Why Some Leaders Don't Learn From Their Mistakes | Fast Company

Why Some Leaders Don't Learn From Their Mistakes Fast Company

Fast Company Blog

FC Expert Blog

Why Some Leaders Don't Learn From Their Mistakes

BY FC Expert Blogger Heidi Grant HalvorsonWed Feb 23, 2011

This blog is written by a member of our expert blogging community and expresses that expert's views alone.

"In prepared remarks before the panel investigating the roots of the financial crisis, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan blames the subprime crisis on foreign investors, nonbank lenders, the spread of securitized mortgages and financial firms for failing to manage their risk. The one person he did not blame was himself, or his institution--the Fed."
- Shahien Nasiripour, The Huffington Post, reporting on Greenspan's testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission on April 7, 2010

Despite the fact that the Federal Reserve, as the nation's largest bank, did not take any significant action to curb the reckless lending that precipitated the Great Recession, Alan Greenspan seemed to apportion blame everywhere but to himself. At one point in his testimony, he even appeared to blame the fall of the Berlin Wall. (His logic: seeing the truly awful job the Soviets were doing running their economy brought about distrust of "central planning" of any kind. So evidently, the excesses of Capitalism are Communism's fault.)

Alan Greenspan was instrumental in determining U.S. financial policy for 19 years, but he doesn't feel that he was responsible for the failure of the policy he helped create, or that it's failure was to some extent avoidable. Is he crazy? Actually, no. Did he consciously and willfully mislead the Commission (and the rest of us)? Very probably not. Without actually being Alan Greenspan, I can't say for sure, but the odds are good that he really does believe he's not to blame. And as much as we might like to think otherwise, many of us would feel the same way if we were in his shoes.

Psychologists call this the self-serving bias--the tendency to see ourselves as responsible for our successes, but to see other people or the circumstances as responsible for our failures. We reason this way to protect our self-esteem, and to protect our image in the eyes of others. We also do it because it really feels right. Think of an actor on stage--as a member of the audience, you are focused on what he is doing, but if you're the actor, you see everything but yourself. You see your fellow actors, the scenery, the audience, but you can't actually watch you. Because of what's called the actor/observer difference, it's easy for Alan Greenspan to look back over his 19 years at the Fed and see all the factors that played a role in screwing things up, and harder for him to see his own role in it.

Psychologist Tony Greenwald's 1980 American Psychologist article on this topic cited some very amusing examples of the self-serving bias, taken from a San Francisco Sunday Examiner and Chronicle article on the explanations drivers gave to their insurers after an accident. You'll notice that some of these people went to remarkable lengths to deflect blame:

As I approached the intersection, a sign suddenly appeared in a place where a stop sign had never been before. I was unable to stop in time to avoid an accident.

The telephone pole was approaching. I was attempting to swerve out of its way when it struck my front end.

A pedestrian hit me and went under my car.

My car was legally parked as it backed into the other vehicle.

Studies show that in fact, nearly us fall victim to this kind of bias (though we tend to think that only other people do--yet another example of the bias at work.)

The upside of all this self-protection is that we don't feel so bad when things go wrong, and can stay optimistic about our future chances for success. The downside, particularly for the leaders on whose judgment we must rely, is that we don't learn anything from our mistakes if we don't recognize that we made them in the first place. How can you do a better job next time if you won't even admit you did a bad job this time?

From a motivational perspective, the best way to handle a failure is to look honestly at how your own actions contributed to the outcome, emphasizing what you can change so that your performance improves from now on. And even though, in his mid-80s, Alan Greenspan is unlikely to serve a second round as Fed Chairman, he would probably like to get an accurate handle on what went wrong--something he will never do unless he admits that he was actually driving.

Heidi's new book, Succeed: How We Can Reach Our Goals, is available wherever books are sold. Follow her on Twitter @hghalvorson.

Want to know why you aren't reaching your goals? Try the Goal Troubleshooter Quiz..

Heidi Grant Halvorson - Motivational Psychologist - New York City, NY
Heidi Grant Halvorson is a motivational psychologist and author of SUCCEED: How We Can Reach Our Goals. She is the author and co-editor of the highly-regarded academic book The Psychology of Goals (Guilford, 2009), and has authored papers in her field’s most prestigious journals, including the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, European Journal of Social Psychology, and Judgment and Decision Making. Heidi has received numerous grants from the National Science Foundation for her research on goals and achievement. Her writing has been praised by Carol Dweck, Peter Bregman, and Matthew Kelly, among many others.

Dr. Grant Halvorson is a member of the American Psychological Association, the Association for Psychological Science, and the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, and was recently elected to the highly selective Society for Experimental Social Psychology. She gives frequent invited addresses and speaks regularly at national conferences, and is available for professional speaking and consulting engagements, primarily in education and management. She received her PhD from Columbia University.

Her new book SUCCEED: How We Can Reach Our Goals is available wherever books are sold. Its publisher is Hudson Street Press, an imprint of Penguin.

Heidi also blogs about self-improvement, health, relationships, and parenting for Psychology Today. Her personal blog, The Science of Success, can be found at http://www.heidigranthalvorson.com/

Access Content Source And Other Great Stuff: http://www.fastcompany.com/1730144/why-some-leaders-don-t-learn-from-their-mistakes

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

Nine Things Successful People Do Differently - Heidi Grant Halvorson - The Conversation - Harvard Business Review

Nine Things Successful People Do Differently - Heidi Grant Halvorson - The Conversation - Harvard Business Review

Harvard Business Review

The Conversation

Nine Things Successful People Do Differently

8:58 AM Friday February 25, 2011
by Heidi Grant Halvorson Comments ( 11)

FEATURED PRODUCTS

Team Management: Harvard ManageMentor Online Module

by Anne Donnellon, HBP Corporate Learning

$39.95

HBR's 10 Must Reads on Managing Yourself

by Heike Bruch, Catherine McCarthy, Diane Coutu, et al.

