First Friday Preview
FrontLine Analysis By The MRINetwork
March 2012, Volume VI, Issue 3
UNITED STATES
Mixed Signals Still Give Top Performers Confidence
When Fall Fashion Week rolled out in New York in February, many designers were reversing course on their hem lengths—and not always in the same direction. While there were not many mini-skirts, there also were fewer of the full-length gowns than were seen last season. Some designers—most notably Alexander Wang—chose to go with several seemingly low hemlines, but then introduced soaring slits and gaps causing them to almost defy hemline definition.
The hemline index as calculated by Business Inside—yes it is a real index—rose to 44.38 from 35.04 last season. In a time when economic indicators are as plentiful as they are mixed, it may be one of the most apt indicators of the time. Lore says when the economy is good, hemlines rise and when soured, the hemlines fall. While hemlines seem to be going in many directions at once this season, the average is rising—much like the U.S. economy.
While the economy gains speed, workforce managers are feeling the pinch of a tightening talent market. A recent Corporate Executive Board study showed the average number of applications received per position fell to 118 from 187 one year earlier. Of those applications, respondents to the study said just one-third met the basic requirements for the position they were applying for.
Late last year, a survey of C-Level executives around the world by Lloyd’s of London ranked talent and skills shortages as the second-largest risk to their business. In 2009, talent worries were ranked as just the 22nd largest concern.
“The scales of the labor market have clearly shifted over the last six-to-twelve months, and now we are seeing that accelerating in the professional ranks,” says Rob Romaine, president of MRINetwork. “Top talent is no longer looking at a stable job and saying, ‘I’m happy to at least have that.’ Rather, they are opening up when recruiters call and are starting to explore what will really make them happy—financially or otherwise.”
Since early in 2010, the number of people who voluntarily left a position each month has been steadily rising to nearly 2 million, up more than 30 percent from its lows.
“Having employees more interested in pursuing new opportunities is a double-edged sword for organizations,” says Romaine. “It’s going to be hard not to lose some top performers, as they will likely have the most opportunities presented to them. But while the field of top performers who are actively applying for positions is still very low, the numbers who are open to recruiting calls now is above average.”
During the years of tough economic times, the fear of the unknown was enough to keep many top performers in place. Although recent positive employment and economic news has not removed the possibility of another slowdown, it has given the workforce enough confidence to accept the risk associated with changing jobs.
“The economy will continue to be in a fragile place for much of the near future, with profit margins closely guarded and customers highly cost-conscious. Losing key staff or having continuity-of-services issues in this stage of a recovery will be damaging,” notes Romaine. “On the other hand, the worst possible outcome of bringing in top talent right now is that they will take pressure off existing staff, decrease turnover, and put a company in a powerful position to capture market share.”
Provided by MRINetwork www.MRINetwork.com
Edited by Sean Muir (215) 751-1762 Sean.Muir@MRINetwork.com
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Career Coach: Is your style causing problems for you? - Washington Post
By Joyce E. A. Russell, Published: March 4 2012
EXCERPTS:
Here are some of the primary issues that seem to cause stress among peers and reasons for why they don’t want to work with a particular individual:
Factors that employees have told me they most appreciate in peers include:
Joyce E. A. Russell is the director of the Executive Coaching and Leadership Development Program at the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business. She is a licensed industrial and organizational psychologist and has more than 25 years of experience coaching executives and consulting on leadership and career management. She can be reached at jrussell@rhsmith.umd.edu.
Access Article, Source And Great Content: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/career-coach-is-your-style-causing-problems-for-you/2012/02/29/gIQARByrqR_story.html
EXCERPTS:
Here are some of the primary issues that seem to cause stress among peers and reasons for why they don’t want to work with a particular individual:
An abrasive style, tactlessness or lack of empathy.
Intimidating, domineering or condescending style.
Disengagement or inconsistent engagement.
Unwillingness to change.
Undependability.
Disorganization and lack of focus.
Poor communication skills, especially failing to listen to other’s views.
Negativity, moodiness or bad temper. Individuals want to be around positive, hopeful people.Don’t be the source of the problem. Collect candid feedback from others on your work style. Be sensitive to the reactions of others and be open to adjusting your behaviors to fit the current situation. Research has shown that people better at self-monitoring are often more effective in managerial positions because they are required to read situations and play multiple roles when communicating with different types of people.
Factors that employees have told me they most appreciate in peers include:
Collegial skills
Consistent high-quality work performance, regardless of the project
Timeliness of work
Positive “can-do” attitude and enthusiasm
Dedication to the project.
Consideration of others and being trustworthy — being sincere and genuine and truly caring about teammates.So, if you want to be able to lead or influence others or even get them to pick you for that next project, think about your own style and what might be holding you back.
Joyce E. A. Russell is the director of the Executive Coaching and Leadership Development Program at the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business. She is a licensed industrial and organizational psychologist and has more than 25 years of experience coaching executives and consulting on leadership and career management. She can be reached at jrussell@rhsmith.umd.edu.
Access Article, Source And Great Content: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/career-coach-is-your-style-causing-problems-for-you/2012/02/29/gIQARByrqR_story.html
Monday, March 5, 2012
How Companies Learn Your Secrets - New York TImes Magazine
By CHARLES DUHIGG
Published: February 16, 2012
Your shopping habits reveal even the most personal information — like when you’re going to have a baby.
