Corner Office - Mark Pincus - Every Worker Should Be C.E.O. of Something - Interview - NYTimes.com

Corner Office - Mark Pincus - Every Worker Should Be C.E.O. of Something - Interview - NYTimes.com



January 31, 2010
Corner Office
Are You a C.E.O. of Something?

This interview with Mark Pincus, founder and chief executive of Zynga, a provider of online social games, was conducted and condensed by Adam Bryant.
Q. What are the most important leadership lessons you’ve learned?

A. If I was going all the way back, it would be playing on my school’s soccer team, because we were on the same team together, most of us for eight or nine years, and we were at a really little school in Chicago that had no chance of really fielding any great athletes. But we ended up doing really well as a team, and we made it to the state quarterfinals, and it was all because of teamwork.

And the one thing I learned from that was that I actually could tell what someone would be like in business, based on how they played on the soccer field.
So even today when I play in Sunday-morning soccer games, I can literally spot the people who’d probably be good managers and good people to hire.
Q. Based on what?

A. One is reliability, the sense that they’re not going to let the team down, that they’re going to hold up their end of the bargain. And in soccer, especially if you play seven on seven, it’s more about whether you have seven guys or women who can pull their own weight rather than whether you have any stars.

So I’d rather be on a team that has no bad people than a team with stars. There are certain people who you just know are not going to make a mistake, even if the other guy’s faster than them, or whatever. They’re just reliable.

And are you a playmaker? There are people who don’t want to screw up, and so they just pass the ball right away. Then there are the ones who have this kind of intelligence, and they can make these great plays. These people seem to have high emotional intelligence. It’s not that they’re a star player, but they have decent skills, and they will get you the ball and then be where you’d expect to put it back to them. It’s like their head is really in the game.

Q. How has your leadership style evolved, given your experience running several companies?

A. You can manage 50 people through the strength of your personality and lack of sleep. You can touch them all in a week and make sure they’re all pointed in the right direction. By 150, it’s clear that that’s not going to scale, and you’ve got to find some way to keep everybody going in productive directions when you’re not in the room.
And that, to me, is a huge amount of what it means to manage. But I went to Harvard Business School and that never occurred to me the whole time. And I’d started a bunch of companies and never gotten to that understanding, even with one company I had that I did take up to over 200 people.

Q. So give me an example of what you did to change that.

A. I’d turn people into C.E.O.’s. One thing I did at my second company was to put white sticky sheets on the wall, and I put everyone’s name on one of the sheets, and I said, “By the end of the week, everybody needs to write what you’re C.E.O. of, and it needs to be something really meaningful.” And that way, everyone knows who’s C.E.O. of what and they know whom to ask instead of me. And it was really effective. People liked it. And there was nowhere to hide.

Q. So who were some of your new C.E.O.’s?

A. We had this really motivated, smart receptionist. She was young. We kept outgrowing our phone systems, and she kept coming back and saying, “Mark, we’ve got to buy a whole new phone system.” And I said: “I don’t want to hear about it. Just buy it. Go figure it out.” She spent a week or two meeting every vendor and figuring it out. She was so motivated by that.

I think that was a big lesson for me because what I realized was that if you give people really big jobs to the point that they’re scared, they have way more fun and they improve their game much faster. She ended up running our whole office.

Q. Did everybody want to be C.E.O. of something?

A. There are people who want the comfort and structure of a job where they’re given tasks and told what to do. I think it’s actually a minority of people. The majority of people don’t want that, but I’d say that the companies I’ve built are full of people with something to prove.

Q. But don’t most people have something to prove?

A. Some more than others. I keep my eye out for someone who has achieved a lot, so they’ve been a great athlete or on a great team, but then something didn’t go quite right, and they’re still very hungry and want to be C.E.O. of something. I like to bet on people, especially those who have taken risks and failed in some way, because they have more real-world experience. And they’re humble.

I also like to hire people into one position below where they ought to be, because only a certain kind of person will do that — somebody who is pretty humble and somebody who’s very confident.

This is another thing I really, really value: being a true meritocracy. The only way people will have the trust to give their all to their job is if they feel like their contribution is recognized and valued. And if they see somebody else higher above them just because of a good résumé, or they see somebody else promoted who they don’t think deserves it, you’re done.

My approach is that you have to earn the respect of people you work with. And so, if you come in and you start bossing people around and they don’t want to work with you, they won’t. In our company, if you want to switch teams, you can. In hiring, it’s also a sign of a great manager when you tell me that there’s all these people who want to come with you, or when you join us and we find other people are all sending us their résumés because you’re here.

Q. What else is unusual about how you run the company?

A. John Doerr [the venture capitalist] sold me on this idea of O.K.R.’s, which stands for objectives and key results. It was developed at Intel and used at Google, and the idea is that the whole company and every group has one objective and three measurable key results, and if you achieve two of the three, you achieve your overall objective, and if you achieve all three, you’ve really killed it.

We put the whole company on that, so everyone knows their O.K.R.’s. And that is a good, simple organizing principle that keeps people focused on the three things that matter — not the 10.

Then I ask everybody to write down on Sunday night or Monday morning what are your three priorities for the week, and then on Friday see how you did against them. It’s the only way people can stay focused and not burn out. And if I look at your road map and you have 10 priorities for you and your team, you probably don’t know which of the three matter, and probably none of the 10 are right.

I can look at everyone’s piece of paper, and their road map shows every item you were going to do and your predicted results and actual results, and then the results are in red if you missed them, yellow if they’re close and green if you passed them. I think road maps are a great principle just for managing your life. It keeps everybody focused, and it lets me know what trains are on or off the tracks.

Q. What has surprised you most after you really started focusing on leadership and management?

A. The most general thing is it surprised me how rewarding it is to focus on management and being a C.E.O. And how much you get back from places where you weren’t expecting it. I’m surprised how much people at the far reaches of the organization are touched by it, and that touches me. I’ve been surprised how much they can achieve without me being involved. That’s been awesome.

Access Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/business/31corner.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.

Focus on the positive outcome of goals | Psychology Today

Focus on the positive outcome of goals Psychology Today




Published on Psychology Today (http://www.psychologytoday.com/) *

Focus on the positive outcome of goals *
By Timothy A. Pychyl, Ph.D. **
Created Jan 29 2010 - 9:50am *

Strategies, like implementation intentions, that are meant to enhance our goal pursuit are only really effective when we already have strong goal intentions. Here's an example of strengthening an exercise intention. *

I've written at length about the use of implementation intentions to achieve our goals. Implementation intentions provide the "when, where and how" of the action that we'll enact to achieve a goal. *

The thing is, the same research that demonstrates the efficacy of implementation intentions at supporting our goal pursuit also underscores an important pre-condition for success: *

For implementation intentions to have the desired effect, Strong goal intentions must be made first. *

I think anyone who has tried various techniques to battle their procrastination knows this. Tips and techniques to get us moving fall short if we don't first have a strong goal intention. *

A strong goal intention is one where we've made a deep commitment to the goal because we really see the value of the goal. It matters to us (in contrast to goals we adopt because we feel we ought to and we falsely internalize as our own). *

An example - exercise goal intentions ***Most of the people I know have an exercise goal in their lives of some form. Mine is (are) perennial! We all seem to have exercise goals to enhance fitness, health, appearance, energy levels or provide stress relief. It's pretty obvious that exercise has a lot of benefits. *

One approach to strengthening a goal intention is to elaborate on these positive outcomes of regular exercise. The short list above is a beginning. It's important to take the time to list these for yourself personally. *

After elaborating the positive outcomes of exercise, contrast these benefits to the possible obstacles of your exercise goal: I'm always too tired after work, there's not enough time in a day, I don't like exercising, etc. Of course, implementation intentions about how you can overcome these obstacles can be formed as you go. (For more about this process of forming implementation intentions that reduce potential distractions and obstacles, see my previous post.) *

This mental contrasting procedure has been shown to increase exercise immediately, and this increase held up over a two-year period. Mental contrasting - it can become another technique in your personal "toolkit" for overcoming procrastination and succeeding at your goal pursuit. *

Reference ***Stadler, G., Oettingen, G., & Gollwitzer, P.M. (2009). Effects of a self-regulation intervention on women's physical activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36, 29-34. *
Source URL: http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/37695 *

Links:[1] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dont-delay/201001/implementation-intentions-facilitate-action-control *
[2] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dont-delay/200805/whats-your-ought-self *
[3] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dont-delay/200804/existentialism-and-procrastination-part-2-bad-faith *
[4] http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/teaser/2010/01/outcomes.gif *
[5] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dont-delay *

Access Original Post:*** http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dont-delay/201001/focus-the-positive-outcome-goals

***********************************************************************
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.