Guide to Persuasive Presentations

by John Clayton, John Daly, Isa Engleberg, et al.

$19.95

Why have you been so successful in reaching some of your goals, but not others? If you aren't sure, you are far from alone in your confusion. It turns out that even brilliant, highly accomplished people are pretty lousy when it comes to understanding why they succeed or fail. The intuitive answer — that you are born predisposed to certain talents and lacking in others — is really just one small piece of the puzzle. In fact, decades of research on achievement suggests that successful people reach their goals not simply because of who they are, but more often because of what they do.

1. Get specific. When you set yourself a goal, try to be as specific as possible. "Lose 5 pounds" is a better goal than "lose some weight," because it gives you a clear idea of what success looks like. Knowing exactly what you want to achieve keeps you motivated until you get there. Also, think about the specific actions that need to be taken to reach your goal. Just promising you'll "eat less" or "sleep more" is too vague — be clear and precise. "I'll be in bed by 10pm on weeknights" leaves no room for doubt about what you need to do, and whether or not you've actually done it.

2. Seize the moment to act on your goals. Given how busy most of us are, and how many goals we are juggling at once, it's not surprising that we routinely miss opportunities to act on a goal because we simply fail to notice them. Did you really have no time to work out today? No chance at any point to return that phone call? Achieving your goal means grabbing hold of these opportunities before they slip through your fingers.

To seize the moment, decide when and where you will take each action you want to take, in advance. Again, be as specific as possible (e.g., "If it's Monday, Wednesday, or Friday, I'll work out for 30 minutes before work.") Studies show that this kind of planning will help your brain to detect and seize the opportunity when it arises, increasing your chances of success by roughly 300%.

3. Know exactly how far you have left to go. Achieving any goal also requires honest and regular monitoring of your progress — if not by others, then by you yourself. If you don't know how well you are doing, you can't adjust your behavior or your strategies accordingly. Check your progress frequently — weekly, or even daily, depending on the goal.

4. Be a realistic optimist. When you are setting a goal, by all means engage in lots of positive thinking about how likely you are to achieve it. Believing in your ability to succeed is enormously helpful for creating and sustaining your motivation. But whatever you do, don't underestimate how difficult it will be to reach your goal. Most goals worth achieving require time, planning, effort, and persistence. Studies show that thinking things will come to you easily and effortlessly leaves you ill-prepared for the journey ahead, and significantly increases the odds of failure.

5. Focus on getting better, rather than being good. Believing you have the ability to reach your goals is important, but so is believing you can get the ability. Many of us believe that our intelligence, our personality, and our physical aptitudes are fixed — that no matter what we do, we won't improve. As a result, we focus on goals that are all about proving ourselves, rather than developing and acquiring new skills.

Fortunately, decades of research suggest that the belief in fixed ability is completely wrong — abilities of all kinds are profoundly malleable. Embracing the fact that you can change will allow you to make better choices, and reach your fullest potential. People whose goals are about getting better, rather than being good, take difficulty in stride, and appreciate the journey as much as the destination.
6. Have grit. Grit is a willingness to commit to long-term goals, and to persist in the face of difficulty. Studies show that gritty people obtain more education in their lifetime, and earn higher college GPAs. Grit predicts which cadets will stick out their first grueling year at West Point. In fact, grit even predicts which round contestants will make it to at the Scripps National Spelling Bee.

The good news is, if you aren't particularly gritty now, there is something you can do about it. People who lack grit more often than not believe that they just don't have the innate abilities successful people have. If that describes your own thinking .... well, there's no way to put this nicely: you are wrong. As I mentioned earlier, effort, planning, persistence, and good strategies are what it really takes to succeed. Embracing this knowledge will not only help you see yourself and your goals more accurately, but also do wonders for your grit.

7. Build your willpower muscle. Your self-control "muscle" is just like the other muscles in your body — when it doesn't get much exercise, it becomes weaker over time. But when you give it regular workouts by putting it to good use, it will grow stronger and stronger, and better able to help you successfully reach your goals.

To build willpower, take on a challenge that requires you to do something you'd honestly rather not do. Give up high-fat snacks, do 100 sit-ups a day, stand up straight when you catch yourself slouching, try to learn a new skill. When you find yourself wanting to give in, give up, or just not bother — don't. Start with just one activity, and make a plan for how you will deal with troubles when they occur ("If I have a craving for a snack, I will eat one piece of fresh or three pieces of dried fruit.") It will be hard in the beginning, but it will get easier, and that's the whole point. As your strength grows, you can take on more challenges and step-up your self-control workout.

8. Don't tempt fate. No matter how strong your willpower muscle becomes, it's important to always respect the fact that it is limited, and if you overtax it you will temporarily run out of steam. Don't try to take on two challenging tasks at once, if you can help it (like quitting smoking and dieting at the same time). And don't put yourself in harm's way — many people are overly-confident in their ability to resist temptation, and as a result they put themselves in situations where temptations abound. Successful people know not to make reaching a goal harder than it already is.
9. Focus on what you will do, not what you won't do. Do you want to successfully lose weight, quit smoking, or put a lid on your bad temper? Then plan how you will replace bad habits with good ones, rather than focusing only on the bad habits themselves. Research on thought suppression (e.g., "Don't think about white bears!") has shown that trying to avoid a thought makes it even more active in your mind. The same holds true when it comes to behavior — by trying not to engage in a bad habit, our habits get strengthened rather than broken.If you want change your ways, ask yourself, What will I do instead? For example, if you are trying to gain control of your temper and stop flying off the handle, you might make a plan like "If I am starting to feel angry, then I will take three deep breaths to calm down." By using deep breathing as a replacement for giving in to your anger, your bad habit will get worn away over time until it disappears completely.

It is my hope that, after reading about the nine things successful people do differently, you have gained some insight into all the things you have been doing right all along. Even more important, I hope are able to identify the mistakes that have derailed you, and use that knowledge to your advantage from now on. Remember, you don't need to become a different person to become a more successful one. It's never what you are, but what you do.