Charles Duhigg is a staff writer for The Times and author of "The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business," which will be published on Feb. 28. Follow him on Twitter and on Facebook.
Editor: Joel Lovell
----------------------------------
EXCERPTS:
...the science of habit formation has become a major field of research in neurology and psychology departments at hundreds of major medical centers and universities, as well as inside extremely well financed corporate labs. “It’s like an arms race to hire statisticians nowadays,” said Andreas Weigend, the former chief scientist at Amazon.com. “Mathematicians are suddenly sexy.” As the ability to analyze data has grown more and more fine-grained, the push to understand how daily habits influence our decisions has become one of the most exciting topics in clinical research, even though most of us are hardly aware those patterns exist. One study from Duke University estimated that habits, rather than conscious decision-making, shape 45 percent of the choices we make every day, and recent discoveries have begun to change everything from the way we think about dieting to how doctors conceive treatments for anxiety, depression and addictions.
This research is also transforming our understanding of how habits function across organizations and societies.
Researchers have figured out how to stop people from habitually overeating and biting their nails. They can explain why some of us automatically go for a jog every morning and are more productive at work, while others oversleep and procrastinate. There is a calculus, it turns out, for mastering our subconscious urges. For companies like Target, the exhaustive rendering of our conscious and unconscious patterns into data sets and algorithms has revolutionized what they know about us and, therefore, how precisely they can sell.
Inside the brain-and-cognitive-sciences department of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are what, to the casual observer, look like dollhouse versions of surgical theaters. There are rooms with tiny scalpels, small drills and miniature saws. Even the operating tables are petite, as if prepared for 7-year-old surgeons. Inside those shrunken O.R.’s, neurologists cut into the skulls of anesthetized rats, implanting tiny sensors that record the smallest changes in the activity of their brains.
This process, in which the brain converts a sequence of actions into an automatic routine, is called “chunking.” There are dozens, if not hundreds, of behavioral chunks we rely on every day. Some are simple: you automatically put toothpaste on your toothbrush before sticking it in your mouth. Some, like making the kids’ lunch, are a little more complex. Still others are so complicated that it’s remarkable to realize that a habit could have emerged at all.
The process within our brains that creates habits is a three-step loop. First, there is a cue, a trigger that tells your brain to go into automatic mode and which habit to use. Then there is the routine, which can be physical or mental or emotional. Finally, there is a reward, which helps your brain figure out if this particular loop is worth remembering for the future. Over time, this loop — cue, routine, reward; cue, routine, reward — becomes more and more automatic. The cue and reward become neurologically intertwined until a sense of craving emerges. What’s unique about cues and rewards, however, is how subtle they can be. Neurological studies like the ones in Graybiel’s lab have revealed that some cues span just milliseconds. And rewards can range from the obvious (like the sugar rush that a morning doughnut habit provides) to the infinitesimal (like the barely noticeable — but measurable — sense of relief the brain experiences after successfully navigating the driveway). Most cues and rewards, in fact, happen so quickly and are so slight that we are hardly aware of them at all. But our neural systems notice and use them to build automatic behaviors.
Habits aren’t destiny — they can be ignored, changed or replaced. But it’s also true that once the loop is established and a habit emerges, your brain stops fully participating in decision-making. So unless you deliberately fight a habit — unless you find new cues and rewards — the old pattern will unfold automatically.
Habits never really disappear.”
Some of the most ambitious habit experiments have been conducted by corporate America. To understand why executives are so entranced by this science, consider how one of the world’s largest companies, Procter & Gamble, used habit insights to turn a failing product into one of its biggest sellers. P.& G. is the corporate behemoth behind a whole range of products, from Downy fabric softener to Bounty paper towels to Duracell batteries and dozens of other household brands.
Andrew Pole was hired by Target to use the same kinds of insights into consumers’ habits to expand Target’s sales. His assignment was to analyze all the cue-routine-reward loops among shoppers and help the company figure out how to exploit them.
In the 1980s, a team of researchers led by a U.C.L.A. professor named Alan Andreasen undertook a study of peoples’ most mundane purchases, like soap, toothpaste, trash bags and toilet paper. They learned that most shoppers paid almost no attention to how they bought these products, that the purchases occurred habitually, without any complex decision-making. Which meant it was hard for marketers, despite their displays and coupons and product promotions, to persuade shoppers to change.
But when some customers were going through a major life event, like graduating from college or getting a new job or moving to a new town, their shopping habits became flexible in ways that were both predictable and potential gold mines for retailers. The study found that when someone marries, he or she is more likely to start buying a new type of coffee. When a couple move into a new house, they’re more apt to purchase a different kind of cereal. When they divorce, there’s an increased chance they’ll start buying different brands of beer.
Consumers going through major life events often don’t notice, or care, that their shopping habits have shifted, but retailers notice, and they care quite a bit. At those unique moments, Andreasen wrote, customers are “vulnerable to intervention by marketers.” In other words, a precisely timed advertisement, sent to a recent divorcee or new homebuyer, can change someone’s shopping patterns for years. And among life events, none are more important than the arrival of a baby. At that moment, new parents’ habits are more flexible than at almost any other time in their adult lives. If companies can identify pregnant shoppers, they can earn millions.
