How to Tell Creative Tension From Team Bickering | On Leadership | BNET

How to Tell Creative Tension From Team Bickering On Leadership BNET

How to Tell Creative Tension From Team Bickering

bNET

By Wayne'>http://blogs.bnet.com/bio.php?id=turmel">Wayne Turmel

March 26th, 2010 @ 4:01 am

Reading the rather contentious comments back and forth between two readers on a recent blog post (check out How'>http://blogs.bnet.com/management/?p=392&tag=content;col2">How to Write Emails That Will Get Read) got me thinking. The life of a project or line manager would be so much better if the team just got along and never argued with each other. Right? Not necessarily. Blind agreement can be almost as destructive to your team’s success as ugly friction.

There are times when you feel like a parent on a long car trip. You just want to turn around and yell, “If I have to stop this project and turn around, you’re both in big trouble!” Before you step in between team members, though, you might want to take a deep breath and see what’s really going on. Here are four traits to look for that differentiate creative tension (i.e., positive, constructive differences of opinion) from unproductive bickering (the workplace equivalent of your kids calling each other a big cootie head).

1. Is the argument about the work? Smart people don’t always agree on the right way to approach a problem, so disagreement is the only way for differing opinions to get a fair hearing. As the manager, watch the tone and the language choices. If the wording (spoken or written) is about the project, you’ll see inclusive, positive language: “our outcomes,” “project success,” “what this means to the department is….” If it’s getting personal and petty, you’ll hear “you guys in QC,” or “Here you go again.” In simple terms, personal language means it’s getting personal.
2. Are people asking you and others to pick sides? Public disagreement, whether on email or on wikis and blogs, might be unseemly. But you know you really have a problem when you as the manager start to receive private emails asking you to side with one party or the other. Don’t get sucked into the middle of it. First, have them talk to each other. If you think they can keep it civil, air the conversation in a more public forum like a discussion thread, so they can get input from others. Moderate if you have to, and watch for inappropriate behavior like name calling.
3. Is it impacting the quality of outcomes? Your team doesn’t have to be best friends, and sometimes competition and one-upsmanship can lead to great work. When timelines get missed, or the quality of work suffers, however, it’s time to speak to both parties together — out of earshot of the rest of the team. If you have to, speak to them together and listen to what they have to say.Make sure they’re focused on the work and they know how their dispute impacts the team and their work overall.
4. How’s your blood pressure? You as leader have to monitor your own reactions, as well as those of the team. Is the tension starting to impact others? Are they commenting on it to you privately? What’s your personal tolerance for conflict? When you have to step in, make sure you talk about not only the behavior you’re seeing but how it impacts you, the team, and the outcome of the project.

So, to get back to our two posters, zenexpat and 2TallTexan, I value your comments, and you both have some good points. But accusing someone of brain damage doesn’t fall under the category of “constructive feedback.” Now knock it off or I’ll turn this blog around right now and make you walk.

As president of Greatwebmeetings.com, Wayne Turmel is an expert on managing remote teams. Follow him on Twitter @greatwebmeeting

Access Source Content:

Reacting to Reform - Health Care - CFO.com

Reacting to Reform - Health Care - CFO.com

Reacting to Reform

In the voluminous health-care reform law, CFOs see hope, uncertainty, and – above all – a giant omission.
Alix Stuart, CFO.com US
March 26, 2010

For legislators, the long process of reforming the nation's health-care system has finally come to an end. On Thursday Congress passed the reconciliation bill containing the final changes to the landmark Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which President Obama signed into law on Tuesday. But for finance chiefs, the process of determining what health reform means for their companies is only beginning.

Joel Quall, corporate controller at publicly traded Knight Capital Group, a New Jersey-based electronic trading services firm, says he has been talking with employees about how health-care reform is going to affect them. Some of the firm's 800 U.S. employees are positive about the change. "People are relieved about being able to cover children up to age 26 on their plan," Quall says. And the lifting of lifetime caps on insurance coverage resonates personally with Quall, who says he saw his late father worry about that issue through a wrenching series of cancer treatments.

But other employees are concerned that their premiums will go up, or worry about new individual taxes they may face. And when it comes to specifics, Quall, like most people, is at a loss to predict the future.

Action items are few and far between. "People have asked me, Do we have a Cadillac plan?" says Quall, referring to the high-value health plans that will eventually incur a 40% excise tax. "I've looked and I can't tell if we do or not." He says the company would likely adjust the plan's benefits to fall below the trigger levels for the tax if the plan turns out to be a Cadillac plan. Beyond that, however, he's planning to wait a few months before calling in a health-care consultant to assess next steps.

Meanwhile, even finance chiefs who are in favor of the reform say that a key issue was left unaddressed: the rising cost of health care. "I can certainly see the benefits of making health-care insurance more readily available to everyone, and as a U.S. citizen, I'm glad to see that," says Cal Stuart, CFO of water and air treatment equipment maker Rainsoft. But he adds that while the new law "addresses the area of availability, it doesn't seem like it's really addressed the issue we're facing, which is the continued increase in health-care costs."

When Rainsoft renegotiated its health-care insurance late last year, the Chicago-area private-equity-backed firm ended up with a 20% increase in costs to cover its 175 employees — and that was after negotiations. Stuart has scrimped on other areas of spending, including the company's 401(k) match, in order to keep premium contribution costs flat for the company's lowest-paid employees. Still, some of those employees have opted out of the plan, apparently going without insurance at all because it was too expensive.

Stuart sees the cost increase as a preemptive strike on the part of the insurance companies. "We feel that to a certain extent, we've already felt some of the impact of this reform," he says.

Frugal intentions

To be sure, there is some language in the reform legislation that targets waste in the health-care system. For one, the law directs both the Comptroller General and the Department of Health and Human Services to study "value-based purchasing programs" for hospitals, nursing facilities, and home health agencies, in an effort to align doctors' pay with their performance. In addition, the law provides for incentive payments to hospitals that meet certain standards starting in October 2012. There are also multiple efforts made to tighten up the Medicare program.

Experts also point to some indirect effects that may create cost savings. For example, as hospitals see less bad debt from services provided to uninsured people, their rates could come down anywhere from 5% to 20%, estimates Ron Fontanetta, a principal with Towers Watson. Also, the 40% excise tax on Cadillac plans will likely accelerate shifts to lower-cost plans, he says, like those based on health savings accounts (HSAs) and high deductibles. The reconciliation bill also allows for greater variation in premiums for people who refuse to participate in wellness programs than current laws do, which could ultimately lead to a healthier population.

However, critics say reform doesn't go far enough, failing to include, for example, efforts to limit medical malpractice suits, which are seen as a major area of waste. They also say some of the measures intended to help mitigate costs — including tax credits aimed at small businesses that provide health care — fall short.

Mike Mitternight, head of Louisiana-based Factory Service Agency, a heating and air conditioning service firm with about 10 employees, says that reform will likely do little except raise his costs. Mitternight already pays 100% of health-care coverage for his employees, at a cost of over $4,000 per month. He says the 50% tax credit for businesses with 25 or fewer employees likely won't apply to his firm, since his workers make more than the $25,000 annual average cap specified in the current law for companies with 10 or fewer workers.

Mitternight also notes that a tax credit won't help unprofitable businesses, and may also be unhelpful when monthly cash flow is tight, since the credit would only be available annually. "For a small business, cash flow can make or break you," he says.

Given the uncertainty, though, few CFOs say they have plans to change their current insurance offerings at this point. Stuart says his objective is to do what he can to help Rainsoft's employees manage the cost of health care through the firm's traditional and HSA-based options. "We're not expecting to make many changes, if any," he says, although he notes that the new legislation does allow insurance premiums to be adjusted for tobacco use. "We'll have to explore that further, but our plan would be to have employees that do use tobacco to pay higher premiums," he says.

For Mitternight, the equation may be tougher. "With the economy being down, bids have become so competitive, you can't just keep raising your rates to cover your costs," he says. But he is loath to make a change as well. "Most of my guys have been with me for a long time — I wouldn't do anything to hurt them unless I was forced into it," says Mitternight. "And we wouldn't do anything without some discussions."