Heidi Grant Halvorson, Ph.D. is a motivational psychologist, and author of the new book Succeed: How We Can Reach Our Goals (Hudson Street Press, 2011). She is also an expert blogger on motivation and leadership for Fast Company and Psychology Today. Her personal blog, The Science of Success, can be found at http://heidigranthalvorson.com/. Follow her on Twitter @hghalvorson

Access Content Source And Other Great Stuff: http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/02/nine_things_successful_people.html?referral=00563&cm_mmc=email-_-newsletter-_-daily_alert-_-alert_date&utm_source=newsletter_daily_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alert_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.

Chrystia Freeland | Analysis & Opinion | Reuters.com

Chrystia Freeland Analysis & Opinion Reuters.com

Reuters

Chrystia Freeland

Chrystia Freeland

Predicting the next uprising

Feb 24, 2011 13:11 EST

Daron Acemoglu michael mcfaul uprising index

Excerpts:

there is something very familiar about this failure of the experts. There seems to be something about swift, massive paradigm shifts — whether they are the bursting of a financial bubble that has been years in the making, or a popular revolt against a political regime that had been stable for decades — that we find hard to anticipate.

Research by behavioral economists like Dan Ariely of Duke University has suggested that part of the problem may be that when we have a vested interest in the status quo our brains are wired to view it as good and stable. Dr. Ariely’s work has focused on the cognitive blinders our financial self-interest imposes. But a similar bias may shape the views of political experts, who can end up developing a sense of ‘‘ownership’’ of the national elites they study that seems to be nearly as powerful as the proprietary feeling bankers had for the credit derivatives they created.

... even if we are able to overcome our psychological resistance to the very notion of regime change, anticipating precisely when dictators will be toppled may not be possible. ‘‘By their very nature, these tipping points are not predictable,’’

Peter Rudegeair and I have done a back-of- the-envelope calculation to identify countries with a high latent potential for uprisings. We considered four factors —  [1] political freedom (on the grounds that democracies don’t usually require popular rebellions to achieve regime change), [2] corruption, [3] vulnerability to food price shocks and [4]  Internet penetration. Our spreadsheet used publicly available measures of the four factors and came up with a list of 25 most vulnerable countries.* You can see the spreadsheet explaining the publicly available measures of the four factors we used and the top 25 countries we came up with here. Libya, Algeria and Egypt made it into the top 10. Perhaps more surprisingly, so did Russia, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Venezuela.

... another contributor to regime fragility that it would be worth factoring in to a more sophisticated analysis (you can try this at home!) is whether the authoritarian government is itself the product of recent revolutionary struggle. Dictatorships run by an ideologically united revolutionary party — Iran, for instance, and to a lesser extent China — are, Dr. Way argued, more durable than those whose rulers rely purely on guns and patronage.

Food-price shocks are often the catalyst that tips a regime with a latent vulnerability to an uprising into one facing people in the streets: that was the case in Tunisia, and has been true as far back as the Bolshevik Revolution. Something else that can propel a society with a latent potential for rebellion into action is the demonstration effect, or what Dr. Acemoglu calls ‘‘contagion,’’ a phenomenon also familiar to anyone who was caught in the wildfire global spread of the financial crisis in 2008.

In both cases, the sudden belief that a previously stable status quo could change had the power to alter reality. This interplay between perception and fact is what George Soros, an expert in paradigm shifts in both markets and countries, calls reflexivity.

 

Update: For ease and simplicity, we used Nomura’s Food Vulnerability Index to calculate how rising food prices would affect a country’s domestic economy. Because Nomura limited their Food Vulnerability Index to 80 countries, our uprising index is also limited to 80 countries. This explains why some countries that seem like they would be prime candidates for having a high latent potential for rebellion — like Iran, Cuba, and Jordan — do not make our list.

Access Content Source And Other Great Stuff: http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2011/02/24/predicting-the-next-uprising/

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

Is Sooner Better Than Later?

Is Sooner Better Than Later?

Inside Influence Report

Is Sooner Better Than Later?

By Noah Goldstein, Ph.D.

Sometimes, no matter how hard we try, no matter how informed we are about how to persuade others effectively, we fall short. There can be dozens of reasons why an otherwise properly employed influence strategy fails to yield the desired results when trying to convince people to do something they should, but do not necessarily want, to do. Regardless of whether you’re trying to convince someone to support your favorite charity, eat healthier, or adopt a new way of doing things at the office, one of the most common explanations for lack of persuasion success is also one of the simplest: people recognize they should change their behavior, but they just don’t feel like doing it…right now.

According to research conducted by social psychologists Yaacov Trope and Nira Liberman (2003), people think about events that occur in the near future and events that occur in the distant future quite differently. Whereas people tend to think about near future events in very concrete terms, they are more likely to think about events that seem far off in the future in very abstract terms. For example, if your coworkers volunteer for a weekend at a local homeless shelter, their evaluations of that task are likely to differ depending on whether you’re asking about the upcoming weekend or a weekend eight months from now. If you are asking them about the upcoming weekend, your coworkers are likely to focus on the concrete costs they will incur if they agree to volunteer. For instance, they may focus on the fact that they won’t have the opportunity to go shopping, watch television, or catch up on sleep due to their volunteering. On the other hand, if you are asking your coworkers about volunteering on a weekend eight months from now, they are much more likely to evaluate the proposition at a much more general level, including how the request relates to their own general values, morals, and ideology. What this translates to is that those considering the request to volunteer months from now are less likely to ask themselves whether they want to do it and more likely to ask themselves whether they should do it (“Is it the right thing to do?”). Realizing that being helpful is consistent with their values, they are more likely to say yes and to follow through with that commitment.