Using data to predict a woman’s pregnancy, Target realized soon after Pole perfected his model, could be a public-relations disaster. So the question became: how could they get their advertisements into expectant mothers’ hands without making it appear they were spying on them? How do you take advantage of someone’s habits without letting them know you’re studying their lives?
[My chocolate chip cookie habit].... When I started interviewing experts in habit formation, I concluded each interview by asking what I should do. The first step, they said, was to figure out my habit loop. The routine was simple: every afternoon, I walked to the cafeteria, bought a cookie and ate it while chatting with friends. Next came some less obvious questions: What was the cue? Hunger? Boredom? Low blood sugar? And what was the reward? The taste of the cookie itself? The temporary distraction from my work? The chance to socialize with colleagues?
Deciphering cues is hard, however. Our lives often contain too much information to figure out what is triggering a particular behavior. Do you eat breakfast at a certain time because you’re hungry? Or because the morning news is on? Or because your kids have started eating? Experiments have shown that most cues fit into one of five categories: location, time, emotional state, other people or the immediately preceding action. So to figure out the cue for my cookie habit, I wrote down five things the moment the urge hit:
Once I figured out all the parts of the loop, it seemed fairly easy to change my habit. But the psychologists and neuroscientists warned me that, for my new behavior to stick, I needed to abide by the same principle that guided Procter & Gamble in selling Febreze: To shift the routine — to socialize, rather than eat a cookie — I needed to piggyback on an existing habit. So now, every day around 3:30, I stand up, look around the newsroom for someone to talk to, spend 10 minutes gossiping, then go back to my desk. The cue and reward have stayed the same. Only the routine has shifted. It doesn’t feel like a decision, any more than the M.I.T. rats made a decision to run through the maze. It’s now a habit. I’ve lost 21 pounds since then (12 of them from changing my cookie ritual).
-----------------------------------
570 Comments
Access Full Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html
Published: February 16, 2012
Your shopping habits reveal even the most personal information — like when you’re going to have a baby.
Charles Duhigg is a staff writer for The Times and author of "The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business," which will be published on Feb. 28. Follow him on Twitter and on Facebook.
Editor: Joel Lovell
----------------------------------
EXCERPTS:
...the science of habit formation has become a major field of research in neurology and psychology departments at hundreds of major medical centers and universities, as well as inside extremely well financed corporate labs. “It’s like an arms race to hire statisticians nowadays,” said Andreas Weigend, the former chief scientist at Amazon.com. “Mathematicians are suddenly sexy.” As the ability to analyze data has grown more and more fine-grained, the push to understand how daily habits influence our decisions has become one of the most exciting topics in clinical research, even though most of us are hardly aware those patterns exist. One study from Duke University estimated that habits, rather than conscious decision-making, shape 45 percent of the choices we make every day, and recent discoveries have begun to change everything from the way we think about dieting to how doctors conceive treatments for anxiety, depression and addictions.
This research is also transforming our understanding of how habits function across organizations and societies.
Researchers have figured out how to stop people from habitually overeating and biting their nails. They can explain why some of us automatically go for a jog every morning and are more productive at work, while others oversleep and procrastinate. There is a calculus, it turns out, for mastering our subconscious urges. For companies like Target, the exhaustive rendering of our conscious and unconscious patterns into data sets and algorithms has revolutionized what they know about us and, therefore, how precisely they can sell.
Inside the brain-and-cognitive-sciences department of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are what, to the casual observer, look like dollhouse versions of surgical theaters. There are rooms with tiny scalpels, small drills and miniature saws. Even the operating tables are petite, as if prepared for 7-year-old surgeons. Inside those shrunken O.R.’s, neurologists cut into the skulls of anesthetized rats, implanting tiny sensors that record the smallest changes in the activity of their brains.
This process, in which the brain converts a sequence of actions into an automatic routine, is called “chunking.” There are dozens, if not hundreds, of behavioral chunks we rely on every day. Some are simple: you automatically put toothpaste on your toothbrush before sticking it in your mouth. Some, like making the kids’ lunch, are a little more complex. Still others are so complicated that it’s remarkable to realize that a habit could have emerged at all.
The process within our brains that creates habits is a three-step loop. First, there is a cue, a trigger that tells your brain to go into automatic mode and which habit to use. Then there is the routine, which can be physical or mental or emotional. Finally, there is a reward, which helps your brain figure out if this particular loop is worth remembering for the future. Over time, this loop — cue, routine, reward; cue, routine, reward — becomes more and more automatic. The cue and reward become neurologically intertwined until a sense of craving emerges. What’s unique about cues and rewards, however, is how subtle they can be. Neurological studies like the ones in Graybiel’s lab have revealed that some cues span just milliseconds. And rewards can range from the obvious (like the sugar rush that a morning doughnut habit provides) to the infinitesimal (like the barely noticeable — but measurable — sense of relief the brain experiences after successfully navigating the driveway). Most cues and rewards, in fact, happen so quickly and are so slight that we are hardly aware of them at all. But our neural systems notice and use them to build automatic behaviors.
Habits aren’t destiny — they can be ignored, changed or replaced. But it’s also true that once the loop is established and a habit emerges, your brain stops fully participating in decision-making. So unless you deliberately fight a habit — unless you find new cues and rewards — the old pattern will unfold automatically.