© CFO Publishing Corporation 2009. All rights reserved.

Access Content Source: http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/14485986

***********************************************************************
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 Squandering Your Intelligent Failures?

Harvard Business Review


Rita McGrath
Are You Squandering Your Intelligent Failures?
9:55 AM Friday March 26, 2010 | Comments (4)

Despite widespread recognition that challenging times place unpredictable demands on people and businesses, I still run across many managers who would prefer to avoid the logical conclusion that stems from this: failure is a lot more common in highly uncertain environments than it is in better-understood situations. Instead of learning from failures, many executives seek to keep them hidden or to pretend that they were all part of a master plan and no big deal. To those executives, let me argue that an extraordinarily valuable corporate resource is being wasted if learning from failures is inhibited.

Naturally, to an executive raised on the concept of "management by exception," any failure at all seems intolerable. This world view is reinforced by the widespread adoption of various quality techniques, for instance, six sigma, in which the goal is to stamp out variations (by definition, failures) in the pursuit of quality. Managers are supposed to be right, aren't they? And having the right answer is just as valuable in management as it was in grade school, right?

Perhaps not.

For many years, scholars such as my esteemed colleague Sim Sitkin of Duke (see his article "Learning through failure: The strategy of small losses," ) have been studying how organizations learn, and they have come to the conclusion that intelligent failures are crucial to the process of organizational learning and sense-making. Failures show you where your assumptions are wrong. Failures demonstrate where future investment would be wasted. And failures can help you identify those among your team with the mettle to persevere and creatively change direction as opposed to pig-headedly charging blindly ahead. Further, failures are about the only way in which an organization can re-set its expectations for the future in any meaningful way.
Not all failures, of course, are going to be useful from a learning point of view. The concept of intelligent failure makes a difference here. Sitkin's criteria for intelligent failures are:




•They are carefully planned, so that when things go wrong you know why
•They are genuinely uncertain, so the outcome cannot be known ahead of time
•They are modest in scale, so that a catastrophe does not result
•They are managed quickly, so that not too much time elapses between outcome and interpretation
•Something about what is learned is familiar enough to inform other parts of the business.

I would add a couple of other criteria:



•Underlying assumptions are explicitly declared
•These can be tested at specific checkpoints, identified in advance, since planned results may not be equivalent to outcomes.

If your organization can approach uncertain decisions as experiments and adopt the idea of intelligently failing, so much more can be learned (so much more quickly) than if failures or disappointments are covered up.

So ask yourself: are we genuinely reaping the benefit of the investments we've made in learning under uncertain conditions? Do we have mechanisms in place to benefit from our intelligent failures? And, if not, who might be taking advantage of the knowledge we are depriving ourselves of?

Columbia Business School professor Rita McGrath studies innovation, corporate venturing, and entrepreneurship. Her latest book is Discovery Driven Growth (2009).

More on: Entrepreneurship, Innovation, Strategy

Access Content Source: http://blogs.hbr.org/hbr/mcgrath/2010/03/are-you-squandering-your-intel.html?cm_mmc=npv-_-DAILY_ALERT-_-AWEBER-_-DATE

Big Smiles, Longer Lives?

Folks with widest grins in photos outlived others, suggesting happiness extends life

Posted: March 26, 2010

By Kathleen Doheny
HealthDay Reporter

FRIDAY, March 26 (HealthDay News) -- If you're always the one in the photo flashing the biggest smile, a new study suggests you can count on living a long life.

Researchers from Wayne State University in Detroit evaluated the photographs of 230 Major League Baseball players who started playing before 1950, rating their smiles as nonexistent to full.

"People who had the most intense smiles lived the longest, compared to the other two," said Ernest L. Abel, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and of psychology at Wayne State.

"The more intense smile, we infer, indicates an underlying happiness, if you will, a more positive attitude," he said. "It's hard to fake an intense smile."

The researchers gathered other information potentially linked with longevity from a longstanding data base on the players, such as college attendance, marital status, birth year and body-mass index.

They asked reviewers who didn't know the study's purpose to rate the player's smiles as a 1, 2, or 3, with 1 being no smile, 2 a partial, and 3, a broad full smile, the kind that makes your eyes crinkle.

As of June 1, 2009, all but 46 players had died, and they looked back to see if the smile intensity in photos was linked with longer life. It was.

On average, the longevity of the non-smilers was 72.9, 75 for the partial smilers and 79.9 for the big smilers.

The study was recently published in Psychological Science Online First.

The big smilers had what is known as a Duchenne smile, named after the French neurologist who discovered it. Cheeks and the corners of the mouth are raised, and crows-feet wrinkles appear around the eyes.

After Abel and his team controlled for variables such as marital status, birth year and body-mass index, they found the smile-longevity link still held. Those with the biggest smile were half as likely to die in a given year than the nonsmilers. But in this regard, broad smilers didn't differ significantly from partial smilers.

Ted Williams of the Boston Red Sox -- "a big smiler," Abel said -- died at 83.

But Bill Kennedy, who played for Cincinnati and other teams, died at 62, and Abel say he didn't have a big grin in the photos he looked at.

The new research builds on previous studies that linked smile intensity in childhood and college yearbook photos with marriage stability or life satisfaction later.

The study findings make sense to Sonja Lyubomirsky, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Riverside, and a happiness researcher who wrote The How of Happiness. "Most likely, the smiles are an indicator of the baseball players' dispositions," she said. The smiles could be reflecting happiness, optimism or resilience, she said.

Experts already have found those who are happier tend to live longer, she said. While it hasnt been proven to be cause-and-effect, she said, evidence is accumulating that happiness as a trait "does predispose people to live longer," she said.

What about those camera-shy types who don't like their picture taken and therefore don't smile? Lyubomirsky said that probably wouldn't affect the overall results, as there are bound to be camera-shy types among both happy and unhappy people.

So if you're a sourpuss who scowls at the camera, can grinning help you take a better picture and improve your life expectancy?

That's difficult to say, as it's way beyond the scope of the study. But it may not hurt. According to Lyubomirsky, "Darwin was the first to suggest that the outward manifestation of an emotion will intensify it."

More information

To learn more about happiness, visit the American Psychological Association.

Access Content Source: http://www.usnews.com/health/family-health/brain-and-behavior/articles/2010/03/26/big-smiles-longer-lives.html

Managers: How to Lead Under Fire - Steve Tobak

Managers: How to Lead Under Fire
By Steve Tobak
March 25th, 2010 @ 6:35 am

If you’re not periodically under fire by your management and peers then your career’s probably not going anywhere. It’s sort of like “no pain no gain.” If you push the envelope and take risks, then you’re going to get mercilessly grilled from time to time. That’s just the way it works. And if you seriously want to get promoted and make something of yourself, you have to learn to handle it.

No, I’m not talking about growing thick skin and becoming a human punching bag. I’m talking about learning to handle getting fired upon like a true leader. Everyone will walk out of the room thinking you’re the next Lou Gerstner or Jack Welch. Okay, maybe not, but they’ll definitely think more of you and will more readily accept your ideas, proposals, and most importantly, promotions.

How’d I learn this stuff? By spending much of my career selling innovative strategies to risk averse CEOs, CFOs, and management teams. Sure, I probably came across as whiny and defensive in the early days, but in time I learned the ropes. Here they are:

How to Lead Under Fire

- Don’t get emotionally attached to your ideas. It’s good to be passionate about your ideas, but if you’re emotionally attached to them, it’ll come through when you’re getting grilled. And managers are incredibly distrustful of ideologues trying to shove things down their throats. It’s all about positioning. In your mind, you have to be willing to walk away. That little separation will give you the appearance of perspective and poise under fire.

- Learn to embrace alternative views. The best way to respond to most objections is by first embracing them, then explaining why your plan is better or at least equivalent. Again, it’s a positioning game. But there’s a subtle but significant difference between, “My approach is better and here’s why,” and “That’s an interesting idea; here’s why I think this might be a better approach.”