Behavioral scientists Todd Rogers and Max Bazerman (2008) call this strategy “future lock-in:” instead of asking people to agree to changes right away, ask them to agree to changes that will be implemented some time in the future. In one of their experiments, the researchers told study participants about a proposal to increase the price of gas 20 cents a gallon to help reduce overall gas consumption; however, half the participants were told the policy was going to be implemented as soon as possible, and the other half were told it would be implemented in four years. When the policy was expected to be in place immediately, only 26% supported it, but when it was expected to lie dormant for four years before being officially implemented, 41% supported it. The researchers ran several other experiments showing a similar effect in other important domains, such as charitable giving and health-related choices.

Researchers have shown the effectiveness of this technique in other critical domains, such as savings. For example, behavioral economists Richard Thaler and Shlomo Benartzi (2004) showed they could drastically boost participation rates in 401(k) plans in what is one of the most powerful demonstrations of this persuasion strategy. Using what they called the “Save More Tomorrow” program, rather than asking workers to participate in the program immediately, they instead asked workers to commit to putting a portion of their future salary increases into the plan. Although this program was successful for many reasons, one central reason is that it effectively shifted workers’ thoughts about the program from the concrete costs associated with it (“I’ll have less money in my paycheck each month.”) to how this program would help them achieve their broader values and goals (“I should do this because it’s important and the right thing to do for my family.”)

The results of this research suggest that if you believe you will encounter resistance with your requests for immediate behavior change, instead ask your audience to commit to the change for sometime in the future. For instance, if you are a manager trying to get employees to willingly embrace a new system or procedure, getting a head start by asking them to agree to the change three months from now will likely result in a great deal more compliance and commitment to the new process than asking them to willingly accept an immediate change. Sure, it’s better not to have to wait at all, but a little late is certainly better than never.

Sources:

Rogers, T. and Bazerman, M. H. (2008). Future lock-in: Future implementation increases selection of ‘should’ choices. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106, 1-20.

Thaler, R. H., & Benartzi, S. (2004). Save More Tomorrow: Using behavioral economics to increase employee saving. Journal of Political Economy, 112, S164–S187.

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110, 403–421

Dr. Noah J. Goldstein is a faculty member at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management. Dr. Goldstein's academic research and writing have been published in many of the premier scholarly outlets in psychology and business, including Harvard Business Review, MIT Sloan Management Review, and the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. His research has been featured in numerous media outlets, including New York Times, NPR’s Marketplace and the Harvard Business Review 2009 List of Breakthrough Ideas.

Click here for more information on Noah.

Access Content Source And Other Great Stuff: http://www.insideinfluence.com/inside-influence-report/2011/02/is-sooner-better-than-later.html#more

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

Vision: What’s Love Got to Do with It? - JohnMaxwell.com

JohnMaxwell.com

JohnMaxwell.com

Vision: What’s Love Got to Do with It?

Where does vision come from? How does a leader develop a clear vision for the future?

At the earliest stages, the word "vision" may be somewhat misleading, portraying vision as a picture that we can see. The birthplace of vision isn't the mind's eye, but the heart. In the beginning, visionaries are guided by passion not sight. They must feel their way in the dark at first, and only through time do they gain a mental image of what the future could look like.

Vision is what you want to do in life, not only what you think should be done. I can think of a thousand noble causes, but only a select few resonate with my heart. Vision begins as a compelling want or desire. The genesis of vision isn't purely an intellectual exercise; it involves monitoring your passions.

Passion generates vision, but I certainly do not recommend blindly following your heart. When developing a vision it's necessary to realistically assess your strengths, skills, and available opportunities. For example, I may aspire to sing on Broadway, but if the sounds of my voice makes an audience cover their ears in pain, then it's time to focus on another area of passion. Desire alone surely is not sufficient to develop a vision. Yet, every vision starts with an emotional spark.

Passion Births Vision

Ability is not enough to enable us to reach our potential. Opportunity alone will never get us to the top. Knowledge is a great asset, but comes up short helping us "be all that we can be." Even putting together a good team is not sufficient. Passion is the difference-maker.

In my years of observing people, I have never seen an individual reach his potential without passion. Horst Schultze, former COO of the Ritz Carlton says:

You are nothing unless it comes from your heart. Passion, caring, really looking to create excellence. If you perform functions only and go to work only to do processes, then you are effectively retired. And it scares me - most people I see, by age 28, are retired... If you go to work only to fulfill the processes and functions then you are a machine. You have to bring passion, commitment and caring - then you are a human being.

Without passion we stop dreaming and settle for survival. We relinquish heartfelt vision in exchange for security and comfort.

One team of researchers followed a group of 1,500 MBA's over a period of 20 years. At the outset of the study, the participants were divided into two groups, Group A and Group B.

Group A, 83 percent of the sample, was composed of people who were embarking on a career path that they had chosen solely for the prospect of making money now in order to do what they wanted later in life.
Group B, the other 17 percent of the sample, consisted of people who had chosen their career paths so that they could do what they wanted to do now and worry about the money later.

The data showed some startling revelations:
• At the end of the 20-year period, 101 of the 1,500 had become millionaires.
• Of the millionaires, all but one - 100 out of 101 - were from Group B, the group that had chosen to pursue what they loved.

In summarizing the research for his book Getting Rich Your Own Way, Srully Blotnick observed the following: "A missing ingredient had to be present if someone was going to become rich: they had to find their work absorbing. Involving. Enthralling." The success stories choose passion over predictable earnings. They had a vision for life beyond material riches, and ironically, they ended up generating the most wealth.

CONCLUSION

To birth a vision, begin by paying attention to your areas of passion. What makes you feel alive? What matters the most to you in life? What activities can absorb attention for hours? Don't worry about being able to see the whole picture immediately. As you look for ways to make contributions doing what you love, eventually a picture will emerge in your mind of how you can shape the future.