Habits never really disappear.”
Some of the most ambitious habit experiments have been conducted by corporate America. To understand why executives are so entranced by this science, consider how one of the world’s largest companies, Procter & Gamble, used habit insights to turn a failing product into one of its biggest sellers. P.& G. is the corporate behemoth behind a whole range of products, from Downy fabric softener to Bounty paper towels to Duracell batteries and dozens of other household brands.
Andrew Pole was hired by Target to use the same kinds of insights into consumers’ habits to expand Target’s sales. His assignment was to analyze all the cue-routine-reward loops among shoppers and help the company figure out how to exploit them.
In the 1980s, a team of researchers led by a U.C.L.A. professor named Alan Andreasen undertook a study of peoples’ most mundane purchases, like soap, toothpaste, trash bags and toilet paper. They learned that most shoppers paid almost no attention to how they bought these products, that the purchases occurred habitually, without any complex decision-making. Which meant it was hard for marketers, despite their displays and coupons and product promotions, to persuade shoppers to change.
But when some customers were going through a major life event, like graduating from college or getting a new job or moving to a new town, their shopping habits became flexible in ways that were both predictable and potential gold mines for retailers. The study found that when someone marries, he or she is more likely to start buying a new type of coffee. When a couple move into a new house, they’re more apt to purchase a different kind of cereal. When they divorce, there’s an increased chance they’ll start buying different brands of beer.
Consumers going through major life events often don’t notice, or care, that their shopping habits have shifted, but retailers notice, and they care quite a bit. At those unique moments, Andreasen wrote, customers are “vulnerable to intervention by marketers.” In other words, a precisely timed advertisement, sent to a recent divorcee or new homebuyer, can change someone’s shopping patterns for years. And among life events, none are more important than the arrival of a baby. At that moment, new parents’ habits are more flexible than at almost any other time in their adult lives. If companies can identify pregnant shoppers, they can earn millions.
Using data to predict a woman’s pregnancy, Target realized soon after Pole perfected his model, could be a public-relations disaster. So the question became: how could they get their advertisements into expectant mothers’ hands without making it appear they were spying on them? How do you take advantage of someone’s habits without letting them know you’re studying their lives?
[My chocolate chip cookie habit].... When I started interviewing experts in habit formation, I concluded each interview by asking what I should do. The first step, they said, was to figure out my habit loop. The routine was simple: every afternoon, I walked to the cafeteria, bought a cookie and ate it while chatting with friends. Next came some less obvious questions: What was the cue? Hunger? Boredom? Low blood sugar? And what was the reward? The taste of the cookie itself? The temporary distraction from my work? The chance to socialize with colleagues?
Deciphering cues is hard, however. Our lives often contain too much information to figure out what is triggering a particular behavior. Do you eat breakfast at a certain time because you’re hungry? Or because the morning news is on? Or because your kids have started eating? Experiments have shown that most cues fit into one of five categories: location, time, emotional state, other people or the immediately preceding action. So to figure out the cue for my cookie habit, I wrote down five things the moment the urge hit:
Where are you? (Sitting at my desk.)The next day I did the same thing. And the next. Pretty soon, the cue was clear.....
What time is it? (3:36 p.m.)
What’s your emotional state? (Bored.)
Who else is around? (No one.)
What action preceded the urge? (Answered an e-mail.)
Once I figured out all the parts of the loop, it seemed fairly easy to change my habit. But the psychologists and neuroscientists warned me that, for my new behavior to stick, I needed to abide by the same principle that guided Procter & Gamble in selling Febreze: To shift the routine — to socialize, rather than eat a cookie — I needed to piggyback on an existing habit. So now, every day around 3:30, I stand up, look around the newsroom for someone to talk to, spend 10 minutes gossiping, then go back to my desk. The cue and reward have stayed the same. Only the routine has shifted. It doesn’t feel like a decision, any more than the M.I.T. rats made a decision to run through the maze. It’s now a habit. I’ve lost 21 pounds since then (12 of them from changing my cookie ritual).
-----------------------------------
570 Comments
Access Full Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Learning To Be A Power Listener - Fast Company
FC Expert Blog
BY FC Expert Blogger Bernie Ferrari
03-01-2012
6:28 AM
This blog is written by a member of our expert blogging community and expresses that expert's views alone.
In business, the consequences of failing to properly frame or assess an issue can be dire. Often such a misdiagnosis is the result of not having the right information. Though the necessary information is often available, businesspeople sometimes don't know how to find it or don't see it in front of them. The reason? Poor listening skills.
To improve your listening skills, you must first figure out exactly what is keeping you from seeking and hearing the information you need. Are you hearing only what you want to hear? Are you answering only your own questions? Are you faking it? I'm going to describe six of the more common archetypes of bad listeners. I call these "archetypes" because no one is a pure case.
What Kind of Listener Are You?
The Opinionator: I knew one CEO of a major industrial company, a seasoned executive, who had a habit of cutting people off three sentences into the presentation of a new idea. "Look," he would snap, "let me tell you how I see this…" From there, he would proceed to express his opinion with no uncertainty.