- Master the art of zinger retorts. When you’re getting grilled there will inevitably be some real zingers. Well, there’s only one way to beat a zinger and that’s with a zinger retort. How do you get good at zinger retorts? By getting good at thinking on your feet, which is really equal parts knowledge, experience, preparation, and of course, self confidence. Also, it’s essential to maintain a sense of humor under fire.

- Know your stakeholders. Of course you need to know your material cold and expect the worst. Unfortunately, that’s not even close to good enough. You also have to know the stakeholders, aka your audience, and have a pretty good idea of their likely objections. A few one-on-one premeetings are a good idea. Then you’ll be ready to counter effortlessly.

- Never, ever lose control of the meeting. It’s your meeting, or at least your time to present, so you’re in charge and you need to act like it. I don’t care if the CEO and CFO start going down a rat hole on some mindlessly trivial point. You have to be adept at all the usual techniques for keeping meetings on track, on topic, and on time. Come to think of it, that’s probably a topic of its own.

Access Content Source: http://blogs.bnet.com/ceo/?p=4207&tag=col1;post-4207

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

Ethics a Priority for Boards in Post-Crisis Era | Governance Center Blog

Ethics a Priority for Boards in Post-Crisis Era Governance Center Blog

The Conference Board

Mar
23
2010

Ethics a Priority for Boards in Post-Crisis Era

It looks like more boards and management are taking seriously the effect ethics has on corporate governance and the bottom line. I base this observation on recent conversations with principals of a nascent firm that measures governance and systemic risk in the financial sector and the head of the organization devoted to corporate compliance and ethics.

And then there’s the statistics.

During the economic downturn, the membership of the Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics (SCCE) rose about 20 percent in 2009. A December 2009 SCCE survey of 412 health care and non-health care compliance and ethical professionals (The Economy, Compliance, and Ethics) found that their compliance and ethics budgets increased 26 percent last year compared to an expected increase of only 15 percent. Additionally, the same survey found that 90 percent believed the current economy either somewhat or greatly increased the risk of compliance and ethics failures.

“I think we have been pushing ethics for something like 50 years,” Roy Snell, SCCE CEO, said. “The tide has been turning now as more companies are realizing compliance programs are needed in addition to ethics programs.”

He defined ethics as an “outcome” and compliance programs as a process to get to that outcome.

It seems that ethics has been a vague ideal that every company strives for, but no one can really measure. Following the accounting scandals of the early 2000s and the financial crisis of 2008-2009, the notion of measuring the ethical behavior and culture of a company has become vital.

“The big things that have been missing are enforcement and reporting to the board,” Snell said. “Today, we are starting to have decisive action. In the past, we just had arms flailing.”

As for actually measuring the ethics of a company, Snell told me that’s not the hard part because all you have to do is ask employees if they believe management to be ethical. “But, it doesn’t do any good, because how do you get people to be ethical?” he said. “How do you fix it?”

It’s a lot more than just creating a code of conduct, which is what regulations and market listing standards require. Snell has a process that he believes works. It requires companies to do the following when it comes to enforcing the code of conduct:

• Audit
• Monitor
• Investigate
• Discipline
• Report to the board

Ethics Metrics LLC, a new Charlottesville, Va.-based firm operated by CEO Beckwith B. Miller (former banker with Barclays Bank) and Chair Douglas Q. Holmes (a former bank with Lazard Freres and The First Boston Corp.) believes so much in the importance of ethics it banks it business model on it. The company has created a patent pending process that measures and rates the impact of material governance risks, including systemic risk, on the earnings, equity values, and investment values of financial holding companies from 2002 to now and beyond.

“What pulled us together was the number of violations of ethics we saw,” Miller said. “We asked, ‘What caused the financial crisis?’ And last year we did an in-depth analysis and found complete corporate governance failures. Everyone failed to identify the breaches. Now systemic risk is embedded in the stock values.”

Despite the federal government rescue of the largest financial institutions, Miller and his group found that many of the material weaknesses have not been corrected. Their primary worry is that equity prices in the financial sector continue to be inflated because they don’t reflect the violations of federal safety and soundness regulations that banks must abide.

Their basis for the name of the company relates to Section 406, which requires public companies to adopt rules to establish a code of ethics for its senior executives, Miller said. The crux of their ethics metrics rating is an Ethics Framework and Systemic Risk Index. Utilizing a rating system similar to the CAMELS (Capital Assets, Management, Earnings, Liquidity, and Sensitivity to market risk) for banks, Ethics Metrics produces a report that shows whether or not a bank is in compliance. The company also produces a rating (The Director Scorecard) that measures degrees of compliance by boards and their management of risks cited in the report.

Ethics Metrics has taken its patent-pending process to the United Nations, where it is a signatory of the UN Principles for Responsible Investment, and the International Corporate Governance Network, which it is a member. It has also sent a 120-page white paper to the SEC as a comment on the proposed shareholder director nomination rule.

The Conference Board Governance Center includes a whole chapter on Ethics and Compliance Oversight Practices in its Corporate Governance Handbook: Legal Standards and Board Practices (Third Edition) [PDF free for members]. “Boards should take greater responsibility for overseeing the design and implementation of a comprehensive ethics and compliance program, including appropriate whistleblowing procedures that encourage employees to report any misconduct without fear of reprisal,” a chapter summary reads.

- Gary Larkin

Access Source Content: http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2010/03/23/ethics-a-priority-for-boards-in-post-crisis-era/

***********************************************************************
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 Give Your Boss Feedback - Best Practices - Harvard Business Review

How to Give Your Boss Feedback - Best Practices - Harvard Business Review

March 25, 2010 (8:06 AM)

Harvard Business Review

Blogs

Best Practices

How to Give Your Boss Feedback

11:30 AM Wednesday March 24, 2010
by Amy Gallo Comments (8)

Working closely with anyone gives you useful insight into her performance. This is especially true of your boss, who you likely see in a variety of settings: client meetings, presentations, one-on-ones, negotiations, etc. But even if that insight could be helpful to your boss, is it your place to share it with her? Could you be putting your job or your relationship at risk by telling her what you see or by giving her frank feedback? Giving your boss feedback, commonly called upward feedback, can be a tricky process to master. However, if offered correctly and thoughtfully, your insight can not only help your boss, but also improve your working relationship.

What the Experts Say
John Baldoni, a leadership consultant, coach, and author of Lead Your Boss: The Subtle Art of Managing Up says that leadership is all about perception; if leaders do not know how they are perceived, their performance will suffer. However, the higher up in an organization a leader sits, the harder it is to get honest feedback. James Detert, Assistant Professor at the Cornell Johnson Graduate School of Management and author of the Harvard Business Review article "Why Employees Are Afraid to Speak" and "Speaking Up to Higher-Ups: How Supervisors and Skip-Level Leaders Influence Employee Voice" says, "Over reliance on the chain of command prevents leaders from hearing the unvarnished truth." Your input can help your boss see herself as others see her and help her to make critical adjustments in her behavior and approach. However, giving this type of feedback requires careful thought; here are some principles to keep in mind.

The relationship comes first
The ability to give and receive upward feedback, like any form of feedback, is dependent on the relationship between you and your boss. Without trust, the feedback will be impossible to receive. Before giving feedback, you need to gauge whether your boss will be open to what you have to say. If you know that your boss is unreceptive to feedback, is likely to react negatively, or if you have a rocky relationship, it's better not to say anything. However, as Baldoni points out, "If your boss is open-minded and you have a good relationship, you owe him the straight talk." As with any feedback, your intentions must be good and your desire to help your boss should supersede any issues you may have between you.

Wait to be invited, or ask to be invited?
Even if you have a great relationship, launching into unsolicited feedback is ill-advised. As Detert says, "General advice on how to be a better boss is tough to give unless you're asked for it." Ideally, your boss has asked for your input and made clear what would be helpful to her in terms of feedback. Your boss may disclose her development areas and ask you to keep an eye out for certain behaviors that she is working on. Baldoni says, "In a perfect world, it is a manager's responsibility to make it safe to give feedback."