Implementation intentions facilitate action control | Psychology Today

Implementation intentions facilitate action control Psychology Today

Published on Psychology Today (http://www.psychologytoday.com/) *

Implementation intentions facilitate action control *
By Timothy A. Pychyl, Ph.D. **
Created Jan 21 2010 - 3:21am *

I'm often asked what someone should do to reduce procrastination. One of my most common answers is, "It's not enough to have a goal intention, you need to have an implementation intention too." Today, I explain what an implementation intention is and how it works to overcome four common problems in goal pursuit. *

As I explained in my last post, I've been reading an early copy of The thief of time: Philosophical essays on procrastination to be published by Oxford Press in April this year. I'm picking up where I left off with a focus on implementation intentions by summarizing the main ideas presented by Frank Wieber and Peter Gollwitzer in their chapter, "Overcoming Procrastination through Planning." *

They propose "implementation intentions as an easily applicable planning strategy that can help overcome procrastination by automating action control" (p. 190). I agree. Implementation intentions are not a panacea for problems with procrastination, but they are a good tool for change. *

Implementation intentions support goal intentions. I might have a goal intention of "flossing my teeth regularly" (one of my most common examples, as readers and listeners of my iProcrastinate Podcasts know). An implementation intention supports this goal intention by setting out in advance when/where and how I will achieve this goal. In this case, it might be "When I put the toothpaste on my toothbrush in the evening (something which is a habit for me), I will then stop and get out the floss first." Essentially what I've done in making this implementation intention is to put the cue for behavior (putting the paste on my toothbrush) into the environment, so it serves as a stimulus for my behavior. I don't have to think about or remind myself about my goal. The moment I put the paste on my brush, my behavior is cued. In time, this should become as automatic as my teeth brushing is already. (Note: I do think there are many problems here still, and I know this from lived experience, because I can fall into a intransitive preference loop around this behavior, always putting it off one more day, but I'll save the details of this criticism for another day.) *

The issue here really is one of a predecision. As Wieber and Gollwitzer write, "the control over the initiation of the . . . behavior is delegated to the specified situation . . . without requiring a second conscious decision." (p. 190). And, they note in a few places that the most effective form for an implementation intention is the "if . . . then" format. If I have the toothpaste in my hand, I will get out the floss to floss my teeth first. *

Over more than a decade of research, Gollwitzer and his colleagues have amassed a great deal of evidence to demonstrate that implementation intentions have a medium-to-large effect size on goal achievement (over and above having a goal intention itself - although having a strong goal intention and commitment to the goal is an essential ingredient in the success of an implementation intention). I provided an example of this research in my previous post, A strategy for change. *

The key issue for my blog today is how implementation intentions address each of the challenges that I summarized yesterday from the chapter authored by Wieber and Gollwitzer. As before, I'll number each of the potential problems in goal pursuit and briefly summarize how implementation intentions work to circumvent the problem. *

1. Problems with initiating goal action ***
Implementation intentions can help you with my most often-offered strategy of, "just get started." In fact, studies indicate that implementation intentions on getting started can even help when we have an initial reluctance to get started on an aversive task and would rather simply, "give in to feel good." My favorite example from the chapter was a study that involved making implementation intentions to get started on weekly math homework (for a period of a month). The math homework was tedious, but those participants who were randomly assigned to the "if -then" format of implementation intentions started their homework within 1.5 hours of their intended start time (as opposed to 8.0 hours for the more vaguely stated implementation intentions). Other studies involving health goals (e.g., starting regular physical activity, breast self-exams) or environmentally-responsible behavior (e.g., purchasing organic food) also demonstrated the efficacy of implementation intentions for acting on the goal. In short, you're more likely to get started when you put the stimulus for action into the environment. *

2. Staying on track ***
Wieber and Gollwitzer note that four studies have investigated the effects of implementation intentions on resisting tempation. Taken together, these studies demonstrated that participants who formed temptation-inhibiting implementation intentions outperformed the groups who did not. And, this effect was independent of the participants' motivation to achieve the goal and to ignore distractions. Implementation intentions have effects over and above motivation to succeed. This is important. Interestingly, the fourth example they provide is a study of six-year-olds. Again, the results showed that implementation intentions (of the if-then format) even helped six-year-olds to not procrastinate. (You can bet I'll make this more a focus at home, as I had not read this study previously.) *

3. Disengaging from ineffective strategies ***
Implementation intentions can be used to help us switch to a different means for our goal pursuit or even a different goal. In an example of this kind of implementation used in research, Wieber and Gollwitzer note that participants had been asked to form implementations like, "If I receive disappointing feedback, then I'll switch my strategy." This kind of implementation intention facilitated the disengagement that can be problematic in our goal pursuit. That said, I would think that an even more effective implementation intention might be to have a "Plan B" more carefully specified, as this would reduce the uncertainty of what "switching a strategy" might mean. Uncertainty is a key correlate of procrastination, so anything we can do to reduce it when planning through implementation intentions can't hurt. *

4. Preventing willpower burn out (self-regulation depletion) ***
As you may recall from my previous posts about the metaphor used by Roy Baumeister and colleagues, willpower is like a muscle, and there are things we can do to bolster our self-regulatory resources. Implementation intentions can be added to this list of willpower boosters. A couple of studies have now demonstrated that the automatic nature of the effects of implementation intentions counters the effects of ego- or self-regulatory depletion. For example, when participants in this type of study have to control their emotions during a humorous movie (suppressing their laughter), they are usually less capable of doing a subsequent experimental task that requires self-regulatory strength such as solving a series of anagrams. However, for participants randomly assigned to an "if-then" implementation intention manipulation (who prepared by saying to themselves, "If I solve an anagram, then I will immediately start to work on the next one"), this depletion effect was eliminated (they solved as many anagrams as the group who were not depleted beforehand). This is an interesting result with clear implications for how we can strengthen our flagging willpower at the end of a long day. For example, an implementation intention may well be the thing that gets you to exercise in the evening even though you usually feel much too tired to begin. *

Closing Comments ***
I've heard back from many of the readers of Don't Delay as well as listeners of my iProcrastinate Podcasts that they wanted to learn more about implementation intentions. Well, there you have it. ☺ And, if you want even more, I recommend that you read the chapter in the upcoming book The thief of time: Philosophical essays on procrastination . *

Whether you decide to read more or not, it's time to make your own implementation intention for an important goal intention in your life. What "if-then" intention will you work with today? *