This CEO was a classic example of the first type of poor listener: the Opinionator. At the heart of an Opinionator's problem is his tendency to listen to others really only to determine whether or not his ideas conform to what the Opinionator already knows to be true. The Opinionator may believe that he is listening intently, and indeed he may very well be, but that doesn't mean he's listening with an open mind. This kind of listener probably has the best of intentions, but the net effect of this listening style is that conversation partners feel intimidated or at least somewhat uncomfortable, and colleagues' ideas--good or bad--are routinely squelched.
A telltale sign of an Opinionator is the tendency to start sentences with "Listen . . ." and to end them with ". . . right?"
The Grouch: Whereas the Opinionator's listening is limited by his belief that his ideas are right, the Grouch is blocked by the certainty that your ideas are wrong. A typical Grouch, a top executive officer I worked with at an industrial corporation, made no secret of his contempt for other people's ideas. This Grouch might express his displeasure differently to different people, but his responses all seemed to carry the same implicit message: "You're full of it. You're a fool. Why did you even think I'd be interested in this?"
I used to coach teams at his company to prepare them for dealing with him. The first fifteen minutes of the meeting will be hell, I told them, but if you press on bravely, he will eventually acknowledge you. It was true; by the end of many meetings, the Grouch would say, "OK. Yeah, I get it. I understand this now." I knew plenty of people in the company who just didn't have it in them to break through those barriers every time they needed to express an idea to him, and I worried about what it cost the company in missed opportunities over time.
The Preambler: In 2004, Jon Stewart appeared as a guest on CNN's Crossfire. Instead of engaging in the expected witty banter, Stewart confronted the two hosts, saying that the "debate" and "discourse" on the show was a sham, a theatrical device designed to let them vent their own political views. Television pundits have become the very embodiment of the poor-listening archetype I call the Preambler, whose windy lead-ins and questions are really stealth speeches. The Preambler uses this technique to steer the conversation, or to send out a warning, or to produce a desired answer, as if the dialogue had been scripted.
The Perseverator: Of course, the problem with speeches and loaded or rhetorical questions is that they are the very definition of one-way communication, and that's not very conducive to problem solving.
The Perseverator talks too much, in the way the Preambler does, but presents difficulties that are more subtle but no less confounding. The Perseverator may appear to be engaged in productive dialogue, but if you pay attention, you might notice that he's not really advancing the conversation. As often as not, he's actually editing on the fly, fine-tuning what he is saying through constant reiteration. His goal is only to help him sharpen his point or shoehorn your thoughts into supporting his prejudices and biases.
The Perseverator may seem to be engaging in a dialogue, until you figure out that his statements not only don't advance the conversation, but may not even be directed at you. He is busy thinking out loud, and will eventually lead everyone back to the same predictable place.
Answer Man: Everyone likes to be the problem solver. You grab the spotlight and deliver what's needed to figure out a difficult problem or lay down the path to a required action. An extreme version of the problem solver reveals himself in conversation as the Answer Man.
This is the person who starts spouting solutions before there is even a consensus about what the challenge might be, signaling that he is finished listening to your input in the conversation. On the surface, the Answer Man may seem quite similar to the Opinionator, but there is a fundamental difference. The Opinionator is hamstrung by the certainty that he or she is simply right. The Opinionator knows what's what. The Answer Man, on the other hand, is desperately eager to please, or to impress, with his quickness and brilliance.
It might seem like this individual has to be the smartest person in the room, but more often, what he or she needs is to be valued, to be indispensable. Some think having the answer and having it right now is the hallmark of a great leader, but insufficient discussion can lead you to act on a half-baked and overly simplistic understanding of a situation.
The Pretender: So do we conclude that the quiet, polite listener is the good listener?
Not necessarily.
How many times have you had this experience? You talk with a boss or a colleague, arguing your points elegantly and articulately. You're convinced that you're having an impact because the other person nods wisely at all the right moments, and laughs when he's supposed to. Maybe he even finishes some of your sentences, not in a rude way, but in a way that shows he is engaged with your train of thought. And then, as soon as you walk out of the meeting, you have the uncomfortable sense that he hasn't really heard a word you were saying; or maybe he heard it all and just didn't care. This guy is a great actor, and he has just put on a great show. He's the Pretender. The Pretender isn't really interested in what you have to say. Maybe he's already made up his mind on the subject; maybe he's distracted by other matters; maybe he has to put on a show of listening for political reasons. Whatever the reason, we'd all be better off if he would drop the pretense.
The greatest Pretender I ever came across was the CEO of a many-tentacled health-care corporation, a man I always think of as the Suit. This man was straight out of central casting: good looking and polished, clever and charming. He had all the right moves. You'd swear he was hanging on every word you uttered, and you'd walk out of his office feeling like a million bucks, won over completely by his knowing, empathetic smile. It might take a while, but eventually you'd realize that he hadn't acted on anything you said, even though he had given every indication he was processing what you had to say and was in agreement. The Suit firmly believed that it was his job to make all the stakeholders within the company feel like they were being heard, that they were connected to, and well cared for by, the people at the top. If that was his only mission, and he accomplished it very well, but I have to ask, at what price? He let people talk, but he didn't take in what they were saying. The result was a lot of ill-informed choices.
You are likely a good listener at times. However, if you are honest with yourself you will recognize that many of these archetypes of bad listening apply to you at different times and in different situations.