However, Baldoni acknowledges that in the real world this may not always happen. If your boss does not directly request feedback, you can ask if she would like feedback. This is often most easily done in the context of a new project or new client. You can say something like "Would it be helpful to you for me to give you feedback at certain points in this project?" or "I'm likely to have a unique perspective on what we're doing, would you like some feedback about how the project is going?" Again, these questions must be presented with the best of intentions. Since it is her job to give you feedback, avoid sounding like you want to give feedback in a vengeful way. Demonstrate your willingness to help her improve.

Focus on your perspective
It can be tempting when your boss is open to feedback, to imagine all the things you would do if you were in his position. However, your feedback should focus on what you are seeing or hearing, not what you would do as the boss. Baldoni recommends that you "frame feedback in form of your perceptions." He suggests saying things such as "I noticed at that meeting that you came across as bullying." By sharing your perspective you can help your boss to see how others are seeing him. This can be invaluable to a leader who may be disconnected from people in the lower ranks.

Focusing on your view also means realizing the limitations of your standpoint. You need to remember that you are seeing only a partial picture of your boss's performance and you may not appreciate or realize the demands on him. Detert says, "Subordinates by and large don't have a full appreciation of the reality of their bosses." Give feedback that is reflective of what you can see and avoid presuming what he is faced with. Remember that good feedback rules still apply. Your feedback should be honest and data-driven. Open with affirmative feedback and give constructive feedback with suggestions for improvement. Avoid accusations. "People react much, much better to specifics than to generalities," Detert says. So use details to back up your points.

When your boss bites back
No matter how carefully or thoughtfully you've prepared and delivered your feedback, your boss may get upset or be defensive about the feedback you've given. If you were asked for the feedback, Baldoni says you should hold your ground and explain that you were doing what was asked of you. Sometimes reframing the feedback can help. Detert urges that feedback is more easily received if you "frame it in terms of what your boss cares about." He says, "You can point out specific ways that specific behaviors are inhibiting the boss from achieving his goals."

Gauge her reaction to determine how she likes to receive feedback and what topics are out of bounds. Perhaps she doesn't want to hear feedback about her communication style or a certain high-pressure initiative. Rather than clamming up after a negative reaction, take the opportunity to check in with her about what would be useful going forward.

When in doubt, hold your tongue
If you're not sure if your boss wants to hear feedback or if the subject of the feedback is a sensitive one, it's almost always better to not speak up. There is no reason to risk your working relationship or your job, unless you feel your boss's behavior is putting the company or your unit in jeopardy. Instead, look for opportunities to give anonymous feedback, such as a 360 degree feedback process.

Principles to Remember
Do:

• Be certain your boss is open and receptive to feedback before speaking up


• Share with her what you are seeing and hearing in her organization or unit


• Focus on how you can help her improve, not on what you would do if you were boss

Don't:

• Assume your boss doesn't want feedback if she doesn't request it — ask if she would like to hear your insight


• Presume you know or appreciate your boss's full situation


• Give feedback as way to get back at your boss for giving you negative feedback

Case Study #1: Giving feedback by asking for it first
Wendy Wise worked for the Strategic Pricing Group, a small, growing consulting group. It was a fast-paced culture, in which people were often stretched and expectations were high. Because of the rapid growth, people were promoted quickly and expected to be able to do a job right away. Wendy was put on a team under Simon, a recently promoted manager. He was doing a great job but didn't have any formal managerial experience or training. Wendy knew that Simon would be thrust into situations in which he would have to adeptly manage clients and teams of consultants. Because of her tenure with the organization, she had more experience in these areas and she knew her job would be easier if Simon had the help he needed. Wendy said, "I asked myself 'How can I find a way to help him without threatening him?'" She decided to start by sitting down with him, explaining to him the things she had been working on and asking if he would watch out for those things and give her feedback. Then she said, "Your boss doesn't see what you do every day, but I do. I know you're doing a lot of presenting, for example, and I'd be happy to give you feedback if you'd find that useful." Simon was relieved that he didn't have to pretend that he was infallible and that he could rely on Wendy for frank feedback. As their working relationship developed, they each added things to the list that they wanted the other to look out for. Wendy said, "I think we helped each other be successful in the organization." Strategic Pricing Group has since been sold and both Wendy and Simon have moved on to other jobs, but they continue to reach out to each other for advice and mentoring.

Case Study #2: Being a voice for the organization
Shortly after Gerard van Grinsven became the CEO of Henry Ford Health Systems, a 300-bed hospital in Michigan with 1,300 employees, he hired a former colleague, Sven Gierlinger to be the Administrator of Hospitality Services. Sven and Gerard had worked together at Ritz Carlton and shared a passion for service. Because of their prior working relationship, Gerard often relied on Sven to share what he was hearing and seeing throughout the organization.

A few years back, Gerard restructured a department that needed better results. Because of the changes, there was some understandable grumbling in the department. Gerard is an effective communicator, especially in stressful times. He pulled the entire unit together and asked that the grumbling stop and the employees focus on making the new structure work and improving their results. However, the employees left the meeting unhappy. Gerard turned to Sven and asked for his objective assessment: what would he have done in that situation? Sven could have easily appeased Gerard and said "you did the right thing" but he had heard from several of the meeting attendees that it had not gone well. He was honest with Gerard, shared what he heard, and explained what he would've done differently. Sven said, "I was able to give him that feedback because he trusted me. If the trust is not there, the feedback can be misconstrued." Gerard thanked him for his honesty and set about repairing the damage done in the meeting.

At leadership meeting shortly after, Gerard talked about the feedback he received and explained to his team how he changed his behavior based on the input. This reinforced Sven's perception of Gerard as a leader who not only welcomes feedback, but makes use of it.

Access Content Source: http://blogs.hbr.org/hmu/2010/03/how-to-give-your-boss-feedback.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.

The Anti Creativity Checklist - Harvard Business Review

The Anti-Creativity Checklist

Harvard Business Review -

Short Video

12:16 PM Thursday March 18, 2010
by Youngme Moon  | Comments (70)

Here's a question for you: If you had to come up with a checklist for your organization that was guaranteed to stifle imagination, innovation, and out-of-box thinking...a checklist designed specifically for people who want nothing to do with disruptive change...what would it look like?

With a wink toward the irreverent, here's mine:

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/03/the_anticreativity_checklist.html

I'd love to see your checklist, or, at the very least, your revisions of mine or additions to it. Either way, have at it in the comment section below.

Youngme Moon is the Donald K. David Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School, where she focuses on marketing and strategy innovation. Her book Different is due out in April (see the video trailer here).

 

Access Content Source: http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/03/the_anticreativity_checklist.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.

Top 10 Highly Paid Degrees for College Class of 2010

Top 10 Highly Paid Degrees for College Class of 2010



Top 10 Highly Paid Degrees for College Class of 2010

March 15, 2010 — Engineering majors dominate the list of top-paid bachelor’s degrees, according to a new report from the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) that found engineering disciplines account for eight of the 10 most highly paid degrees. The only non-engineering related degrees in the top 10 were computer science and information sciences and systems.

According to the report, petroleum engineering earned the highest starting salary reported at the bachelor’s degree level — $86,220 — more than one-and-one-half times the average starting salary reported for bachelor’s degree graduates as a whole ($48,351).

“While a variety of factors play a role in determining salaries, new graduates with degrees in the technical fields tend to benefit from their relatively low supply. There is more competition for their skills, driving up their salary offers,” said Marilyn Mackes, NACE executive director.

For example, petroleum engineering degrees account for less than 1% of all bachelor’s degrees conferred.

“Not every case is that extreme, but, in general, candidates with technical degrees have an advantage in the job market,” Mackes said.

Top-Paid Bachelor's Degrees

Petroleum Engineering
$86,220

Chemical Engineering
$65,142

Mining & Mineral Engineering (incl. geological)
$64,552

Computer Science
$61,205

Computer Engineering
$60,879

Electrical/Electronics & Communications Engineering
$59,074

Mechanical Engineering
$58,392

Industrial/Manufacturing Engineering
$57,734

Aerospace/Aeronautical/Astronautical Engineering
$57,231

Information Sciences & Systems
$54,038






Source: Winter 2010 Salary Survey, National Association of Colleges and Employers. Data represent offers to bachelor’s degree candidates where 10 or more offers were reported.