Source URL: http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/37288 *
Links: ***[1] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dont-delay/201001/overcoming-procrastination-four-potential-problems-during-goal-pursuit *
[2] http://www.amazon.com/Thief-Time-Philosophical-Essays-Procrastination/dp/0195376684/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263914861&sr=8-1 *[3] http://iprocrastinate.libsyn.com/ *
[4] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dont-delay/200804/intransitive-preference-structures-the-procrastination-trap *
[5] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dont-delay/200804/procrastination-strategy-change *
[6] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dont-delay/200803/just-get-started *
[7] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dont-delay/200804/giving-in-feel-good-why-self-regulation-fails *
[8] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dont-delay/200806/uncertainty-emotion-task-delay-i-may-have-fear-i-need-not-be-my-fear *
[9] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dont-delay/200902/self-regulation-failure-part-2-willpower-is-muscle *
[10] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dont-delay/200903/self-regulation-failure-part-4-eight-tips-strengthen-willpower *
[11] http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/teaser/2010/01/goalpuzzle.jpg *
[12] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dont-delay *

Access Original Post: *** http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dont-delay/201001/implementation-intentions-facilitate-action-control?page=2



***********************************************************************
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 a leader with a bad mood can be good for business | Scientific Management

Why a leader with a bad mood can be good for business Scientific Management

Scientific Management

Great management tips from business researcher. Best practices, scientifically tested and proven
______________________________________________________________________
Study Abstract:

Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association
2005, Vol. 90, No. 2, 295–305 0021-9010/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.295

The Contagious Leader: Impact of the Leader’s Mood on the Mood of Group Members, Group Affective Tone, and Group Processes

Thomas Sy - California State University, Long Beach
Ste´phane Coˆte´- University of Toronto
Richard Saavedra - University of Michigan

The present study examined the effects of leaders’ mood on (a) the mood of individual group members, (b) the affective tone of groups, and (c) 3 group processes: coordination, effort expenditure, and task strategy. On the basis of a mood contagion model, the authors found that when leaders were in a positive mood, in comparison to a negative mood, (a) individual group members experienced more positive and less negative mood, and (b) groups had a more positive and a less negative affective tone. The authors also found that groups with leaders in a positive mood exhibited more coordination and expended less effort than did groups with leaders in a negative mood. Applied implications of the results are discussed.
_______________________________________________________

Scientific Management

Great management tips from business researcher. Best practices, scientifically tested and proven


Why a leader with a bad mood can be good for business
Leadership, Teams
26 January 2010

Business managers and leaders have to worry about a seemingly innumerable number of things – hiring, firing, motivating the troops, etc. Add to the list mood. And a leader can’t simply assume he or she needs to try and be in a good mood all the time – research shows that there are different benefits that come from a happy leader and from a grumpy leader.

Mood is contagious. How those around us feel affects how we feel, and subsequently act. This is especially true of leaders – how they feel affects what their followers do.

Proof of this comes from this study. Undergraduates were put into teams and told that they had to construct a small tee-pee. One team member was given a pamphlet that had general instructions on how to put together the tee-pee and was allowed to read it for five minutes. Then that person was either put into a good mood (by watching some David Letterman) or a poor mood (by watching part of a depressing documentary). This person then had to verbally instruct his/her team on how to put together the teepee. Also, all other team members were blindfolded.
The results?

If the leader was put into a good mood by David Letterman, then not only was the rest of the group in a better mood, but their work was more coordinated – they worked better together as a team. Feeling good in general probably made the team members feel better about each other – and made it easier to work together.

If the leader had been put into a bad mood, this created a poor mood in followers, but increased the effort of the group. The researchers theorized that the followers interpret the leader’s bad mood as proof that they are not getting enough done, and so ramp up their effort.

So does this mean you should fake a bad mood whenever you want your team to work harder? Probably not. If you are caught (or even thought to be) faking emotions, it could easily affect your relationship with your team.

A better solution is to be conscious of your mood, and how it affects your team.

If you are in a bad mood, but your team is doing well, then you might want to tell them that your mood has nothing to do with them. But if poor effort is the cause of your poor mood, it may not be something you want to hide. And if you want a little more teamwork and coordination in your team, it’s just a good late-night monologue away.

Access Original Post: http://www.scientificmanagementblog.com/2010/01/26/why-a-leader-with-a-bad-mood-can-be-good-for-business/

Access Study: http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/~scote/SyetalJAP.pdf

***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.

How to Get Along With Frenemies - Susan Cramm - Harvard Business Review

How to Get Along With Frenemies - Susan Cramm - Harvard Business Review


Harvard Publishing
Susan Cramm

How to Get Along With Frenemies *

12:55 PM Wednesday January 27, 2010 Comments (2) *

You've got senior level buy-in, authority, and resources for your project. But you're lacking a few critical supporters. A few people in the middle of your organization are making it tough for you to get your job done. Their mouths say, "Yes," but their actions say, "Yes, but..." *

You're not alone. Collaborating isn't easy. Agendas, approaches, and personalities often conflict.*

Last week, a leader said to me, "I have enemies everywhere. They want me to fail." He has tried to lead with compassion but has found that this approach is leaving him frustrated and unable to make real progress. If you have some "frenemies" — colleagues with whom you have cordial, yet unproductive relationships — don't give up. Before they become full-fledged enemies, do the following: *

Stick to the facts. No one has "enemies everywhere." The leader above has two — not 10 — people who are making his life difficult: A boss who wants more information and a peer who expects adherence to the standard process. Settle down, breath deeply, and write down what you know for sure — the facts, not your interpretation of the facts. When you see them in black and white, you'll be able to strip away the emotion and the problem will reduce in size and severity. *

Don't take it personally. No one is trying to make you fail. People are way too self-involved and much too worried about their own failure to give much concern to yours. If you ever find yourself thinking, "If it were me, I would never..." stop right there. Trying to psyche out someone else's motivators with our "me-oriented" brains is always fruitless. *

Talk it out. If someone is bugging you, odds are, you are bugging him. If left unresolved, negative feelings reverberate back and forth and ultimately harm the relationship. "He cancelled my meeting", becomes, "He always cancels my meetings", and balloons into, "He doesn't respect me." Talking it out requires stating the facts, tentatively offering up your interpretation, and asking for feedback. Using our meeting example, this translates into something along the lines of, "I noticed that you cancelled the last two meetings. It seems like you have more pressing priorities. What's going on?" *

If you can't talk it out, work it out. If a colleague repeatedly cancels your meetings, drop by her office to chat. If she requires more information, inundate her. If she wants you to jump through process hoops, jump early and jump often, so that her hurdles don't slow you down. *

While you are working it out, spread it out. Distribute authority by forming a governance board, consisting of your frenemies and the powers-that-be, so that key decisions are made collectively, not individually. These forums also help accelerate progress since no one wants to be on the "issues and risks" lists when project status and timelines are up for review. *

If all else fails, relax. Adjust your aspirations and your timelines to align with the tempo of the organization. Some organizations embrace leaders who judge their progress every 10 minutes, some every 10 days or 10 months. If you are holding yourself and others to a standard that is higher than the organization at large, your nagging will do nothing more than label you as a leader who lacks political savvy and "doesn't know how things get done around here." *

Rinse and repeat. As work changes, relationships need to change as well. At the end of each day, clear your head, review this list, and get ready to do this again (and again, and again). *


Susan Cramm is the founder and president of Valuedance. A former CFO and CIO, she is an expert on IT leadership. She is the author of 8 Things We Hate About IT. *

Access Original Post: *** http://blogs.hbr.org/hbr/cramm/2010/01/how-to-get-along-with-frenemie.html?cm_mmc=npv-_-DAILY_ALERT-_-AWEBER-_-DATE


***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.

CEO Confidence Hits Fourth Consecutive Quarterly Increase

CEO Confidence Hits Fourth Consecutive Quarterly Increase


WorldatWork Newsline

CEO Confidence Hits Fourth Consecutive Quarterly Increase

Jan. 14, 2010 — CEO confidence increased slightly to 64 in Q4 2009 up from 63 in Q3 and 24 one year ago, according to The Conference Board; the measure is the fourth consecutive quarterly increase.