---

John C. Maxwell is an internationally respected leadership expert, speaker, and author who has sold more than 19 million books. Dr. Maxwell is the founder of EQUIP, a non-profit organization that has trained more than 5 million leaders in 126 countries worldwide. Each year he speaks to the leaders of diverse organizations, such as Fortune 500 companies, foreign governments, the National Football League, the United States Military Academy at West Point, and the United Nations. A New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Business Week best-selling author, Maxwell has written three books that have sold more than a million copies: The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, Developing the Leader Within You, and The 21 Indispensable Qualities of a Leader. His blog can be read at JohnMaxwellOnLeadership.com. He can be followed at Twitter.com/JohnCMaxwell.

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

Access Source Content And Other Great Stuff: http://www.johnmaxwell.com/articles/vision_whats_love_got_to_do_with_it

********************************************************

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

Can a Fake Smile Be Bad for Your Health? - NYTimes.com

Can a Fake Smile Be Bad for Your Health? - NYTimes.com

The New York Times

The Claim: A Fake Smile Can be Bad for Your Health

By ANAHAD O’CONNOR

Published: February 21, 2011

Excerpts:

After following the drivers closely, the researchers found that on days when the smiles were forced, the subjects’ moods deteriorated and they tended to withdraw from work. Trying to suppress negative thoughts, it turns out, may have made those thoughts even more persistent.

But on days when the subjects tried to display smiles through deeper efforts — by actually cultivating pleasant thoughts and memories — their overall moods improved and their productivity increased.

THE BOTTOM LINE ... Research suggests that an inauthentic smile to hide unhappiness can further worsen your mood.

Access Content Source And Other Great Stuff: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/health/22really.html?_r=1&ref=health

********************************************************
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 Are You Feeling? - Tony Schwartz - Harvard Business Review

How Are You Feeling? - Tony Schwartz - Harvard Business Review

Harvard Business Review

Tony Schwartz

How Are You Feeling?

10:44 AM Tuesday February 22, 2011 Comments ( 5)

FEATURED PRODUCTS

HBR's 10 Must Reads on Managing Yourself

by Heike Bruch, Catherine McCarthy, Diane Coutu, et al.

$24.95

Being the Boss: The 3 Imperatives for Becoming a Great Leader

by Linda Hill, Kent Lineback

$25.95

HBR's 10 Must Reads on Leadership

by Diana Mayer, Andrew McLean, Robert Goffee, et al.

$24.95

Excerpts:

But nothing compares in impact to having people tell you what they're feeling, directly, without pulling any punches. I'm not certain how exactly our facilitators made it safe enough for that to occur but that's the magic, and they did. ... A core premise of the Sanctuary work is that the best place to resolve differences among people and to create trust is in the community. This is a radical notion in most organizations, where conflict avoidance is the norm. Taking it on is uncomfortable, especially at first, and it requires a significant investment of time in an era when none of us feel we have enough.... we all need ongoing opportunities to safely address conflict in the workplace, and to restore our sense of value when it gets disrupted.

The Article:

Last week, my company, The Energy Project, held an offsite for our employees. On the second day, we brought in two outside facilitators to help us focus on how we work together.

The facilitators had been trained in something called the "Sanctuary Model." It was created by a psychiatrist named Sandra Bloom to help organizations — most of them in the mental health field — build communities grounded in communicating openly and honestly, listening deeply to one another and taking truly shared responsibility for conflict resolution and problem solving.

The Sanctuary model intersects with an idea Daniel Goleman put in his book Social Intelligence: "Threats to our standing in the eyes of others are almost as powerful as those to our very survival."

The implications of this insight are profound. The more we feel devalued — and we all do at various times, to varying degrees — the more energy we spend defending and restoring our value, and the less energy we have available to create value. Unfortunately, this issue rarely gets addressed in the workplace.

The first question our facilitators asked each of us to answer, after acquainting us with Sanctuary model, was incredibly simple: "How are you feeling?" That's a very different question than the standard "How are you?" we all ask each other every day.

When people stop and reflect, and then say, one at a time, how each of them are really feeling, it opens up a deeper level of dialogue. It creates a wholly different level of intimacy and connection by cutting to the chase.

What followed was a remarkable interchange that went on for several hours. As the leader of our company, I was by far the most frequent focus of what people were feeling. Their comments largely revolved around ways that my words and actions had made them feel uncomfortable or destabilized, or devalued.

It was painful to hear, and humbling. I've always been very aware of ways I fall short. Lest I miss them, my younger daughter, who works at our company, is very quick to let me know whenever she feels I've fallen short, especially in the way I've treated someone.

But nothing compares in impact to having people tell you what they're feeling, directly, without pulling any punches. I'm not certain how exactly our facilitators made it safe enough for that to occur but that's the magic, and they did.

Over the years, I've spoken to thousands of people about how easily our value can be threatened. I underestimated how true that was even in our own company, and how I myself had contributed, without fully recognizing my impact.

We each have an infinite capacity for self-deception, and here was mine.

To my surprise, I didn't feel defensive in the face of people's comments. I instinctively sensed it was healthy for them to air feelings that had been bottled up and were getting in the way of their feeling safer and more secure with me, and at work. The more I simply listened, the more people began taking responsibility for ways in which they, too, might have contributed to the conflicts we were discussing.

A core premise of the Sanctuary work is that the best place to resolve differences among people and to create trust is in the community. This is a radical notion in most organizations, where conflict avoidance is the norm. Taking it on is uncomfortable, especially at first, and it requires a significant investment of time in an era when none of us feel we have enough.

But if organizations are going to thrive in the face of relentlessly rising demands, we all need ongoing opportunities to safely address conflict in the workplace, and to restore our sense of value when it gets disrupted.

Nearly every person at our offsite left feeling lighter, and more hopeful about the way we work together. I'm committed now to holding these community meetings at regular intervals. I'm convinced they'll generate more value — in both senses of the word.

Tony Schwartz is the president and CEO of The Energy Project and the author of The Way We're Working Isn't Working. Become a fan of The Energy Project on Facebook and connect with Tony at Twitter.com/TonySchwartz and Twitter.com/Energy_Project.

