who go beyond the call of duty of fulfilling the company’s promise to its customers. While at a leadership conference at Restoration Hardware, Gary Friedman, the CEO, told a story about a manager who leads the shipping department at their main distribution center. There came a time when he wasn’t happy with how the trucks were being unloaded and loaded. He decided to move his desk and phone and computer to the actual loading ramp. With every truck that came in or went out he was right there moving the product around with his team until his standards for quality were established. He stayed out on the loading dock until everyone was doing the new behaviors. This kind of story helps you celebrate your corporate heroes. It is why at every State of the Union address the President will point to someone in the stands and tell their story to make a point. >
A scar stays with you forever and a good story should also. Use the scar model to build out a story that illustrates a key value for you.
S. Situation. The situation should be a little bit like a newspaper headline; it needs to “grab” people’s interest. Play up a detail of the story that catches people’s attention. Every good story is built on an unusual situation.
C. Challenge. What was the challenge or obstacle you had to overcome? It can be as momentous as starting a company or as simple as finding your keys. People who always have stories don’t have unusually eventful lives. They take note of ordinary challenges in daily life and recount them in entertaining ways.
A. Actions. Explain how you found a solution. How did you overcome the embarrassing situation? Include bits of humor where appropriate. A funny story is highly memorable, and a witty comment inserted periodically into a serious story provides necessary comic relief. Briefly and clearly describe how you met the challenge.
R. Results. Explain the impact of your actions. Tie the point of the story to the core value you want to emphasize.
What is the core story of your organization? Of your team? Of your leadership? How frequently and how effectively are you telling it? Your culture is dependent on the stories you tell.>
----------------------------
Charlie Sheppard is President of Management Communication Systems, Inc., a company on the forefront of next-generation behavioral assessment technologies. MCS is an organizational development consulting company that focuses its efforts on helping organizations create high performance cultures. He brings experience in organizational development, specializing in the assessment, design, and delivery of development programs with an emphasis on strategic alignment, leadership development, team development, and negotiation skills. By developing innovative technologies and delivering creative solutions, MCS is an active partner in the selection process, in the creation of effective teams, and in ongoing organizational development. Charlie coordinates the activities of MCS's consultants and serves the firm as the lead developer of assessment technologies and courseware.
***********************************************************************
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.
“I Hit a Nun with My Motorcycle”: 2009’s Most Unusual Excuses for Missing Work | The Hiring Site
“I Hit a Nun with My Motorcycle”: 2009’s Most Unusual Excuses for Missing Work The Hiring Site
Read post (laugh and learn) : http://thehiringsite.careerbuilder.com/2009/10/08/i-hit-a-nun-with-my-motorcycle-2009s-most-unusual-excuses-for-missing-work/
***********************************************************************
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.
Read post (laugh and learn) : http://thehiringsite.careerbuilder.com/2009/10/08/i-hit-a-nun-with-my-motorcycle-2009s-most-unusual-excuses-for-missing-work/
***********************************************************************
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.
Audio: The Power of Eckhart Tolle's Now [from American Public Media]
The Power of Eckhart Tolle's Now [Speaking of Faith® from American Public Media]
American Public Radio
Broadcast 10/8/2009
Eckhart Tolle Interview By Krista Tippety
Note from Jim: As aired on NPR, the lessons that you can learn in this audio clip may truly change your life.
Edited for time, that actual radio broadcast: http://www.bxuefmnmglgfyk.readnotify.com/tg/bxuefmnmglgfylhttp/speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/2009/tolle/ (Edited for
Radio: 53:09:00)
The full unedited interview: http://www.bxuefmnmglgfyk.readnotify.com/tg/bxuefmnmglgfylhttp/download.publicradio.org/podcast/speakingoffaith/20080814_tolle_uc-to
lle.mp3 (1:35:51)
Excerpts:
“Eckhart Tolle is an influential spiritual leader, teacher and author. He draws on and synthesizes many religious and spiritual traditions to include Buddhism, Christianity, Daoism, and Hinduism….
Eckhart is the author of ‘A new Earth’ (2008) and ‘The Power of Now’ (1997).
One of today's most influential spiritual teachers shares his youthful experience of depression and despair — suffering that led him to his own spiritual breakthrough, and ultimately, freedom and peace of mind. He also explicates his view of what he calls ‘the pain body’ — the accumulated emotional pain that may influence us and our relationships in negative ways.”
Notes:
In this interview, Eckhart speaks of the following topics:
- When you accept what is, it frees you out of thousands of years of conditioning.
- You are not your thinking. Accept the “mental noise” without associating yourself with it. Become a space for thinking to pass through and in doing so, become deeper and more conscious of emotions and thinking that passes through.
- Step out of human conditioning. The human mind is a stream of thinking and a reflection of conditioning. Our intelligence is tainted by madness. See the madness in our minds and thinking in a positive way. Our brain generates destructive and compromising “compulsive thinking”… “Continuous mental noise”… “a constant steam of thinking” (“stories that we internalize, emotions that animate us”). We wrongly identify with the ideas that emerge in our minds. Identify the thoughts and ideas as stories in your mind without wrongly associating them with self. Thoughts, judgments, interpretations are in our head and they incorrectly color what is. See these thoughts, judgments, ideas, and interpretations as just another of many diverse concepts of which your self are none. You are not the thoughts within your mind. You are the awareness of what’s going on in your mind.