“The continued improvement in CEO confidence suggests further economic growth in 2010,” said Lynn Franco, director of The Conference Board Consumer Research Center. “However, short-term expectations do not suggest a significant strengthening in the pace of growth.”

CEOs’ assessment of current economic conditions continued to pick up, with 75% saying conditions had improved compared to six months ago, up from 68% last quarter, according to The Conference Board. In assessing their own industries, business leaders’ attitudes remained essentially unchanged, with 54% claiming conditions are better, compared with 55% last quarter.

Looking ahead six months, CEOs remain optimistic, according to the survey, which was conducted from mid-November to mid-December 2009. Approximately 58% expect economic conditions to improve in the next six months, about the same as last quarter. Expectations for their own industries were less optimistic, with 45% anticipating an improvement in the months ahead, down from 51% last quarter.

Inflation Outlook: Expect Moderate Price Increases in 2010 According to survey results, the majority of CEOs expect changes in their firms’ selling prices in 2010. On average, firms plan to hike prices by 1.6%, higher than last year’s expectation of 1%. Only 5% anticipate price increases in excess of 10%. About 15% plan to decrease prices, and 29% foresee no change.

Contents © 2009 WorldatWork. No part of this article may be reproduced, excerpted or redistributed in any form without express written permission from WorldatWork.

Access Original Post: http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimComment?id=36078

***********************************************************************
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 Report Lack of Management Successors Onboard

Companies Report Lack of Management Successors Onboard


WorldatWork Newsline *

Companies Report Lack of Management Successors Onboard ***

Jan. 14, 2010 — *

More than half of large and midsize companies report that, despite a high unemployment rate, they don’t have enough management successors currently onboard, according to a new survey. ***

The OI Partners survey found: *

1. 54% of companies said they do not have enough qualified successors now working for them to succeed their executives and managers. *
2. Only 32% of companies report currently having enough management successors in place. *
3. 14% of companies are not sure if they have enough future leaders already in their organizations. *

“The survey reveals a real opportunity for executives and managers — especially those now out of work — to show they can accomplish desired results for a prospective employer,” said Tim Schoonover, chairman of OI Partners. “This is also a wake-up call for current employees to prove they should be considered for promotion now or be placed on the fast track.” *

According to the survey, the biggest source of a typical company’s future leaders is its own high-potential employees. Employers are more often developing their own high-potential employees into future leaders than they are promoting their now-ready executives, hiring from their competitors or recruiting from outside their industries. (Respondents were allowed to select more than one answer.) *

1. 72% of companies plan to internally develop their high-potential employees to become future top management. *
2. 54% expect to promote their now-ready executives to become management successors. *
3. 40% plan to hire future leaders from their competitors. *
4. 26% anticipate recruiting future leaders from outside their industries. *

Survey results show that companies that currently do not have enough management successors are more than twice as likely to hire from their competitors and are almost two times more likely to hire from outside their industries than those that have enough future management talent already in place. *

1. 48% of companies without enough management successors plan to hire from their competitors, compared to only 21% of employers with sufficient management bench strength. *
2. 28% of companies without enough executive talent plan to hire from outside their industries, compared to only 16% of employers that already have enough successors. *

The survey results mean the following for employees and employers, according to OI Partners: *

1. There is an opportunity for employees — and especially out-of-work executives and managers — to demonstrate that they can bring real value to an employer. “With more than half of companies reporting they currently lack enough management successors, this is an opening for both employed and unemployed executives and managers to show they can help a company win business, achieve its goals and keep ahead of its competition,” Schoonover said. *
2. Executives and managers who are looking for a new job should determine whether a prospective employer has enough management successors onboard. “Companies without enough management successors are a real opportunity for people working for their competitors, and even those from outside of the company’s industry,” Schoonover said. “Find out whether a desired employer needs qualified management successors by contacting current and former employees, consultants and other vendors, and target those companies.” *
3. This is a wake-up call for employees currently working for companies. “Current employees who aspire to reach the top management levels need to prove that they should be considered for available higher-level positions, and/or they should be put designated as high potentials,” Schoonover said. *
4. Employers need to determine who their high-potential employees are and then provide them with the necessary coaching and training to turn them into future leaders. Seventy-one percent of employers in the survey are currently providing high-potential employees with coaching and other developmental training to grow them into future leaders. “Employers need to fully assess the capabilities of current employees and those outside of their organizations and decide which ones to grow as future leaders,” Schoonover said. *

About the SurveyThe survey included responses from 212 primarily large and midsized employers throughout North America, and it has an error rate of +/- 6.7%, according to OI Partners. *
Contents © 2009 WorldatWork. No part of this article may be reproduced, excerpted or redistributed in any form without express written permission from WorldatWork.

Access Original Post: http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimComment?id=36079
***********************************************************************
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 Dilution Dilemma: Making Your Messages Matter | GiANT Impact

The Dilution Dilemma: Making Your Messages Matter GiANT Impact

Leadership Wired / Giant Impact *

The Dilution Dilemma: Making Your Messages Matter *
By Mark Sanborn, CSP, CPAE *

As a leader, do you ever feel your important messages fall on deaf ears? *

Are your carefully constructed and communicated strategies always get implemented? *

Are you often frustrated by the difference between the results you ask of others and what you actually get? *

Leaders agonize when developing vision, mission and strategy. They carefully choose words and phrases. They painstakingly craft spoken and written communication to explain these important concepts. They communicate these messages in countless conversations and presentations. *

Yet if you asked the typical employee what their leader's message is-what is truly important and how it should shape their decisions, actions and interactions-they'd be hard pressed to provide more than a vague summary. *

Why? *

The answer: The Dilution Dilemma. By the time the message is passed down or through the organization, the clarity, effectiveness and impact are dramatically diluted. *

What can you do to minimize or eliminate this costly dilution? *

The antidote can be summarized by these four words: constant, clear, catchy and compelling. *

Constant. *** The best messaging loses effectiveness when it changes. The more often messaging changes, the less believable future messaging becomes. *

Repetition is the mother of both retention and understanding. When followers hear the same messages repeatedly they realize there must be a reason, and the reason is importance. Often the first time a message is heard it is ignored or discounted. Why? Employees assume they'll hear it again if it really is significant. They are used to fleeting ideas and concepts and have learned to tune out those that aren't emphasized. *

Constant communication of the same messages can be a crazy maker for leaders but it is necessary nonetheless. You need to stick to you messaging until you are sick and tired of repeating it. Only at the point of near nausea can you safely assume the message has been both heard, understood and believed to be important.
The messages you send as a leader will be repeated with less frequently as they move through the organization. That's why you need to front-load the system with constant repetition. A few mentions by leaders at the top get diluted to a miniscule amount of information at the bottom of the org chart. *

Clear ***. Ambiguity is the enemy of success. When people aren't clear on what you mean, they fill in the blanks, and usually incorrectly. *

There is a scene in the movie Philadelphia where the character played by Tom Hanks is doing an initial consultation with a lawyer played by Denzel Washington. Although I saw it over twenty years ago, I still recall how the lawyer communicated with the potential client about his situation. He said, "Explain it to me like I'm a second grader." Despite his intellect and skill, he knew only a complete and thorough explanation would provide the information he needed. *

And that is clarity. You must cut through the superfluous to find the substantive and communicate it in such a way that there can be no misunderstanding. *