You might be a Grouch on certain subjects or at different moments in the business cycle, but act more like a benign Pretender in other circumstances. You need to be able to recognize the behavior of each of these types--in yourself, as well as in others--as the first step toward improving your own listening skills and raising the overall level of communication and decision making in your organization.
Adapted from Power Listening by Bernard T. Ferrari by arrangement with Portfolio Penguin, a member of Penguin Group (USA), Inc., Copyright © 2012 by Bernard T. Ferrari.
Access Article, Comments, Source And Great Content: http://www.fastcompany.com/1810661/learning-to-be-a-power-listener
BY FC Expert Blogger Bernie Ferrari
03-01-2012
6:28 AM
This blog is written by a member of our expert blogging community and expresses that expert's views alone.
In business, the consequences of failing to properly frame or assess an issue can be dire. Often such a misdiagnosis is the result of not having the right information. Though the necessary information is often available, businesspeople sometimes don't know how to find it or don't see it in front of them. The reason? Poor listening skills.
To improve your listening skills, you must first figure out exactly what is keeping you from seeking and hearing the information you need. Are you hearing only what you want to hear? Are you answering only your own questions? Are you faking it? I'm going to describe six of the more common archetypes of bad listeners. I call these "archetypes" because no one is a pure case.
What Kind of Listener Are You?
The Opinionator: I knew one CEO of a major industrial company, a seasoned executive, who had a habit of cutting people off three sentences into the presentation of a new idea. "Look," he would snap, "let me tell you how I see this…" From there, he would proceed to express his opinion with no uncertainty.
This CEO was a classic example of the first type of poor listener: the Opinionator. At the heart of an Opinionator's problem is his tendency to listen to others really only to determine whether or not his ideas conform to what the Opinionator already knows to be true. The Opinionator may believe that he is listening intently, and indeed he may very well be, but that doesn't mean he's listening with an open mind. This kind of listener probably has the best of intentions, but the net effect of this listening style is that conversation partners feel intimidated or at least somewhat uncomfortable, and colleagues' ideas--good or bad--are routinely squelched.
A telltale sign of an Opinionator is the tendency to start sentences with "Listen . . ." and to end them with ". . . right?"
The Grouch: Whereas the Opinionator's listening is limited by his belief that his ideas are right, the Grouch is blocked by the certainty that your ideas are wrong. A typical Grouch, a top executive officer I worked with at an industrial corporation, made no secret of his contempt for other people's ideas. This Grouch might express his displeasure differently to different people, but his responses all seemed to carry the same implicit message: "You're full of it. You're a fool. Why did you even think I'd be interested in this?"
I used to coach teams at his company to prepare them for dealing with him. The first fifteen minutes of the meeting will be hell, I told them, but if you press on bravely, he will eventually acknowledge you. It was true; by the end of many meetings, the Grouch would say, "OK. Yeah, I get it. I understand this now." I knew plenty of people in the company who just didn't have it in them to break through those barriers every time they needed to express an idea to him, and I worried about what it cost the company in missed opportunities over time.
The Preambler: In 2004, Jon Stewart appeared as a guest on CNN's Crossfire. Instead of engaging in the expected witty banter, Stewart confronted the two hosts, saying that the "debate" and "discourse" on the show was a sham, a theatrical device designed to let them vent their own political views. Television pundits have become the very embodiment of the poor-listening archetype I call the Preambler, whose windy lead-ins and questions are really stealth speeches. The Preambler uses this technique to steer the conversation, or to send out a warning, or to produce a desired answer, as if the dialogue had been scripted.
The Perseverator: Of course, the problem with speeches and loaded or rhetorical questions is that they are the very definition of one-way communication, and that's not very conducive to problem solving.
The Perseverator talks too much, in the way the Preambler does, but presents difficulties that are more subtle but no less confounding. The Perseverator may appear to be engaged in productive dialogue, but if you pay attention, you might notice that he's not really advancing the conversation. As often as not, he's actually editing on the fly, fine-tuning what he is saying through constant reiteration. His goal is only to help him sharpen his point or shoehorn your thoughts into supporting his prejudices and biases.
The Perseverator may seem to be engaging in a dialogue, until you figure out that his statements not only don't advance the conversation, but may not even be directed at you. He is busy thinking out loud, and will eventually lead everyone back to the same predictable place.
Answer Man: Everyone likes to be the problem solver. You grab the spotlight and deliver what's needed to figure out a difficult problem or lay down the path to a required action. An extreme version of the problem solver reveals himself in conversation as the Answer Man.
This is the person who starts spouting solutions before there is even a consensus about what the challenge might be, signaling that he is finished listening to your input in the conversation. On the surface, the Answer Man may seem quite similar to the Opinionator, but there is a fundamental difference. The Opinionator is hamstrung by the certainty that he or she is simply right. The Opinionator knows what's what. The Answer Man, on the other hand, is desperately eager to please, or to impress, with his quickness and brilliance.
It might seem like this individual has to be the smartest person in the room, but more often, what he or she needs is to be valued, to be indispensable. Some think having the answer and having it right now is the hallmark of a great leader, but insufficient discussion can lead you to act on a half-baked and overly simplistic understanding of a situation.