Contents © 2010 WorldatWork. No part of this article may be reproduced, excerpted or redistributed in any form without express written permission from WorldatWork.

Access Content Source: http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimComment?id=36713


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

13 Unlucky Mistakes in Managing Traumatic Change — and How to Avoid Them - Rosabeth Moss Kanter - Harvard Business Review

13 Unlucky Mistakes in Managing Traumatic Change — and How to Avoid Them - Rosabeth Moss Kanter - Harvard Business Review

Rosabeth Moss Kanter *


13 Unlucky Mistakes in Managing Traumatic Change — and How to Avoid Them *
11:22 AM Monday March 22, 2010 Comments (4) *

Turbulent times put leaders to the test. How people handle unwelcome surprises and unexpected blows to the best-laid plans can exacerbate a run of bad luck — or turn things in their favor. Traumatic change is hard enough without adding insult to injury. When crises occur, leaders need to know how to avoid the traps that make it harder to recover. Here are 13 common mistakes and some guidelines for avoiding them. *

1. Pressure to act quickly undermines values and culture ***. Leaders take drastic steps quickly with no time to explore alternatives. Values about participation, involvement, or concern for people disappear. Cynicism grows. *

Solution ***: Avoid the temptation to announce instant decisions. Find issues that can benefit from employee input and assign teams to tackle them. *

2. Management exercises too much control ***. In crises, decisions get pushed to the top. Because top managers are rethinking everything, people below go passive and wait to be told what to do. Initiative declines; innovation goes on hold. *

Solution***: Establish short-term tasks that empower employees to seek quick wins, giving them a feeling of control over results. *

3. Urgent tasks divert leaders' attention from the mood of the organization ***. Managers are swamped with meetings and decisions. No one takes responsibility for assessing the impact on employees' motivation and performance. *

Solution ***: Appoint a team of natural leaders to monitor the culture, take the pulse of employees, and coach managers on an effective process. *

4. Communication is haphazard, erratic and uneven ***. Things change quickly, leaders are distracted, and it's not clear who has accurate information. Potentially destructive rumors take on a life of their own. Time is wasted. *

Solution ***: Develop an interactive communications site to reach everyone with the same information in a timely fashion. Keep it going after the worst of the crisis is over.

5. Uncertainty creates anxiety ***. Executives don't like to say "I don't know," so they wait until they have definitive answers before they talk to their people. But people can't commit to positive actions while mired in anxiety. *

Solution ***: Establish certainty of process when there can't be certainty about decisions. Create a calendar of briefings so that people know when they'll know. If there are no answers yet, say so. *

6. Employees hear it from the media first *. Aggressive journalists dig for information, and items can run in the media before employees hear about them — e.g., workers who heard that their plant was closing on the radio while driving to work. Middle managers look dumb and uninformed. Employees feel insulted and left out. *

Solution ***: Keep the press out. Develop networks of employee-leaders to connect an information chain. *

7. There is no outlet for emotions ***. Anger and grief mount with no way to express or deal with these emotions. People might start acting in strange ways, undermining teamwork. *

Solution ***: Create facilitated sessions for venting. Teach managers about dealing with trauma and ensure that they acknowledge grief and anxiety.

8. Key stakeholders are neglected *. Busy internally, leaders fail to engage other key constituencies. Customers, dealers, suppliers, government officials hear only the media's and competitors' slants. They get nervous and withhold support. *

Solution ***: Manage relationships. Identify all groups that need to be communicated with regularly and devise a plan for reaching each.

9. It seems easier to cut than redeploy ***. Reducing budgets or people in equal proportion everywhere seems easier than taking time to reassign people or reallocate resources. Inevitably, strong performers are lost when they could have served elsewhere — including in sales roles. *

Solution * : Establish a pool of strong performers from areas with cutbacks. They might be able to help the business in another way — or be called back for special assignments such as supporting the transition.

10. Casualties dominate attention. *** Sometimes leaders want to do the humane thing by offering help to people who are cut, while neglecting the "keepers" on whom the future depends. Some of the keepers don't know that they are valued and decide to leave. *

Solution***: Meet individually with leaders of the future and show appreciation. Offer recognition for extra problem-solving efforts during the crisis period. *

11. Changes are expedient, not strategic ***. Managers often restructure by removing the weakest or newest people, without regard to business needs. The unit does what it has always done but with fewer people. The opportunity for change is lost. *

Solution ***: Identify a team and process to reexamine mission and priorities, to redirect activities toward more productive future uses. *

12. Leaders lose credibility ***. The shock of crisis, lurches in business strategy, and performance shortfalls make top leaders' words less credible. Why believe any new strategy now? Motivation drops. *

Solution ***: Make short-term, tangible, doable promises, and keep them.

13. Gloom and doom fill the air *.
Everyone is preoccupied with the negative current situation. They feel guilt about the people who are being let go. Morale sinks, and it is hard to find the energy to be creative or productive. *

Solution ***: Show that there is a future beyond the crisis. Repeat a credible positive vision. Emphasize the steps being taken to avoid reoccurrence of the present crisis — how we're going to change so that this won't happen again. *

Leaders make their own luck. In the face of traumatic change, it is important to take the time to anticipate and avoid the 13 unlucky mistakes. Learning better acts of leadership when change is difficult will help everyone get through the crisis to find better fortunes ahead. *

Rosabeth Moss Kanter *** is a professor at Harvard Business School and the author of Twitter.com/RosabethKanter
Access Source Document ***: http://blogs.hbr.org/kanter/2010/03/13-unlucky-mistakes-in-managing-traumatic-change-and-how-to-avoid-them.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.

March 15, 2010 Happiness Newsletter

March 15, 2010 Happiness Newsletter

The Happiness Club Newsletter *


ARE YOU HAPPY? *

By Lionel Ketchian *

"Happiness is a butterfly, which, when pursued, is always just beyond your
grasp, but which, if you will sit down quietly, may alight upon you," this is a
quote by Nathaniel Hawthorne. *

My daughter-in-law, Tamara, sent me the above quote. I decided to try to hand feed some birds in my backyard. I put some crushed walnuts in my right hand and extended it. I stood absolutely motionless, and completely quiet on a very cold winter day. *

Within a few minutes, for the first time in my life, a bird landed on my hand. It was a Black Capped Chickadee, a cute tiny bird. It flew onto the tip of my fingers, picked up a piece of walnut and flew off to enjoy it. Soon it returned to land on my hand again. This time it picked up a piece of walnut and dropped it on the ground. Then it picked up another and dropped that on the ground as well. Finally it selected a third piece, which must have been just the right one, and flew off with it. It trusted me enough to take its time and make sure it had a nice delicious piece. *

It was not long after this event that I realized I had read the quote just the other day. Now I can say, "Happiness is a Black Capped Chickadee, a cute tiny bird, which, when pursued, is always just beyond your grasp, but which, if you will sit down quietly, may alight upon you." *

For me an interchange with nature is an unforgettable occasion in my life. It is nothing less than a spiritual experience. This made me realize that happiness requires us to quiet down and allow things to come to us. The more we pursue things that are beyond our grasp, the more they move away. The faster we pursue them, the faster they move away. Happiness requires us to relax, become quiet, and act as if we will get what we expect without being upset when we don't. *

Happiness, like the greatest things in life requires patience, gentleness, and knowledge of what is possible. I did not tell you about the book I received from Tamara and my son Glen called Hand-feeding Backyard Birds. I read it and knew what kinds of birds were most likely to hand feed. I also knew which food is the number one favorite. I had read the book and thought, I'll never be able to do it, it seems the odds are against me. *

Being happy is a similar thing. You may not think you can do it. If you learn enough about it, you can do it. The important thing is knowing it has been done. This allows you to know it can be done, because it has been done before. Remember the four-minute mile. People did not believe it was possible to run a mile in less than four minutes. As soon as one person did it, the record began to be broken over and over again. What one person can do, anyone can do. *

Is it possible to be happy all the time? ***
Yes, it is! How is it possible to be happy all the time? Being happy all the time does not mean bad things don't happen to you. It just means you have developed a way to do it and you are able to handle them and not let them make you helpless and hopeless. *