Access Content Source And Other Great Stuff: http://blogs.hbr.org/schwartz/2011/02/how-are-you-feeling.html?referral=00563&cm_mmc=email-_-newsletter-_-daily_alert-_-alert_date&utm_source=newsletter_daily_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alert_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.

NEUROSCIENCE AND LEADERSHIP: THE PROMISE OF INSIGHTS - Ivey Business Journal

NEUROSCIENCE AND LEADERSHIP: THE PROMISE OF INSIGHTS - Ivey Business Journal

Excerpts:

"If you believe that leadership involves inspiring others and motivating them to be their best and develop, learn, adapt and innovate, then activating the parts of their brain that will help requires arousing what we have called the Positive Emotional Attractor. To arouse the PEA, these studies are suggesting that we need to: (1) be social; and (2) engage the person in positive, hopeful contemplation of a desired future. The latter might also be stimulated when discussing core values and the purpose of the organization or project. All too often, people in leadership positions begin conversations about the financials or metrics and dashboard measures of the desired performance. These findings suggest that while important, this sequence confuses people and actually results in them closing down cognitively, emotionally and perceptually. If you want them to open their minds, you need to discuss the purpose of the activity (not merely the goals) and the vision of the organization or clients if a desired future were to occur. THEN, you can lead a discussion about the financials, metrics and measures. But you have made it clear that the measures follow the purpose, they have not become the purpose.

If this sounds like transformational leadership, versus its less effective sibling, transactional leadership, you have made an important connection. But our research shows that you need to arouse the PEA and the NEA to get sustained, desired change. The key appears to be, so far in our research, that you need to: (1) arouse the PEA first; and (2) arouse the PEA sufficiently such that it is about three to six times more frequent in the discussions than the NEA."

Full Article:

IVEY Business Journal - Improving the Practice Of Management

NEUROSCIENCE AND LEADERSHIP: THE PROMISE OF INSIGHTS by Richard Boyatzis Leadership January / February 2011

Emerging findings in neuroscience research suggest why inspiring and supportive relationships are important — they help activate openness to new ideas and a more social orientation to others. Insights such as these, this author writes, may move the primacy of a leader’s actions away from the often proselytized “results-orientation” toward a relationship orientation. Readers will learn about this and other important findings in neuroscience that have the potential to tell us what we need to know to be good, even great leaders.

The quest for understanding leadership seems perpetual. Against the context of the daily news that is full of leadership failures and lost opportunities, it seems to be an area of mystery rather than understanding. Advances in neuroscience may help us understand the internal mechanisms that enable some people to be effective leaders, and some not. It will help us to know how some people can form effective leadership relationships, and some not. It will also help us to understand why some people can sustain their effectiveness and others can not. But we are not there yet.

Leaders engage and inspire others- that is how their work gets done. For the last 100 or so years, we have studied their personality, intelligence, values, attitudes and even behavior. But seldom has anyone ventured physiologically inside of leaders. Advances in fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), access to people and machines, and interest in more holistic approaches to studying leadership have made this possible. This has become so popular and hot that a special issue of Leadership Quarterly is being reviewed right now on the Biology of Leadership (Senior, Lee & Butler, 2010). In this brief overview, I will use a few of our current studies to highlight some of the areas that seem to hold promise.

Building relationships

Leaders need to build relationships that inspire and motivate others to do their best, innovate and adapt. In our earlier work, Primal Leadership (Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, 2002) and Resonant Leadership (Boyatzis & McKee, 2005), we synthesized a great deal of research to support the idea that effective leaders build resonant relationships with those around them. At the same time, less effective leaders or those that are more one-sided seem to create dissonant relationships. We decided to explore this in one fMRI study.

A study was designed to explore the neural mechanisms invoked as a result of relationships with resonant, high-leader member exchange (i.e., LMX), high-quality relationship leaders, and dissonant, lo- LMX, low-quality relationship leaders (Boyatzis, Passarelli, Koenig, Lowe, Mathew, Stoller, & Phillips, in review). Middle-aged subjects were asked about critical incidents with leaders in their experiences. fMRI scans were conducted, with cues developed from these experiences.

In this exploratory study, preliminary observations revealed that recalling specific experiences with resonant leaders significantly activated 14 regions of interest in the brain, while dissonant leaders activated 6 and deactivated 11 regions. Experiences with resonant leaders activated neural systems involved in arousing attention (i.e., anterior cingulate cortex) , the social or default network (i.e. right inferior frontal gyrus), mirror system (i.e., the right inferior parietal lobe), and other regions associated with approach relationships (i.e., the right putamen and bilateral insula). Meanwhile, dissonant leaders deactivated systems involved in social or default networks (i.e., the posterior cingulate cortex), the mirror system (i.e., the left inferior frontal gyrus), and activated those regions associated with narrowing attention (i.e., bilateral anterior cingulate cortex), and those associated with less compassion (i.e., left posterior cingulate cortex), more negative emotions (i.e., posterior inferior frontal gyrus).

With creative designs, future research can probe the neural activations that various relationships and people have had on us. We can begin to understand how they may be affecting our moods and cognitive openness.

Possible implications

In Primal Leadership, Resonant Leadership, and a more recent article in Harvard Business Review (Goleman & Boyatzis, 2008), we offered many examples of leaders who build resonant relationships with others around them — many others around them. And dissonant leaders who seem to turn people off, alienate them, and lose their motivation. The neuroscience findings emerging suggest a basic reason why inspiring and supportive relationships are important — they help activate openness to new ideas and a more social orientation to others.

These insights may move the primacy of a leader’s actions away from the often proselytized “results-orientation” toward a relationship orientation. This does not preclude the concern with results, but could show why being first and foremost concerned about one’s relationships may then enable others to perform better and more innovatively– and lead to better results. John Chambers of Cisco Systems and Oprah Winfrey of Harpo Productions are both driven to produce impressive results. But when people who work directly with them talk about their meetings, they walk out of them motivated and inspired by what they are doing and their commitment to each other.