- The mind, “a primary source of human suffering”. Unhappiness is unnecessary.
- Humans generate harmful obsessions over the past and the future. Don’t value the next moment over what is now. The future moment doesn’t yet exist. Future moments will not free you. All you can experience is the present. Realize the importance of the present moment. Be in the moment, accept what is. Be fully engaged with the present. The present is all that there ever is. Don’t argue with the present moment… See the vastness of it all, don’t compulsively interpret the situation, or impose your judgments on people and the world. Rise above it all by seeing the present moment as your friend not your enemy. Step out and stand above your constantly thinking mind.
- The “Pain Body” – Is an independent energy form that lives in people and colors people’s perceptions. It exists within us all. It is exaggerated emotional pain well beyond the actual experience… It consists of remnants of past pain emotions experienced as a child or that are remnants of previous generations. It turns one’s thinking negative. Humans hold “Body Memory” (unconscious knowledge) and “Stored Memory” (well beyond the conscious level) that must be acknowledged and overcome. Be aware of the Pain Body rather than unconsciously identifying with it. Recognize what it is and separate it from the pain that arises. When an emotion arises, notice it and experience it. Don’t wish it away or argue within. Just see that it’s there. Enable yourself to be “the space” for what arises in the moment. Realize that you are deeper than the emotion. Allow it to be and acknowledge that it cannot feed on your past or on your emotion.
***********************************************************************
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.
American Public Radio
Broadcast 10/8/2009
Eckhart Tolle Interview By Krista Tippety
Note from Jim: As aired on NPR, the lessons that you can learn in this audio clip may truly change your life.
Edited for time, that actual radio broadcast: http://www.bxuefmnmglgfyk.readnotify.com/tg/bxuefmnmglgfylhttp/speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/2009/tolle/ (Edited for
Radio: 53:09:00)
The full unedited interview: http://www.bxuefmnmglgfyk.readnotify.com/tg/bxuefmnmglgfylhttp/download.publicradio.org/podcast/speakingoffaith/20080814_tolle_uc-to
lle.mp3 (1:35:51)
Excerpts:
“Eckhart Tolle is an influential spiritual leader, teacher and author. He draws on and synthesizes many religious and spiritual traditions to include Buddhism, Christianity, Daoism, and Hinduism….
Eckhart is the author of ‘A new Earth’ (2008) and ‘The Power of Now’ (1997).
One of today's most influential spiritual teachers shares his youthful experience of depression and despair — suffering that led him to his own spiritual breakthrough, and ultimately, freedom and peace of mind. He also explicates his view of what he calls ‘the pain body’ — the accumulated emotional pain that may influence us and our relationships in negative ways.”
Notes:
In this interview, Eckhart speaks of the following topics:
- When you accept what is, it frees you out of thousands of years of conditioning.
- You are not your thinking. Accept the “mental noise” without associating yourself with it. Become a space for thinking to pass through and in doing so, become deeper and more conscious of emotions and thinking that passes through.
- Step out of human conditioning. The human mind is a stream of thinking and a reflection of conditioning. Our intelligence is tainted by madness. See the madness in our minds and thinking in a positive way. Our brain generates destructive and compromising “compulsive thinking”… “Continuous mental noise”… “a constant steam of thinking” (“stories that we internalize, emotions that animate us”). We wrongly identify with the ideas that emerge in our minds. Identify the thoughts and ideas as stories in your mind without wrongly associating them with self. Thoughts, judgments, interpretations are in our head and they incorrectly color what is. See these thoughts, judgments, ideas, and interpretations as just another of many diverse concepts of which your self are none. You are not the thoughts within your mind. You are the awareness of what’s going on in your mind.
- The mind, “a primary source of human suffering”. Unhappiness is unnecessary.
- Humans generate harmful obsessions over the past and the future. Don’t value the next moment over what is now. The future moment doesn’t yet exist. Future moments will not free you. All you can experience is the present. Realize the importance of the present moment. Be in the moment, accept what is. Be fully engaged with the present. The present is all that there ever is. Don’t argue with the present moment… See the vastness of it all, don’t compulsively interpret the situation, or impose your judgments on people and the world. Rise above it all by seeing the present moment as your friend not your enemy. Step out and stand above your constantly thinking mind.
- The “Pain Body” – Is an independent energy form that lives in people and colors people’s perceptions. It exists within us all. It is exaggerated emotional pain well beyond the actual experience… It consists of remnants of past pain emotions experienced as a child or that are remnants of previous generations. It turns one’s thinking negative. Humans hold “Body Memory” (unconscious knowledge) and “Stored Memory” (well beyond the conscious level) that must be acknowledged and overcome. Be aware of the Pain Body rather than unconsciously identifying with it. Recognize what it is and separate it from the pain that arises. When an emotion arises, notice it and experience it. Don’t wish it away or argue within. Just see that it’s there. Enable yourself to be “the space” for what arises in the moment. Realize that you are deeper than the emotion. Allow it to be and acknowledge that it cannot feed on your past or on your emotion.
***********************************************************************
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)