How can I be happy? *** You can be happy by making happiness a decision, and by choosing happiness all the time. You can be happy by not allowing a situation, or a person to make you unhappy. By not giving up your happiness, because happiness is what we all want more than anything else. *

Why is happiness important? ***
When things make you unhappy, you lose your power. In fact you give your power away to the things that make you unhappy. For example when you think someone makes you unhappy, the truth is you have given your power to the person to do that. Happiness is an issue of power. Take your power back! *

What if something bad happens? ***
That is when you need happiness the most. Happiness should be your strategy for dealing with negative things. When bad things happen you need all the balance, wisdom and endurance you can find. Happiness allows you to access your emotional intelligence. This is what you need the most at times of hardship and stress. Happiness is your connection to yourself. It is in times of difficulty that you need to control your thinking, so you do not allow stinking thinking. You become unhappy as a result of your thinking, not what has happened to you. Your reaction, your thinking makes you unhappy, not the event. *

How can I make happiness work for me? ***
The decision to be happy allows you to find out when you are off track. Just as soon as you realize you are unhappy, you are in control of changing your thoughts to allow you to choose happiness and get yourself back on the right track. You can practice being happy even when you feel unhappy. Even when you are pretending to be happy, you start to make yourself feel happy. Act as if you are happy and you become happy. Once you are operating with happiness you access your best thoughts, change your negative ones, and your whole state of mind is peaceful. You begin to be flooded with choices, alternatives, and options. You will begin to have ideas that will get you the best solutions to the problems you face. *

What if there is no solution to my problem? ***
If there is no solution then, you have no problem. You have something that you do not like and cannot change. In this case you are the problem. You will remain unhappy unless, and until you change your attitude toward what you think will not change. *

Do I have to live with what I don't like? ***
If you can change it -- change it! If you can't change it, then learn to love it, or it will make you unhappy. Once you change your attitude about the thing you can't change and don't like, it usually changes all by itself. When you stop fighting with what you can't do anything about, the problem usually vanishes. What you resist -- persists. Remember the Serenity Prayer and let happiness show you the wisdom to know the difference between what you can and cannot change. *

How do I learn more about Happiness? ***
Come to our meetings, read some good books on happiness, subscribe to our free Happiness Newsletter on our website. While you are there take a look around and you can get some free books downloaded as well. * When can I be happy? *** Stretch out your arm and as you open your hand, realize that happiness is right there in the palm of your hand. It has always been within you. Be Happy! It's time! *


Access Source Content ***: http://campaign.constantcontact.com/render?v=00157CTivewlinTeIRfmXLxFQhK1TGjjJiFycFgqj13k5K4EAW2Tw1w2aoA5O19fZV7YDZbXgvksmlurrJxdHnubgSgiyYtGr2yfNJ_Yl9DyeJs-dM0QwaGsA%3D%3D


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

Helpful dad can hurt mom's self-esteem - Kids and parenting- msnbc.com

Helpful dad can hurt mom's self-esteem - Kids and parenting- msnbc.com

Too helpful dad, resentful mom? *

Men involved with child care may hurt women's self-esteem *

By Jeanna Bryner *

updated 12:52 p.m. ET, Thurs., March. 18, 2010 *

Dads are helping out with childrearing more and more these days. The result can be both a boon and a letdown for super-moms, whose self-competence can take a hit when paired with husbands who are savvy caregivers, new research finds. *

The findings reveal the fallout as women have entered the workplace in droves over recent decades, many of them leaving young children at home. One result is mothers have less time for care-giving. Past studies have shown working moms are torn between full-time careers and stay-at-home duties. And lately more diligent dads are helping out with the diaper-changing and other household duties. *

But since mothers pride themselves on being just that — moms — their self-esteem can take a blow. *

"While mothers are encouraged to join the workforce, socially constructed ideals of motherhood requires mothers to be primary caregivers," said study researcher Takayuki Sasaki of the Osaka University of Commerce in Japan. "Thus, employed mothers may feel pressured to do more care-giving to ensure the survival of their feelings of self-competence, even though they may wish for fathers' increased participation to lessen their burden." *

While some couples have been able to find a division of childcare that suits them, many struggle to hit the right balance. *

Sasaki also stressed, "We by no means assert that women should take the blame for the inequality in division of child care. Some fathers vigorously resist collaborative effort in child care in favor of beliefs in traditional fathers' roles." *

Parenting skills ***
Sasaki and colleagues from the University of Texas at Austin interviewed 78 dual-earner couples with 8-month-old infants in their homes in the United States. Interview questions measured two types of self-esteem — self-liking and self-competence (the degree to which individuals feel capable of and effective in accomplishing goals). *

During home visits, parents were also asked to talk about their spouse's strengths and weaknesses. Coders then watched video recordings of the discussions and rated each participant's perceptions of his or her spouse's parenting, which included the spouse's emotional engagement (kissing and hugging the baby), physical involvement (such as feeding and diaper changing), responsibility and overall parenting skills. Total scores ranged from the worst score of 4 to the highest of 28. *

As the researchers expected, women spent nearly three times as much time taking care of their babies by themselves compared with their husbands. *

And husbands took notice, giving stellar parenting marks to their wives. For instance, on average husbands gave their wives nearly a 24 for parenting skills, while the average score wives gave to husbands was around 21, a statistically significant difference. *

Should dads be more involved in child care? ***

Even so, wives often said their husbands were good parents. *

"Many wives would say care-giving by their husbands is helpful but at the same time wives give their husbands negative feedback because their husbands' care-giving style is different from their own," Sasaki told LiveScience. "For example, a wife appreciates when her husband feeds their baby but also tells her husband that after all it makes more work because the way the husband feeds is messy." *

There was also a gender difference regarding standards used to judge their partner's parenting skills. *

"Husbands are often told by their wives that they are good parents when they are involved in care-giving that their wives normally do, such as feeding, changing diapers, and soothing," Sasaki said. "In contrast, husbands do not tell their wives that they are good parents even when their wives exhibit such behavior probably because it is taken for granted." *

Mom's self-esteem When mothers perceived fathers to be competent caregivers, the more time those dads spent solo with children , the lower was mom's self-competence rating. But when mothers considered spouses relatively incompetent caregivers, increased father-only time with kids was unrelated to mothers' self-competence. *

As for why a mother's self-competence took a hit from perfect dads, Sasaki suggests pressure to keep up with societal norms plays a role. *

"In American society, women are expected to take a main role in parenting despite increasingly egalitarian sex roles," Sasaki said. "Thus, we believe that employed mothers suffer from self-competence losses when their husbands are involved and skillful because those mothers may consider that it is a failure to fulfill cultural expectations." *

Sasaki added, "Husbands do not suffer from self-competence losses even when their wives are involved and skillful because that is consistent with cultural expectations." *

The results don't suggest a stay-at-home mom is the answer. For one, the study showed work hours can boost a woman's perception of self-competence. And a father's care-giving was linked with a mother's marital satisfaction. *

Access Content Source ***: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35931884/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/

***********************************************************************
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 Economics of Cheating (Page all of 2) at SmartMoney.com

The Economics of Cheating (Page all of 2) at SmartMoney.com

Money and Your Mind by Ryan Sager (Author Archive) *

The Economics of Cheating *

In recent weeks, New Yorkers have been shocked, shocked to find out that taxi drivers have been taking them for a ride in both the literal and figurative sense. Using GPS technology installed in cabs a couple years ago, New York City’s Taxi and Limousine Commission discovered nearly two million trips over a 26-month period where passengers were illegally charged a higher out-of-city rate (80 cents per fifth of a mile as opposed to 40 cents per fifth of a mile) for trips within the five boroughs. The overcharges totaled more than $8 million, averaging out to $4.45 per trip. *

As shocking as some people find this taxi gouging, however, the real surprise is just how little cabbies were cheating. Those two million overcharged trips made up just 0.5% of the 361 million taxi trips during that time period. With cheating as easy as flipping a switch on their meters, the real question is why cabbies weren’t doing it all the time. *