Leaders build their messages on irreducible minimums. They know that if they can't succinctly explain what they mean, they won't be understood by others. Recall the childhood game of telephone where a statement is passed by whispering to another which they in turn whisper to another. Within a few of these "transmissions" the content of the original message has completely morphed. This is yet another effect of the dilution dilemma. *

Don't tell people you're explaining it like they're second graders, but be just as clear and thorough as if you were. *

The end result you need as a leader is not mere acceptance and understanding but action. Be clear on what people must do as a result of what you're telling them. You can't insinuate what needs to be done; clarity requires a call to action. *

Catchy ***. Your audience is bombarded with messages in every conceivable medium. Being catchy is about breaking through the clutter and being memorable. *

What about your message will stick in the mind of the reader or hearer? Here's the test: will they be able to accurately convey what you've communicated? Your job as a leader is to make their job of understanding and repeating easy. More importantly, catchy messages make us want to repeat them. We all love the catchy and the clever and quickly tire of the mundane. *

Stories, metaphors, analogies, mottos and even clichés are among the tools you can use. Spend as much time in the packaging of what you're trying to convey as you do developing the content of the message. *

Remember, facts validate, but stories illustrate. The best statistical analysis in the world will be diluted to the point of nothingness if it isn't packaged in a catchy, memorable story or illustration. *

Compelling *** . The ultimate guard against dilution is to make your important messages compelling. People can be clear and able to act on the information but they won't without reasons that make sense to them. That is the essence of creating compelling message: getting people to care enough to do something. Compelling ideas are powerful; they have the ability to induce action. *

And that requires emotion. Take it from two experts in the field, Dan and Chip Heath, authors of Made to Stick: "A credible idea makes people believe. An emotional idea makes people care." *

Leaders tend to have credible ideas but often stop short of compelling ideas. A leader knows why action should be taken, but that familiarity can prevent them from thinking through the reasons others need to follow through. *

To avoid dilution, answer the question lingering in the listener's mind: why should I care? That is a more effective question than "Why is this important?" *

Ideas must be robust to be strong and withstand the almost inevitable affects of the dilution dilemma. As a leader, the strength o f your ideas and messages comes from constant and clear communication that is designed to be catchy and compelling. *

About ***
Mark Sanborn is the president of Sanborn & Associates, Inc., an idea lab for leadership development. Leadershipgurus.net lists Mark as one of the top 15 leadership experts in the world. *

Mark has presented over 2200 speeches and seminars in every state and 10 countries. His book, The Fred Factor: How Passion in Your Work and Life Can Turn the Ordinary Into the Extraordinary is an international bestseller and was on the New York Times, Business Week and Wall Street Journal bestseller lists. His latest books include You Don't Need a Title to be a Leader: How Anyone, Anywhere Can Make a Positive Difference and The Encore Effect: How to Achieve Remarkable Performance in Anything You Do. *

For more information visit http://www.marksanborn.com/ *

"This article is used by permission from Leadership Wired, GiANT Impact's premiere leadership newsletter, available for free subscription at http://www.giantimpact.com/." *

Access Original Post: *** http://www.giantimpact.com/articles/read/the_dilution_dilemma_making_your_messages_matter/

***********************************************************************
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.

Creativity: Colleges Market Easy, No-Fee Sell to Applicants - NYTimes.com

Colleges Market Easy, No-Fee Sell to Applicants - NYTimes.com

Excerpts:

Lifting a page from the marketing playbook of credit card companies.
Last fall the college [College of Saint Rose in Albany] sent out 30,000 bright red “Exclusive Scholar Applications” to high school seniors that promised to waive the $40 application fee, invited them to skip the dreaded essay and assured a decision in three weeks. Because the application arrived with the students’ names and other information already filled in, applying required little more than a signature.

Theirs [Royall & Company] is a roster that includes well-known institutions like Marquette (which promised a free baseball cap to the first 250 respondents to its “Advantage Application”); Rensselaer Polytechnic (the “Candidate’s Choice Application”) and the University of Minnesota (“the Golden Gopher Fast Application”). Others that have regional reputations — like the University of the Pacific in Stockton, Calif. (the “Distinctive Candidate Application”) — are hoping to raise their national profiles.

Royall helps each college identify potential applicants by buying lists of high school students’ names and addresses from the College Board, based on how they performed on the PSAT or SAT, or on information they provided on their high school class rank, interests or ethnicity.

To Royall and its clients, the subsequent outreach helps students who might not know that a particular college exists. Moreover, the company argues that it is saving applicants precious time at a hectic moment in their lives. (Some colleges’ fast-track applications, for example, encourage students to submit a graded high school paper in lieu of an original essay.)

“People might say this is too easy, it isn’t rigorous enough,” Mr. Royall said. “No one has ever told us that the people applying using these methods are less qualified.”

Read Full Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/education/26admit.html?ref=todayspaper
***********************************************************************
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.

Take VIA Survey of Character Again to Measure Your Character

Take VIA Survey of Character Again to Measure Your Character


VIA Institute on Character 312 Walnut Street Suite 3600 Cincinnati OH 45202 US



A new leadership training program based on character, developed by Drs. Martin E. Seligman and Christopher Peterson and piloted at West Point, was highlighted in last night's PBS Special: This Emotional Life. According to PBS, the Seligman-Peterson program will soon be required for all soldiers.

Chris Peterson, the VIA Institute's Science Director, bases his work on what he calls the "simple notion" that "If you want to develop character, you have to identify your strengths and use them over and over again." Peterson says, "You can't cultivate the whole of character, but you certainly can cultivate its components."

The components of character were identified by Peterson, Seligman and 55 social scientists. The survey to measure your character strengths is called the VIA Survey of Character and is available, free of charge, to all online at www.viasurvey.org. The VIA Classification of Character Strengths is presented and discussed at http://www.viacharacter.org/.

On the PBS special, Peterson went on to say that, "Most of the interventions that have been created to date are based on the very simple premise that you are what you do. And if you do more of these things you will be more of whatever they represent. So how frequently are you kind? How often are you a leader?" He suggest that you "keep track of that and measure it all along so you can track your progress."

The VIA Institute has found that it works best to know your VIA Survey scores. Peterson and the Institute have developed two reports -- one that is free and gives survey-takers a top-down list of their strengths, with a precise definition of each. The top 5 or 6 strengths are a person's "signature strengths" -- which are innate strengths of character. A more in-depth report -- 17 pages of scores, charts, graphs, with thorough descriptions of signature strengths with ways to use them -- is also available at www.viasurvey.org. Consultants can purchase codes that send their clients' reports directly to the consultant's email.

It's a new year. Perhaps this is the perfect time to spend a year developing your character -- your strengths -- and ultimately your happiness.

Questions? The staff at the VIA Institute on Character, a non-profit organization dedicated to advancing our understanding of character, is available to answer any questions. All proceeds support the work of the organization: research and education.




VIA Institute on Character 312 Walnut Street Suite 3600 Cincinnati OH 45202 US


***********************************************************************
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.