The Pretender: So do we conclude that the quiet, polite listener is the good listener?
Not necessarily.
How many times have you had this experience? You talk with a boss or a colleague, arguing your points elegantly and articulately. You're convinced that you're having an impact because the other person nods wisely at all the right moments, and laughs when he's supposed to. Maybe he even finishes some of your sentences, not in a rude way, but in a way that shows he is engaged with your train of thought. And then, as soon as you walk out of the meeting, you have the uncomfortable sense that he hasn't really heard a word you were saying; or maybe he heard it all and just didn't care. This guy is a great actor, and he has just put on a great show. He's the Pretender. The Pretender isn't really interested in what you have to say. Maybe he's already made up his mind on the subject; maybe he's distracted by other matters; maybe he has to put on a show of listening for political reasons. Whatever the reason, we'd all be better off if he would drop the pretense.
The greatest Pretender I ever came across was the CEO of a many-tentacled health-care corporation, a man I always think of as the Suit. This man was straight out of central casting: good looking and polished, clever and charming. He had all the right moves. You'd swear he was hanging on every word you uttered, and you'd walk out of his office feeling like a million bucks, won over completely by his knowing, empathetic smile. It might take a while, but eventually you'd realize that he hadn't acted on anything you said, even though he had given every indication he was processing what you had to say and was in agreement. The Suit firmly believed that it was his job to make all the stakeholders within the company feel like they were being heard, that they were connected to, and well cared for by, the people at the top. If that was his only mission, and he accomplished it very well, but I have to ask, at what price? He let people talk, but he didn't take in what they were saying. The result was a lot of ill-informed choices.
You are likely a good listener at times. However, if you are honest with yourself you will recognize that many of these archetypes of bad listening apply to you at different times and in different situations.
You might be a Grouch on certain subjects or at different moments in the business cycle, but act more like a benign Pretender in other circumstances. You need to be able to recognize the behavior of each of these types--in yourself, as well as in others--as the first step toward improving your own listening skills and raising the overall level of communication and decision making in your organization.
Adapted from Power Listening by Bernard T. Ferrari by arrangement with Portfolio Penguin, a member of Penguin Group (USA), Inc., Copyright © 2012 by Bernard T. Ferrari.
Access Article, Comments, Source And Great Content: http://www.fastcompany.com/1810661/learning-to-be-a-power-listener
Friday, March 2, 2012
Man's Search For Meaning - Happiness Newsletter - Lionel Ketchian
By Lionel Ketchian
Dr. Viktor E. Frankl wrote Man's Search For Meaning 53 years ago. I consider it to be among some of the most profound books ever written.
Many people know Dr. Frankl's famous quote which is as follows: "Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way." This is not only a famous quote but is also a triumph of truth. What most people do not know is the rest of the quotation that follows along right after this one. Dr. Frankl goes on to write: "And there were always choices to make. Every day, every hour, offered the opportunity to make a decision, a decision which determined whether you would or would not submit to those powers which threatened to rob you of your very self, your inner freedom."
One of the reasons I respect Dr. Frankl and his book is that he has personally experienced the very worst that mankind could bestow on their fellow man. Yet, he shows us triumph in our ability to choose the right thing to do in any time and place. He also knows the impact of the power of making a decision. I have said, "Happiness is a decision." Decisions are the most important factors in our existence. They affect our future and can even change our circumstances no matter what it is that we think we are facing.
You can see how important the decision making process is to the very survival of the individual. Dr. Frankl continues this intelligent logic by stating, "It becomes clear that the sort of person the prisoner became was the result of an inner decision, and not the result of camp influences alone. Fundamentally, therefore, any man can, even under such circumstances, decide what shall become of him -- mentally and spiritually. He may retain his human dignity even in a concentration camp."
The decision to be happy led me to the understanding that "to be happy," is needing, and wanting to be happy at some future time. That is when I figured out that it is all about 'being happy,' because being happy is something you are doing right now, not later. Being happy has made me free, because it has not only given me freedom but also has shown me what freedom looks, feels, and tastes like. Being happy is a freeing experience, like being let out of prison. Part of that experience comes from not wanting or needing everything to go my way all the time. That freedom has allowed me to experience peace. For what is peace but freedom from wanting? Don't get me wrong, I still want things, but I don't get upset because things don't go my way. Instead I have learned to prefer things rather than demand them. I have preferences instead of demands. I am much better off, because that makes me proactive in achieving what I want.
The way to empower yourself is to decide to be happy no matter what. Choose happiness over everything else. This gives you the power to deal with life and deal with yourself. Happiness is a powerful strategy for those who practice it. When you're happy it gives you the awareness to realize the choices you have and what option is right for you. What is the real power that you have in doing this? You have power over yourself, and this is very important my friend, because being happy is authentic power.
Dr. Frankl's book starts off explaining his experiences in the concentration camp. The profoundness of his book is that he is actually telling us about happiness and freedom within each of us. Even when Dr. Frankl speaks about suffering, he enlightens us to understand that when we find meaning in our suffering, we find our power again.
We give our happiness to others for many reasons. Then we think that they make us unhappy. The truth is that we have given others the power over ourselves. We must take our power back in order to be happy again. Happiness is an issue of power. Learn to use the power of happiness to deal with difficult people and circumstances in your life and you will prevail.