We’re all presented with countless opportunities to screw over our fellow human beings. How easy would it be to shoplift? How easy would it be to dine-and-dash at a restaurant you’ll never visit again? How many office supplies could you theoretically fit in your bag? *

Given that, why don’t people cheat far more than they do? While a traditional model of cheating would say that people should be expected to cheat as much as is rational — assessing the chances of getting caught, multiplying them by the penalty for getting caught, and then weighing this against what can be gained by breaking the rules — the truth is that’s not how we work. Instead, research in psychology, neuroeconomics, and behavioral economics has shown that two factors other than fear of getting caught seem to restrain our behavior: our desire to adhere to social norms and our desire to see ourselves as good people. *

Of course, the fact that people generally adhere to social norms is hardly news. Though, brain scanning studies in recent years have added to our understanding in this area, showing that behaviors seen as socially good, such as being altruistic or cooperating with other people, activate the same reward centers in the brain as are activated by more intuitively rewarding things, such as food and drink and money. *

More illuminating, however, have been recent experiments looking at how much (or, rather, little) people cheat when given the opportunity — and looking at what does and doesn’t stop them from cheating. *

In an article in the Journal of Marketing Research published in 2008, University of Toronto marketing professor Nina Mazar and MIT economist Dan Ariely, author of the book "Predictably Irrational," looked at how much a group of students would cheat given the chance to, in a scenario where cheating would have financial rewards. *

In a series of six experiments, students were offered money for every answer they got right on simple tests (finding numbers in a matrix that added up to 10, or answering general-knowledge questions). The twist, however, was that some of the students were offered the chance to cheat; these students were given answer sheets and told to grade themselves. *

What the experiment found was that the vast majority of students cheated when given the chance. However, they only cheated a little. *

In fact, among 791 participants given the chance to cheat, a mere five individuals (0.6% of the total) cheated the maximum amount possible — just as in New York City a hard core of 3,000 cabbies out of a work force of 48,000 drivers overcharged passengers more than 100 times each. The rest of the students cheated between roughly 7% and 17% as much as possible. *

So, what was holding these students back? One thing that stopped them from cheating: being asked before the test to write down as many of the Ten Commandments as they could remember (it even worked for atheists). Another thing: being asked to sign an honor code. Perhaps the most counterintuitive thing that stopped cheating: increasing the amount the students could gain by cheating. When students would get 10 cents or 50 cents for each question answered correctly, they cheated away; when they would get $2.50 or $5 for each correct answer, cheating dropped to zero. *

What didn’t work: increasing the chance of getting caught. Whether students were handing in their fraudulent answer sheets to the instructor, whether they were just telling the instructor how many questions they’d gotten right, or whether they were not interacting with the instructor at all — just walking up to a jar of money and taking what they’d “earned” — didn’t seem to matter at all. *

All that mattered was how much they had to think about their cheating and whether they could look at themselves in the mirror later without seeing a criminal looking back. *

So, where does this leave our taxi drivers? The TLC is rushing out a plan to give passengers a digital notice of the rate being charged. The chance of getting caught, at least for this form of cheating, is going up. But there are plenty of other ways for cab drivers to scam people — such as, say, the tried-and-true taking-the-scenic route trick. *

How could all forms of cheating be reduced? How about a taxi honor code. Something as simple as making drivers reflect on what they’re doing — making them confront that what they’re doing is dishonest by, say, signing a screen or receipt attesting to the accuracy of the fare — could do as much or more than expensive methods of enforcement. *

We like to cheat. But we really don’t want to see ourselves as cheaters. *

Ryan Sager writes the blog Neuroworld at TrueSlant.com. *

Access Content Source***: http://www.smartmoney.com/Spending/Rip-offs/The-Economics-of-Cheating/?page=all

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

Create a Bully-Free Workplace - Research - Harvard Business Review

Create a Bully-Free Workplace - Research - Harvard Business Review

Harvard Business Review *

Research *

Create a Bully-Free Workplace *

1:13 PM Thursday March 18, 2010 *
by Nathanael Fast Comments (4) *

A startling 37% of American workers — roughly 54 million people — have been bullied at work according to a 2007 survey by the Workplace Bullying Institute. The consequences of such bullying spreading to the targets' families, coworkers, and organizations. Costs include reduced creativity, low morale, and increased turnover — all factors that weigh heavily on the bottom line. *

Among targets of bullying, 40% never told their employers and, of those who did, 62% reported that they were ignored. This suggests there's a significant opportunity to increase profits and beat the competition by eliminating the prevalence of workplace bullying in your organization. But how? *

The first step is to identify the root of the problem. A set of recent studies conducted with Serena Chen, a psychologist at UC Berkeley, may provide some insight. We found that power is partly to blame. However, in contrast to the old adage that "power corrupts," giving people power did not turn them into bullies. Rather, it was the simultaneous pairing of power with feelings of inadequacy that led people to lash out. In our studies, the power holders who felt personally incompetent became aggressive, not because they were power hungry or had domineering personalities but because they were trying to overcome ego threat. Put simply, bullying is a cheap way to nurse a wounded ego. (For more on workplace aggression, read, "How to Stop 'Mean Girls' in the Workplace"). *

These findings, published in Psychological Science, may come as no big surprise to those who work directly with a bully boss, but they run counter to a commonly held assumption that personality traits are primarily to blame and offer a roadmap for creating a bully-free workplace. Here are a few steps you, as a leader, can take to prevent bully bosses from taking over your organization: *

- When hiring managers, set the bar high with regard to interpersonal skills and
leadership experience. Resist the common tendency to hire and promote solely
based on technical expertise and/or academic achievement. Put your company in
the hands of managers who are psychologically secure and have a strong sense of
inner confidence (not to be confused with outward arrogance) in their abilities.
*


- Help new managers feel comfortable in their high-power roles. You can do this by providing training,
reminding managers that it is normal to feel underprepared, and connecting them
to experienced mentors or coaches to whom they can turn in times of trouble.
*


- Remind managers to focus on core values. Our findings show that threatened power holders are less likely to
become aggressive when asked to reflect on a value that is important to them,
regardless of the value (e.g., family and friends, professional achievement,
personal growth). *


- Design jobs in such a way as to
avoid heaping unrealistic expectations onto individual leaders. For example,
teams are often used effectively to distribute the weight of responsibilities.
*


- Educate yourself and your
managers about the psychological consequences of power. Doing so will help you
to identity and address counterproductive patterns early on and avoid the common
pitfalls that bring ruin to so many organizations. *

I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts. Have you encountered bullies? What strategies have you used to effectively minimize bullying in your organization? *
Nathanael Fast is an assistant professor of Management and Organization at the University of Southern California's Marshall School of Business. *

Access Content Source*** : http://blogs.hbr.org/research/2010/03/create-a-bullyfree-workplace.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.

Insurance News - Fitch: Operating Profits Up Markedly for U.S. P&C Insurers

Insurance News - Fitch: Operating Profits Up Markedly for U.S. P&C Insurers


Insurance News Net *

Fitch: Operating Profits Up Markedly for U.S. P&C Insurers *

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Operating profits improved substantially during 2009 across the U.S. property and casualty (P&C) insurance industry, with most market participants reporting double-digit operating returns on capital, according to Fitch Ratings in a new report. *

A Fitch review of 2009 GAAP results reported by P&C insurers showed that significant unrealized investment gains combined with an improved operating performance during the period led to a 28% increase in aggregated GAAP equity for Fitch's universe of 52 P&C (re)insurers. *

While realized investment losses continued to dampen the group's overall performance, their affect was greatly reduced relative to the prior year. Only three companies reported an annual net loss in 2009 versus 18 companies one year ago. *

The group's net earnings were greatly exceeded by a substantial shift in unrealized investment gains during 2009. As a result, many companies ended 2009 with GAAP equity bases comparable to levels reported at year-end 2007, before the tumultuous events of 2008 caused most insurance market participants to suffer significant declines in the value of invested assets. *

Fitch's report compiles GAAP 2009 financial results for its universe of publicly traded (re)insurers. The report analyzes results for the group on the whole and various industry subsectors, comparing relative performance and considering the primary drivers of profitability and capital formation for 2009. *'