Emotional Contagion and Empathy

While most people will acknowledge the role of empathy in understanding others, few appreciate how quickly impressions of others get formed or the neural mechanisms involved. For this we must look to the research on contagion. Prior research has explained mimicry and imitation (Hatfield, Cacioppo & Rapson, 1993). But recent studies, although somewhat controversial, offer three possibilities regarding emotional contagion: (1) emotional contagion spreads in milliseconds, below conscious recognition (LeDoux, 2002); (2) emotional arousal may precede conceptualization of the event (Iacoboni, 2009); and (3) neural systems activate endocrine systems that, in turn, activate neural systems (Garcia-Segura, 2009).

The mirror neuron system has been claimed to foster imitation and mimicry (Cattaneo & Rizzolatti, 2009). This system allows us to discern the: (a) context of an observed action or setting; (b) the action; and (c) the intention of the other living being. They help us to understand the sensing of the goals/intention of another’s actions or expressions, and to link sensory and motor representation of them. Even the most recent approaches to emotional contagion that do not focus on the mirror system claim to show a sympathetic hemo-dynamic that creates the same ability for us to relate to another’s emotions and intention (Decety & Michalaks, 2010).

Relevant to leadership, there are three implications of these observations: the speed of activation, the sequence of activation, and the endocrine/neural system interactions. The firing of the limbic system seems to occur within 8 milliseconds of a primary cognition and it takes almost 40 milliseconds for that same circuit to appear in the neocortex for interpretation and conceptualization (LeDoux, 2002). With this timing, our emotions are determining cognitive interpretation more than previously admitted. Once primary cognitions have occurred, secondary cognitions allow for the neocortical events (i.e., reframing) to drive subsequent limbic or emotional labeling. Our unconscious emotional states are arousing emotions in those with whom we interact before we or they know it. And it spreads from these interactions to others.

Research has suggested that negative emotions are stronger than positive emotions (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001). As a result, we would suspect that the contagion of negative emotion would ignite a stronger neural sequence than positive emotions. This may serve evolutionary functions but, paradoxically, it may limit learning. Arousal of strong negative emotions stimulates the Sympathetic Nervous System, which inhibits access to existing neural circuits and invokes cognitive, emotional, and perceptual impairment (Sapolsky, 2004; Schulkin, 1999; Dickerson and Kemeny, 2004).

The benefits of arousing positive emotions over negative ones have been demonstrated by Fredrickson and Losada (2004) and others. A contagion of positive emotions seems to arouse the Parasympathetic Nervous System, which stimulates adult neurogenesis (i.e., growth of new neurons) (Erickson et. al., 1998), a sense of well being, better immune system functioning, and cognitive, emotional, and perceptual openness (McEwen, 1998; Janig and Habler, 1999; Boyatzis, Jack, Cesaro, Passarelli, & Khawaja, 2010).

The sustainability of leadership effectiveness is directly a function of a person’s ability to adapt and activate neural plasticity. The SNS and PNS are both needed for human functioning. They each have an impact on neural plasticity. Arousal affects the growth of the size and shape of our brain. Neurogenesis allows the human to build new neurons. The endocrines aroused in the PNS allow the immune system to function at its best to help preserve existing tissue (Dickerson and Kemeny, 2004).

Possible Implications

The most likely implication of these results is that leaders bear the primary responsibility for knowing what they are feeling and therefore, managing the contagion that they infect in others. It requires a heightened emotional self-awareness. This means having techniques to notice the feelings (i.e., know that you are having feelings and become aware of them), label or understand what they are (i.e., giving a label to vague or gnawing sensations), and then signal yourself that you should do something to change your mood and state. Merely saying to yourself that you will “put on a happy face” does not hide the fast and unconscious transmission of your real feelings to others around you.

You are infecting others around you with specific feelings. Some of those feelings help them to perform better and innovate and some are debilitating and inhibit adaptive thinking. Remember, negative feelings, even the unconscious ones, will easily overwhelm positive ones. The leader, because of his/her position of power, has a greater affect on others in a social or work environment. Being able to change your internal state might be one of the most powerful techniques you learn in becoming an effective leader– one who inspires others to learn, adapt and perform at their best.

Helping and inspiring others

Leaders should be coaches in helping to motivate and inspire those around them (Boyatzis, Smith & Blaize, 2006). But not any old form of coaching will help. Coaching others with compassion, that is, toward the Positive Emotional Attractor, appears to activate neural systems that help a person open themselves to new possibilities– to learn and adapt. Meanwhile, the more typical coaching of others to change in imposed ways (i.e., trying to get them to conform to the views of the boss) may create an arousal of the SNS and puts the person in a defensive posture. This moves a person toward the Negative Emotional Attractor and to being more closed to possibilities. We decided to test this difference.

In a study, sophomores were coached with each approach (Boyatzis, Jack, Cesaro, Khawaja & Passarelli, 2010). On the basis of two 30 minutes coaching sessions, one to the PEA (asking a person about their future dreams) and the other to the NEA (asking them how they are handling their courses and whether they are doing all of their homework), we found dramatic differences in neural activation. Using an fMRI to track neural activity, it showed significant differences in activation as a result of these two approaches to coaching. We found activation of the orbito-frontal cortex and nucleus accumbens to be positively related to PEA coaching. This also activated a part of the visual cortex in which a person can imagine and visualize something. These are associated with PNS arousal. Meanwhile, the NEA seemed to activate the Anterior Cingulate Cortex and Medial Prefrontal Cortex, both regions known for self-consciousness and reflections while feeling guilt.

These results were consistent with those from Jack, Dawson, Ciccia, Cesaro, Barry, Snyder & Begany (2010) showing that there is a network of brain regions activated when engaged in social activities (formerly called the Default Motor Network in the neuroscience literature). There is a dramatically different network that is activated when you are engaged in analytics or trying to solve a non-social problem. They showed that these two networks suppress each other. That is, when you are busy thinking about budgets, financial analysis, or product specifications, you will have turned off the parts of your brain that are key to social functioning– and visa versa!