Are you a maximiser or a satisficer? « Careers – in Theory

Are you a maximiser or a satisficer? « Careers – in Theory

Careers – in Theory **
Theories, models and research applied to careers work *


Are you a maximiser or a satisficer?
25 January 2010 **

Posted by David Winter in Career satisfaction, Decision making, Fit. **
Tags: choice, cognitive bias, compromise, decision, matching, maximising, satisficing **
trackback *

Imagine that you were receiving feedback on something you had worked on along with a colleague. Which of these two scenarios would you prefer? *

· Scenario 1: You receive great feedback from your supervisor, but your colleague receives even better feedback. **
· Scenario 2: You receive really negative feedback from your supervisor but your colleague receives significantly worse feedback. *

On the face of it, Scenario 1 seems to be the best situation; you are receiving great feedback rather than negative feedback. However, in one study, certain people experiencing Scenario 2 reported feeling happier and more self confident than those experiencing Scenario 1. They would rather do better than their peers even if it meant performing much worse overall. Not everyone felt this way, though. In fact, it was only people who reported themselves as being generally unhappy who engaged in this social comparison. Happy people were just pleased to get a good report and didn’t measure themselves against other people. *

What makes some people more sensitive to their relative success than to their absolute success? And what implications does this have for career decision making? *
According to Barry Schwartz and his colleagues the unhappy people are ‘maximisers’ and the happy people are ‘saticficers’. *
Having multiple choices can be difficult *

According to rational decision theory, the best way to make a choice is to have a complete set of criteria weighted by importance and then to evaluate all the possible options available to determine how well they satisfy these criteria. The best alternative is the one which provides the maximum overall satisfaction or ‘expected utility’. *

In real life, discovering all the possible options is an extremely difficult task, and finding complete information about their potential to satisfy your needs is pretty much impossible. Add to this the limited processing capacity of the human brain, which means that the more choices you have available the less likely you are to make a decision at all, and you have a recipe for complete confusion. But this doesn’t stop some people from trying to hold out for the perfect answer. These people are maximisers. They always try to find the best possible option. *

Satisficers, on the other hand, don’t want to waste their lives straining to find the perfect solution. They are content to discover something that is ‘good enough’. They work out a way of comparing the options they encounter. They decide on a minimum standard of acceptability. As soon as they come across an alternative that meets or exceeds their threshold of satisfaction, they stop searching. It’s good enough; why bother looking any further? *

Surely, the people who hold out for the best option should be happier than the ones who settle for good enough. But, no. The opposite is the case. the maximisers keep worrying that they might have missed something better. Maybe they haven’t got the best solution after all. Whereas the satisficers just get on with enjoying the choice they have made.

Maximisers are competitive. Knowing that someone else has done better makes it difficult for them to be satisfied with their result, even if it’s well above the average. This makes it quite hard to be happy with life. *

Here are a few questions from the paper which might indicate whether you are a maximiser or not: ***
· When you make a choice, how often are you curious about what would have happened if you had chosen differently? **
· How often do feel satisfied with a choice until you discover that there might have been something better? **
· Are you always looking for better options, a better job, a better partner than the one you have? **
· How would you feel about settling for second best? **

And more questions… ***
· Have you come across clients who are trying to maximise their career choice and making themselves unhappy in the process? **
· Have you ever encouraged a client to engage in satisficing? **
· When does satisficing stop being an efficient decision making strategy and when does it start being laziness about proper research? **

Further reading *
· Schwartz, B. et al. (2002) Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1178-1197. *
· Iyengar, S.S., Wells, R.E. & Schwartz, B. (2006) Doing better but feeling worse: Looking for the ‘best’ job undermines satisfaction. Psychological Science, 17(2), 143-150. *
· Lyubomirsky, S. & Ross, L. (1997) Hedonic consequences of social comparison: A contrast of happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1141–1157. *
· Iyengar, S.S. & Lepper, M.R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 995-1006. *
· Simon, H.A. (1979), Models of Thought. Yale University Press. *


***********************************************************************
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.

How to Be a Much More Effective Manager

How to Be a Much More Effective Manager


How to Be a Much More Effective Manager *

Nathaniel Branden, PhD **
Originally published in Bottom Line Personal 9/1/00. Reprinted by permission. *

The best companies … the best departments … the best staffs are those where everyone fee ls comfortable and confident in their decisions. They are free from fear of retribution or humiliation.*

To improve the morale and work quality in your department and company … ***

• Set a standard of personal integrity. Keep your promises, and honor your commitments. Deal with everyone fairly, and support this behavior in others. Give your people the pride of working for a moral company. *

• Find out the central interests of your people. Give people opportunities to do what they enjoy most and do best. Build on people’s strengths. *

• Give assignments that stimulate personal and professional growth. Stretch your people by assigning tasks and projects slightly beyond their known capabilities. *

• Give your people opportunities to practice self-responsibility. Give them space to take the initiative, volunteer ideas, attempt new tasks, expand their range and make mistakes. *

• Challenge the seniority tradition. Promote on the basis of merit. The recognition of ability is one of the great inspirers of self-respect and enthusiasm for the organization. *

Conflict ***

• Show that it is safe to make a mistake. Let people feel free to say “I don’t know, but I will find out.” To evoke fear of error or ignorance is to invite deception, inhibition and an end to creativity. *

• Show that it is safe to disagree with you. Convey respect for differences of opinion. Do not punish dissent. *

• Important: Disagreement does not have to be disagreeable. *

• Make eye contact and listen actively. Offer appropriate feedback, and give the speaker the experience of being heard. *

• Never permit conflicts of personalities. Keep encounters about work task-centered, not ego-centered. The focus needs to be on reality—“What is the situation? What does the work require? What needs to be done?” *

• Provide reasons for rules and guidelines when they are not self-evident. Explain why you cannot accommodate certain requests. Don’t merely hand down orders. *

Feedback ***

• When an employee does superior work or makes an excellent decision, invite him/her to explore how it happened. Do not limit yourself to praise. By asking appropriate questions, you help raise the person’s consciousness about what made the achievement possible and thereby increase the likelihood that others like it will occur in the future. *

• Provide clear and unequivocal performance standards. Let people understand your non-negotiable expectations regarding the quality of work. *

• Praise in public … correct in private. Acknowledge achievement in the hearing of as many people as possible but let a person absorb corrections in the safety of privacy. *

• Convey in every way possible that you are not interested in blaming—you are interested in solutions. When we look for solutions, we grow in self-esteem. When we blame or make excuses, we weaken self-esteem. *

• Take personal responsibility for creating a culture of self-esteem. Subordinates are unlikely to sustain the kind of behavior you want if they do not see it exemplified by higher-ups.Great managers are not the ones who come up with brilliant solutions, but those who see to it that their staffs come up with brilliant solutions. *

• Avoid overdirecting, overobserving and overreporting. Excessive “managing” is the enemy of autonomy and creativity. *


Access Article ***: http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/how_to_be.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.

What Self-Esteem Is and Is Not

What Self-Esteem Is and Is Not


What Self-Esteem Is and Is Not *

Self-esteem is an experience. It is a particular way of experiencing the self. It is a good deal more than a mere feeling—this must be stressed. *

Nathaniel Branden, PhD **
Copyright © 1997, Nathaniel Branden, All Rights Reserved **
This article is adapted from “The Art of Living Consciously” (Simon & Schuster, 1997). *

Four decades ago, when I began lecturing on self-esteem, the challenge was to persuade people that the subject was worthy of study. Almost no one was talking or writing about self-esteem in those days. Today, almost everyone seems to be talking about self-esteem, and the danger is that the idea may become trivialized. And yet, of all the judgments we pass in life, none is more important than the judgment we pass on ourselves. *

Having written on this theme in a series of books, I want, in this short article, to address the issue of what self-esteem is, what it depends on, and what are some of the most prevalent misconceptions about it. *

Self-esteem is an experience. It is a particular way of experiencing the self. It is a good deal more than a mere feeling—this must be stressed. It involves emotional, evaluative, and cognitive components. It also entails certain action dispositions: to move toward life rather than away from it; to move toward consciousness rather than away from it; to treat facts with respect rather than denial; to operate self-responsibly rather than the opposite. *