Property/Casualty Insurers' Year-End 2009 Review' is available at www.fitchratings.com under the following headers: *

Additional information is available at www.fitchratings.com *

ALL FITCH CREDIT RATINGS ARE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS. PLEASE READ THESE LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS BY FOLLOWING THIS LINK: HTTP://FITCHRATINGS.COM/UNDERSTANDINGCREDITRATINGS. IN ADDITION, RATING DEFINITIONS AND THE TERMS OF USE OF SUCH RATINGS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE AGENCY'S PUBLIC WEBSITE WWW.FITCHRATINGS.COM. PUBLISHED RATINGS, CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGIES ARE AVAILABLE FROM THIS SITE AT ALL TIMES. FITCH'S CODE OF CONDUCT, CONFIDENTIALITY, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, AFFILIATE FIREWALL, COMPLIANCE AND OTHER RELEVANT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ARE ALSO AVAILABLE FROM THE 'CODE OF CONDUCT' SECTION OF THIS SITE. *

Fitch RatingsGregory Dickerson, +1-212-908-0220 (New York)Christopher Grimes, +1-312-368-3263 (Chicago)James Auden, CFA, +1-312-368-3146 (Chicago)orBrian Bertsch, +1-212-908-0549(Media Relations, New York)brian.bertsch@fitchratings.com Source: Fitch Ratings *

Access Content Source ***: http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=172511&type=newswires

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

Americans’ Preparations for Retirement Continue to Erode

Americans’ Preparations for Retirement Continue to Erode


WorldatWork

Newsline *

Americans’ Preparations for Retirement Continue to Erode ***

March 10, 2010 — As the economy begins to recover Americans are becoming more confident in their ability to retire; however, their self-described preparations for retirement continue to erode, according to a recent survey. *

The Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) and Mathew Greenwald and Associates released their 2010 Retirement Confident Survey (RCS), which found a growing number of American workers are also planning to delay retirement, which has a negative impact on the U.S. job market. The survey also found that Americans continue to lack confidence in institutions. They are most likely to express confidence in private employers and least likely to express confidence in the federal government. Both workers and retirees expressing low levels of confidence in banks and insurance companies. *

“Americans’ attitudes toward retirement have clearly tracked the economy the last couple of years, and that seems to be the case in 2010,” said Jack VanDerhei, EBRI research director and co-author of the survey. “Unfortunately, while their attitudes are stabilizing, their preparation for retirement is not. A distressing number of people have no savings at all.” *

Among the survey’s key points: *

- Stabilizing confidence *** : The percentage of workers very confident about having enough money for a comfortable retirement remains steady at 16%, which is statistically equivalent to the 20-year low of 13% measured in 2009. Retiree confidence about having a financially secure retirement has also stabilized, with 19% saying now they are very confident (statistically equivalent to the 20% measured in 2009). *

- Basic expenses *** : Worker confidence about paying for basic expenses in retirement has rebounded slightly, with 29% now saying they are very confident about having enough money to pay for basic expenses during retirement (up from 25% in 2009, but still down from 34% in 2008). The percentage of retirees indicating they are very confident about paying for basic expenses has stayed level at 33% (statistically equivalent to the 34% observed in 2009). *

- Financial aspects of retirement ***: The percentages of workers very confident about other financial aspects of retirement have held steady at 12% for medical expenses, 10% for long-term care expenses, and 21% for doing a good job of preparing for retirement. However, the percentages not confident continue to creep upward, from 44% in 2009 to 51% in 2010 for medical expenses, from 56% to 61% for long-term care expenses, and from 30% to 35% for doing a good job of preparing for retirement. *

- Fewer are saving ***: Fewer workers report that they and/or their spouse have saved for retirement (69%, down from 75% in 2009 but statistically equivalent to 72% in 2008). Moreover, fewer workers say that they and/or their spouse are currently saving for retirement (60%, down from 65% in 2009 but statistically equivalent to percentages measured in other years). *

- Ranks of those with no savings are growing *** : An increased percentage of workers report they have virtually no savings and investments. Among RCS workers providing this type of information, 27% say they have less than $1,000 in savings (up from 20% in 2009). In total, more than half of workers (54%) report that the total value of their household’s savings and investments, excluding the value of their primary home and any defined benefit plans, is less than $25,000. *

- Workers postponing retirement *** : One-quarter of workers (24%) report they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year. Among the reasons cited for delaying retirement are the poor economy (29% of those postponing retirement), a change in their employment situation (22%), inadequate finances (16%), and the need to make up for losses in the stock market (12%). *

- Later retirement expected ***: Although the age at which workers report they expect to retire shows little change from 2009, a longer-term look finds significant change. In particular, the percentage of workers who expect to retire after age 65 has increased over time, from 11% in 1991 to 14% in 1995, 19% in 2000, 24% in 2005, and 33% in 2010. *

- Institutional confidence ***: Americans continue to lack confidence in institutions. They are most likely to express confidence in private employers (23% of workers and 27% of retirees very confident) and least likely to feel confidence in the federal government (11% of workers and 8% of retirees). Just 19% of workers and 22% of retirees report they are very confident about banks, while 12% of workers and 13% of retirees say they are very confident about insurance companies. Moreover, the percentages of retirees somewhat confident about banks (45%, down from 51% in 2009), insurance companies (42%, down from 56%), and the federal government (30%, down from 45%) are declining. *

- Clueless about savings goals ***: Many workers continue to be unaware of how much they need to save for retirement. Less than half of workers (46%) report they and/or their spouse have tried to calculate how much money they will need to have saved by the time they retire so that they can live comfortably in retirement. *

- Some reality testing on savings needs *** : The savings goals cited by workers who have done a retirement needs calculation have increased over time. In the 2000 RCS, 31% said they needed to accumulate at least $500,000 for retirement. This percentage gradually increased to 43% in 2005 and 54% in 2010. *

- Investing confidence ticks up ***: Those who have saved for retirement have recovered some confidence in their ability to invest their savings wisely. Thirty-two percent of workers indicate they are very confident (up from 24% in 2009) and another 54% are somewhat confident. Retirees who have saved for retirement show a similar rebound in confidence that they are investing their savings wisely, with 82% saying they are very or somewhat confident (up from 70% in 2009). *

- Sources of retirement income ***: Over time, the RCS has observed changes in workers’ expected sources of retirement income. In particular: fewer workers are expecting to receive retirement income from Social Security (77%, down from 88% in 1991) and defined benefit plans (56%, down from 62% in 2005). However, more workers report they will rely on employer-sponsored retirement savings plans (75% in 2010, up from 69% in 2005) and employment income (77%, up from 70% in 2005). *

- Guaranteed income products*** : Few workers report they are likely to purchase a financial product or select a retirement plan option that pays them guaranteed income each month for the rest of their life. Only 11% indicate they are very likely to do so, while 35% say they are somewhat likely. Only 14% of retirees report they purchased a guaranteed-income product or selected a guaranteed-income option from a retirement plan. *

Survey methodology ***These findings are part of the 20th annual Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS), a survey that gauges the views and attitudes of working-age and retired Americans regarding retirement, their preparations for retirement, their confidence with regard to various aspects of retirement, and related issues. The survey was conducted in January 2010 through 20-minute telephone interviews with 1,153 individuals (902 workers and 251 retirees) age 25 and older in the United States. Random digit dialing was used to obtain a representative cross section of the U.S. population. To further increase representation, a cell phone supplement was added to the sample. *

In theory, the weighted sample of 1,153 yields a statistical precision of plus or minus 3 percentage points (with 95% certainty) of what the results would be if all Americans age 25 and older were surveyed with complete accuracy. There are other possible sources of error in all surveys, however, that may be more serious than theoretical calculations of sampling error. These include refusals to be interviewed and other forms of nonresponse, the effects of question wording and question order, and screening. While attempts are made to minimize these factors, it is impossible to quantify the errors that may result from them. *

Contents © 2010 WorldatWork. No part of this article may be reproduced, excerpted or redistributed in any form without express written permission from WorldatWork. *

Access Content Source***: http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimComment?id=36668
***********************************************************************
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.