Possible implications

If you believe that leadership involves inspiring others and motivating them to be their best and develop, learn, adapt and innovate, then activating the parts of their brain that will help requires arousing what we have called the Positive Emotional Attractor. To arouse the PEA, these studies are suggesting that we need to: (1) be social; and (2) engage the person in positive, hopeful contemplation of a desired future. The latter might also be stimulated when discussing core values and the purpose of the organization or project. All too often, people in leadership positions begin conversations about the financials or metrics and dashboard measures of the desired performance. These findings suggest that while important, this sequence confuses people and actually results in them closing down cognitively, emotionally and perceptually. If you want them to open their minds, you need to discuss the purpose of the activity (not merely the goals) and the vision of the organization or clients if a desired future were to occur. THEN, you can lead a discussion about the financials, metrics and measures. But you have made it clear that the measures follow the purpose, they have not become the purpose.

If this sounds like transformational leadership, versus its less effective sibling, transactional leadership, you have made an important connection. But our research shows that you need to arouse the PEA and the NEA to get sustained, desired change. The key appears to be, so far in our research, that you need to: (1) arouse the PEA first; and (2) arouse the PEA sufficiently such that it is about three to six times more frequent in the discussions than the NEA.

Findings such as these may help us to understand, if replicated, how to help others– and how to help us sustain our effectiveness as leaders.

References

• Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5: 323-370.
• Boyatzis, R. E., Jack, A., Cesaro, R., Passarelli, A. & Khawaja, M. (2010). Coaching with Compassion: An fMRI Study of Coaching to the Positive or Negative Emotional Attractor. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Montreal.
• Boyatzis, R. & McKee, A. (2005). Resonant Leadership: Renewing Yourself and Connecting With Others Through Mindfulness, Hope, and Compassion. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
• Boyatzis, R.E., Passarelli, A.P., Koenig, K., Lowe, M., Mathew, B., Stoller, J. & Phillips, M. (under review). Examination of the Neural Substrates Activated in Experiences with Resonant & Dissonant Leaders. Leadership Quarterly.
• Boyatzis, R.E., Smith, M. and Blaize, N. (2006) “Developing sustainable leaders through coaching and compassion, Academy of Management Journal on Learning and Education. 5(1): 8-24.
• Cattaneo, L. & Rizzolatti, G. (2009). The mirror neuron system. Neurobiological Review, 66(5), p. 557-560
• Decety, J. & Michalska, K.J. (2010). Neurodevelopmental change in circuits underlying empathy and sympathy from childhood to adulthood. Developmental Science. 13: 6, 886-899.
• Dickerson, S.S. & Kemeny, M.E. (2004). Acute stressors and cortisol responses: A theoretical integration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychological Bulletin.130(3): 355-391.
• Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. American Psychologist. 60(7): 678-686. Psychology, 86(2): 320-333.
• Garcia-Segura, L.M. (2009). Hormones and brain plasticity. NY: Oxford University Press.
• Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal Leadership: Realizing the Power of Emotional Intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
• Goleman, D. & Boyatzis, R. (September, 2008). Social intelligence and the biology of leadership. Harvard Business Review. 86:9, pp. 74-81.
• Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J.T., & Rapson, R.L. (1993). Emotional contagion. NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Iacoboni, M. (2009). Imitaiton, empathy, and mirror neurons. Annual Review of Psychology. 60, p. 653-670.
• Jack, A., Dawson, A., Ciccia, A. Cesaro, R., Barry, K., Snyder, A. & Begany, K. (2010). Social and Mechanical reasoning define two opposing domains of human higher cognition. Under review. Manuscript from Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
• Janig, W. & Habler, H-J. (1999). Organization of the autonomic nervous system: Structure and function. In O. Appendzeller (ed.). Handbook of Clinical Neurology: The Autonomic Nervous System: Part I: Normal Function, 74: 1-52.
• LeDoux, J. (2002). Synaptic self: How our brains become who we are. NY: Viking.
• McEwen, B. S. (1998). Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. New England Journal of Medicine. 338: 171-179.
• Sapolsky, R. M. (2004). Why zebra’s don’t get ulcers (third edition).NY: Harper Collins.
• Schulkin, J. (1999). Neuroendocrine regulation of behavior. NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Senior, C., Lee, N.L., & Butler, M. (2010). Organizational cognitive neuroscience. Organization Science. On-line in advance of print, 1-10.

The Author:

Richard Boyatzis

Richard Boyatzis is Distinguished University Professor, Case Western Reserve University. He is the author of six books, including Primal Leadership with Daniel Goleman and Annie McKee; Resonant Leadership, with Annie McKee; and Becoming a Resonant Leader with Annie McKee and Fran Johnston.

Access Content And Other Good Stuff: http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/neuroscience-and-leadership-the-promise-of-insights

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

IVEY Business Journal - Improving the Practice Of Management

NEUROSCIENCE AND LEADERSHIP: THE PROMISE OF INSIGHTS by Richard Boyatzis Leadership January / February 2011

How to Write a Resume Summary that Grabs Attention | Blue Sky Resumes Blog

How to Write a Resume Summary that Grabs Attention Blue Sky Resumes Blog

BlueSky Resumes - Blue Sky Blog

How to Write a Resume Summary that Grabs Attention

02/18/11

Written by Louise Fletcher

One of the key points I cover in my free resume writing course, is the need to stand out by writing a powerful resume summary.

You only get a very short amount of time to make an impression and a well written resume summary can make all the difference.

But I think the resume summary is one of the most misunderstood aspects of resume writing. Most people write summaries that are almost guaranteed never to be read.

Let me show you what I mean.

Access Content Source and Other Good Stuff: http://www.blueskyresumes.com/blog/how-to-write-a-resume-summary-that-grabs-attention/

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