A Definition ***

To begin with a definition: Self-esteem is the disposition to experience oneself as being competent to cope with the basic challenges of life and of being worthy of happiness. It is confidence in the efficacy of our mind, in our ability to think. By extension, it is confidence in our ability to learn, make appropriate choices and decisions, and respond effectively to change. It is also the experience that success, achievement, fulfillment—happiness—are right and natural for us. The survival-value of such confidence is obvious; so is the danger when it is missing. *

Self-esteem is not the euphoria or buoyancy that may be temporarily induced by a drug, a compliment, or a love affair. It is not an illusion or hallucination. If it is not grounded in reality, if it is not built over time through the appropriate operation of mind, it is not self-esteem. *

The root of our need for self-esteem is the need for a consciousness to learn to trust itself. And the root of the need to learn such trust is the fact that consciousness is volitional: we have the choice to think or not to think. We control the switch that turns consciousness brighter or dimmer. We are not rational—that is, reality-focused—automatically. This means that whether we learn to operate our mind in such a way as to make ourselves appropriate to life is ultimately a function of our choices. Do we strive for consciousness or for its opposite? For rationality or its opposite? For coherence and clarity or their opposite? For truth or its opposite? *

Building Self-Esteem ***

In “The Six Pillars of Self Esteem,” I examine the six practices that I have found to be essential for the nurturing and sustaining of healthy self-esteem: the practice of living consciously, of self-acceptance, of self-responsibility, of self-assertiveness, of purposefulness, and of integrity. I will briefly define what each of these practices means: *

- The practice of living consciously: respect for facts; being present to what we are doing while are doing it; seeking and being eagerly open to any information, knowledge, or feedback that bears on our interests, values, goals, and projects; seeking to understand not only the world external to self but also our inner world, so that we do not out of self-blindness. *

- The practice of self-acceptance: the willingness to own, experience, and take responsibility for our thoughts, feelings, and actions, without evasion, denial, or disowning—and also without self-repudiation; giving oneself permission to think one’s thoughts, experience one’s emotions, and look at one’s actions without necessarily liking, endorsing, or condoning them; the virtue of realism applied to the self. *

- The practice of self-responsibility: realizing that we are the author of our choices and actions; that each one us is responsible for life and well-being and for the attainment of our goals; that if we need the cooperation of other people to achieve our goals, we must offer values in exchange; and that question is not “Who’s to blame?” but always “What needs to be done?” (“What do I need to do?”) *

- The practice of self-assertiveness: being authentic in our dealings with others; treating our values and persons with decent respect in social contexts; refusing to fake the reality of who we are or what we esteem in order to avoid disapproval; the willingness to stand up for ourselves and our ideas in appropriate ways in appropriate contexts. *

- The practice of living purposefully: identifying our short-term and long-term goals or purposes and the actions needed to attain them (formulating an action-plan); organizing behavior in the service of those goals; monitoring action to be sure we stay on track; and paying attention to outcome so as to recognize if and when we need to go back to the drawing-board. *

- The practice of personal integrity: living with congruence between what we know, what we profess, and what we do; telling the truth, honoring our commitments, exemplifying in action the values we profess to admire. *

What all these practices have in common is respect for reality. They all entail at their core a set of mental operations (which, naturally, have consequences in the external world). *

When we seek to align ourselves with reality as best we understand it, we nurture and support our self-esteem. When, either out of fear or desire, we seek escape from reality, we undermine our self-esteem. No other issue is more important or basic than our cognitive relationship to reality—meaning: to that which exists. *

A consciousness cannot trust itself if, in the face of discomfiting facts, it has a policy of preferring blindness to sight. A person cannot experience self-respect who too often, in action, betrays consciousness, knowledge, and conviction—that is, who operates without integrity. *

Thus, if we are mindful in this area, we see that self-esteem is not a free gift of nature. It has to be cultivated, has to be earned. It cannot be acquired by blowing oneself a kiss in the mirror and saying, “Good morning, Perfect.” It cannot be attained by being showered with praise. Nor by sexual conquests. Nor by material acquisitions. Nor by the scholastic or career achievements of one’s children. Nor by a hypnotist planting the thought that one is wonderful. Nor by allowing young people to believe they are better students than they really are and know more than they really know; faking reality is not a path to mental health or authentic self-assurance. However, just as people dream of attaining effortless wealth, so they dream of attaining effortless self-esteem—and unfortunately the marketplace is full of panderers to this longing. *

People can be inspired, stimulated, or coached to live more consciously, practice greater self-acceptance, operate more self-responsibly, function more self-assertively, live more purposefully, and bring a higher level of personal integrity into their life—but the task of generating and sustaining these practices falls on each of us alone. “If I bring a higher level of awareness to my self-esteem, I see that mine is the responsibility of nurturing it.” No one—not our parents, nor our friends, nor our lover, nor our psychotherapist, nor our support group—can “give” us self-esteem. If and when we fully grasp this, that is an act of “waking up.” *

Misconceptions about Self-Esteem ***

When we do not understand the principles suggested above, we tend to seek self-esteem where it cannot be found—and, if we are in “the self-esteem movement,” to communicate our misunderstandings to others. *

Teachers who embrace the idea that self-esteem is important without adequately grasping its roots may announce (to quote one such teacher) that “self-esteem comes primarily from one’s peers.” Or (quoting many others): “Children should not be graded for mastery of a subject because it may be hurtful to their self-esteem.” Or (quoting still others): “Self-esteem is best nurtured by selfless (!) service to the community.” *

In the “recovery movement” and from so-called spiritual leaders in general one may receive a different message: “Stop struggling to achieve self-esteem. Turn your problems over to God. Realize that you are a child of God—and that is all you need to have self-esteem.” Consider what this implies if taken literally. We don’t need to live consciously. We don’t need to act self-responsibly. We don’t need to have integrity. All we have to do is surrender responsibility to God and effortless self-esteem is guaranteed to us. This is not a helpful message to convey to people. Nor is it true. *

Yet another misconception—very different from those I have just discussed—is the belief that the measure of our personal worth is our external achievements. This is an understandable error to make but it is an error nonetheless. We admire achievements, in ourselves and in others, and it is natural and appropriate to do so. But this is not the same thing as saying that our achievements are the measure or grounds of our self-esteem. The root of our self-esteem is not our achievements per se but those internally generated practices that make it possible for us to achieve. How much we will achieve in the world is not fully in our control. An economic depression can temporarily put us out of work. A depression cannot take away the resourcefulness that will allow us sooner or later to find another or go into business for ourselves. “Resourcefulness” is not an achievement in the world (although it may result in that); it is an action in consciousness—and it is here that self-esteem is generated. *

To clarify further the importance of understanding what self-esteem is and is not, I want to comment on a recent research report that has gained a great deal of attention in the media and has been used to challenge the value of self-esteem. *

By way of preamble let me say that one of the most depressing aspects of so many discussions of self-esteem today is the absence of any reference to the importance of thinking or respect for reality. Too often, consciousness or rationality are not judged to be relevant, since they are not raised as considerations. The notion seems to be that any positive feeling about the self, however arrived at and regardless of its grounds, equals “self-esteem.”We encounter this assumption in a much publicized research paper by Roy F. Baumeister, Joseph M. Boden, and Laura Smart, entitled “Relation of Threatened Egotism to Violence and Aggression: The Dark Side of High Self-Esteem,” published in the “Psychological Review” (1996, Vol. 103, 5-33). In it the authors write: *

Conventional wisdom has regarded low self-esteem as an important cause of violence, but the opposite view is theoretically viable. An interdisciplinary review of evidence about aggression, crime, and violence contradicted the view that low self-esteem is an important cause. Instead, violence appears to be most commonly a result of threatened egotism—that is, highly favorable views of self that are disputed by some person or circumstance. Inflated, unstable, or tentative beliefs in the self’s superiority may be most prone to encountering threats and hence to causing violence. The mediating process may involve directing anger outward as a way of avoiding a downward revision of the self-concept. *