We search for happiness as a fruit to be picked. Happiness is a seed that must be planted.
Access Lionel's Newsletter and Great Web Content, And Details About His Sponsored Programs: http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=svx5mvcab&v=0015_lm2NH4ZFKdX8P-0um9vXwM8zwPj5iZDto7mjhON7--PP9CUZTOCHkDILSGPTm3hxizYxQMPPaxtaqnVZsP6NwKJvDVF8cC66XEvwFnArGPmr7-GDy5Eg%3D%3D
Dr. Viktor E. Frankl wrote Man's Search For Meaning 53 years ago. I consider it to be among some of the most profound books ever written.
Many people know Dr. Frankl's famous quote which is as follows: "Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way." This is not only a famous quote but is also a triumph of truth. What most people do not know is the rest of the quotation that follows along right after this one. Dr. Frankl goes on to write: "And there were always choices to make. Every day, every hour, offered the opportunity to make a decision, a decision which determined whether you would or would not submit to those powers which threatened to rob you of your very self, your inner freedom."
One of the reasons I respect Dr. Frankl and his book is that he has personally experienced the very worst that mankind could bestow on their fellow man. Yet, he shows us triumph in our ability to choose the right thing to do in any time and place. He also knows the impact of the power of making a decision. I have said, "Happiness is a decision." Decisions are the most important factors in our existence. They affect our future and can even change our circumstances no matter what it is that we think we are facing.
You can see how important the decision making process is to the very survival of the individual. Dr. Frankl continues this intelligent logic by stating, "It becomes clear that the sort of person the prisoner became was the result of an inner decision, and not the result of camp influences alone. Fundamentally, therefore, any man can, even under such circumstances, decide what shall become of him -- mentally and spiritually. He may retain his human dignity even in a concentration camp."
The decision to be happy led me to the understanding that "to be happy," is needing, and wanting to be happy at some future time. That is when I figured out that it is all about 'being happy,' because being happy is something you are doing right now, not later. Being happy has made me free, because it has not only given me freedom but also has shown me what freedom looks, feels, and tastes like. Being happy is a freeing experience, like being let out of prison. Part of that experience comes from not wanting or needing everything to go my way all the time. That freedom has allowed me to experience peace. For what is peace but freedom from wanting? Don't get me wrong, I still want things, but I don't get upset because things don't go my way. Instead I have learned to prefer things rather than demand them. I have preferences instead of demands. I am much better off, because that makes me proactive in achieving what I want.
The way to empower yourself is to decide to be happy no matter what. Choose happiness over everything else. This gives you the power to deal with life and deal with yourself. Happiness is a powerful strategy for those who practice it. When you're happy it gives you the awareness to realize the choices you have and what option is right for you. What is the real power that you have in doing this? You have power over yourself, and this is very important my friend, because being happy is authentic power.
Dr. Frankl's book starts off explaining his experiences in the concentration camp. The profoundness of his book is that he is actually telling us about happiness and freedom within each of us. Even when Dr. Frankl speaks about suffering, he enlightens us to understand that when we find meaning in our suffering, we find our power again.
We give our happiness to others for many reasons. Then we think that they make us unhappy. The truth is that we have given others the power over ourselves. We must take our power back in order to be happy again. Happiness is an issue of power. Learn to use the power of happiness to deal with difficult people and circumstances in your life and you will prevail.
We search for happiness as a fruit to be picked. Happiness is a seed that must be planted.
Access Lionel's Newsletter and Great Web Content, And Details About His Sponsored Programs: http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=svx5mvcab&v=0015_lm2NH4ZFKdX8P-0um9vXwM8zwPj5iZDto7mjhON7--PP9CUZTOCHkDILSGPTm3hxizYxQMPPaxtaqnVZsP6NwKJvDVF8cC66XEvwFnArGPmr7-GDy5Eg%3D%3D
Thursday, March 1, 2012
How to Build a Speech-Jamming Gun - Technology Review
Technology Review By MIT
Japanese researchers build a gun capable of stopping speakers in mid-sentence.
kfc 03/01/2012
EXCERPTS:
Kazutaka Kurihara at the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology in Tskuba and Koji Tsukada at Ochanomizu University, both in Japan, present a radical solution: a speech-jamming device that forces recalcitrant speakers into submission.
In tests, Kurihara and Tsukada say their speech jamming gun works well: "The system can disturb remote people's speech without any physical discomfort."
That has important implications. "There are still many cases in which the negative aspects of speech become a barrier to the peaceful resolution of conflicts, " they point out.
Access Article, Source And Its Great Content: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27620/?ref=rss
Japanese researchers build a gun capable of stopping speakers in mid-sentence.
kfc 03/01/2012
EXCERPTS:
Kazutaka Kurihara at the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology in Tskuba and Koji Tsukada at Ochanomizu University, both in Japan, present a radical solution: a speech-jamming device that forces recalcitrant speakers into submission.
In tests, Kurihara and Tsukada say their speech jamming gun works well: "The system can disturb remote people's speech without any physical discomfort."
That has important implications. "There are still many cases in which the negative aspects of speech become a barrier to the peaceful resolution of conflicts, " they point out.
Access Article, Source And Its Great Content: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27620/?ref=rss
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)