The article contains more astonishing statements than it is possible to quote, but here are a few representative examples: *

“In our view, the benefits of favorable self-opinions accrue primarily to the self, and they are if anything a burden and potential problem to everyone else.” *
“By self-esteem we mean simply a favorable global evaluation of oneself. The term self-esteem has acquired highly positive connotations, but it has simple synonyms the connotations of which are more mixed, including … egotism, arrogance … conceitedness, narcissism, and sense of superiority, which share the fundamental meaning of favorable self-evaluation.” *

“[W]e propose that the major cause of violence is high self-esteem combined with an ego threat [which is caused by someone challenging your self-evaluation].” *
“Apparently, then, alcohol generally helps create a state of high self-esteem.” *

Observe, first of all, that there is nothing in the authors’ idea of self-esteem that would allow one to distinguish between an individual whose self-esteem is rooted in the practices of living consciously, self-responsibility, and personal integrity—that is, one whose self-esteem is rooted in reality—and one whose “self-esteem” consists of grandiosity, fantasies of superiority, exaggerated notions of one’s accomplishments, megalomania, and “favorable global self-evaluations” induced by drugs and alcohol. No definition of self-esteem or piece of research that obliterates a distinction of this fundamentality can make any claim to scientific legitimacy. It leaves reality out of its analysis. *

One does not need to be a trained psychologist to know that some people with low self-esteem strive to compensate for their deficit by boasting, arrogance, and conceited behavior. What educated person does not know about compensatory defense mechanisms? Self-esteem is not manifested in the neurosis we call narcissism—or in megalomania. One has to have a strange notion of the concept to equate in self-esteem the trail-blazing scientist or entrepreneur, moved by intellectual self-trust and a passion to discover or achieve, and the terrorist who must sustain his “high self-evaluation” with periodic fixes of torture and murder. To offer both types as instances of “high self-esteem” is to empty the term of any useable meaning. *

An important purpose of fresh thinking is to provide us with new and valuable distinctions that will allow us to navigate more effectively through reality. What is the purpose of “thinking” that destroys distinctions already known to us that are of life-and-death importance? *

It is tempting to comment on this report in greater detail because it contains so many instances of specious reasoning. However, such a discussion would not be relevant here, since my intention is only to show the importance of a precise understanding of self-esteem and also to show what can happen when consciousness and reality are omitted from the investigation. *

So I will conclude with one last observation. In an interview given to a journalist, one of the researchers (Roy F. Baumeister), explaining his opposition to the goal of raising people’s self-esteem, is quoted as saying: “Ask yourself: If everybody were 50 percent more conceited, would the world be a better place?” [1] The implication is clearly that self-esteem and conceit are the same thing—both undesirable. Webster defines conceit as an exaggerated [therefore in defiance of facts] opinion of oneself and one’s merits. No, the world would not be a better place if everybody were 50 percent more conceited. But would the world be a better place if everybody had earned a 50 percent higher level of self-esteem, by living consciously, responsibly, and with integrity? Yes, it would—enormously. *

Awareness of What Affects Our Self-Esteem ***

Self-esteem reflects our deepest vision of our competence and worth. Sometimes this vision is our most closely guarded secret, even from ourselves, as when we try to compensate for our deficiencies with what I call pseudo-self-esteem—a pretense at a self-confidence and self-respect we do not actually feel. Nothing is more common than the effort to protect self-esteem not with consciousness but with unconsciousness—with denial and evasion—which only results in a further deterioration of self-esteem. Indeed a good deal of the behavior we call “neurotic” can be best understood as a misguided effort to protect self-esteem by means which in fact are undermining. *

Whether or not we admit it, there is a level at which all of us know that the issue of our self-esteem is of the most burning importance. Evidence for this observation is the defensiveness with which insecure people may respond when their errors are pointed out. Or the extraordinary feats of avoidance and self-deception people can exhibit with regard to gross acts of unconsciousness and irresponsibility. Or the foolish and pathetic ways people sometimes try to prop up their egos by the wealth or prestige of their spouse, the make of their automobile, or the fame of their dress designer, or by the exclusiveness of their golf club. In more recent times, as the subject of self-esteem has gained increasing attention, one way of masking one’s problems in this area is with the angry denial that self-esteem is significant (or desirable). *

Not all the values with which people may attempt to support a pseudo-self-esteem are foolish or irrational. Productive work, for instance, is certainly a value to be admired, but if one tries to compensate for a deficient self-esteem by becoming a workaholic one is in a battle one can never win—nothing will ever feel like “enough.” Kindness and compassion are undeniably virtues, and they are part of what it means to lead a moral life, but they are no substitutes for consciousness, independence, self-responsibility, and integrity—and when this is not understood they are often used as disguised means to buy “love” and perhaps even a sense of moral superiority: “I’m more kind and compassionate than you’ll ever be and if I weren’t so humble I’d tell you so.” *

One of the great challenges to our practice of living consciously is to pay attention to what in fact nurtures our self-esteem or deteriorates it. The reality may be very different from our beliefs. We may, for example, get a very pleasant “hit” from someone’s compliment, and we may tell ourselves that when we win people’s approval we have self-esteem, but then, if we are adequately conscious, we may notice that the pleasant feeling fades rather quickly and that we seem to be insatiable and never fully satisfied—and this may direct us to wonder if we have thought deeply enough about the sources of genuine self-approval. Or we may notice that when we give our conscientious best to a task, or face a difficult truth with courage, or take responsibility for our actions, or speak up when we know that that is what the situation warrants, or refuse to betray our convictions, or persevere even when persevering is not easy—our self-esteem rises. We may also notice that if and when we do the opposite, self-esteem falls. But of course all such observations imply that we have chosen to be conscious. *

In the world of the future, children will be taught the basic dynamics of self-esteem and the power of living consciously and self-responsibly. They will be taught what self-esteem is, why it is important, and what it depends on. They will learn to distinguish between authentic self-esteem and pseudo-self-esteem. They will be guided to acquire this knowledge because it will have become apparent to virtually everyone that the ability to think (and to learn and to respond confidently to change) is our basic means of survival—and that it cannot be faked. The purpose of school is to prepare young people for the challenges of adult life. They will need this understanding to be adaptive to an information age in which self-esteem has acquired such urgency. In a fiercely competitive global economy—with every kind of change happening faster and faster—there is little market for unconsciousness, passivity, or self-doubt. In the language of business, low self-esteem and underdeveloped mindfulness puts one at a competitive disadvantage. However, neither teachers in general nor teachers of self-esteem in particular can do their jobs properly—or communicate the importance of their work—until they themselves understand the intimate linkage that exists between the six practices described above, self-esteem, and appropriate adaptation to reality. “The world of the future” begins with this understanding. *


Who is Nathaniel Branden? ***

Psychotherapist and philosopher Nathaniel Branden, Ph.D. is a lecturer, practicing psychotherapist, and author of twenty books on the psychology of self-esteem, romantic love, and the life and thought of Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand. His work has been translated into 18 languages and has sold over 4 million copies, and includes such titles as Taking Responsibility, The Six Pillars of Self Esteem, and My Years with Ayn Rand. *

The name Nathaniel Branden has become synonymous with the psychology of self-esteem, a field he began pioneering over thirty years ago. In that time, he has done more than any other theorist to advocate the importance of self-esteem to human well-being, a mission which began with his involvement in Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand's "Inner Circle." *

Download Article As a PDF**: http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/pdf/what_self_esteem.pdf *


Access Article** : http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles.php?page=5#

***********************************************************************
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.