Leadership Today - Practical Tips For Leaders

View Top 200 Chart

Back to Rankings Page

Business
**Leadership Today – Practical Tips For Leaders**

Practical tips for leaders. Hosted by psychologist and founder of Leadership Today – Andrew Beveridge.

Leadership Today is a weekly leadership podcast for managers, team leaders and executives who want practical, evidence-based leadership advice. Hosted by psychologist Andrew Beveridge, each episode translates the latest leadership and organisational psychology research into simple strategies you can use immediately. Discover practical tips on leadership, management, coaching, emotional intelligence, difficult conversations, delegation, employee motivation, psychological safety, team effectiveness, change leadership and workplace performance.

Go to www.leadership.today for episodes and more information.

Latest Episodes:

Replay - Five Tips to Level Up Your Listening Nov 20, 2020

Show notes

This week we feature a replay of our 21st September 2019 episode - Five Tips to Level Up Your Listening.

Replay - Confidence in Action Nov 13, 2020

Show notes

This week we have a replay of our 31st August 2019 episode - Confidence in Action.

Episode 102 - Cooperation Works Best When People Need Each Other Nov 06, 2020

Show notes

Summary

Collaboration and cooperation have never been more important. However, people can naturally tend towards self-interest at the expense of the greater good, particularly when they believe they personally have the resources they need. This week we explore how people cooperate more effectively when they can't solve something on their own.

Transcript

Hello and welcome to episode 102 of the Leadership Today podcast where each week we bring research to life in your leadership. This week we explore how people cooperate more effectively when they don't have the resources to solve something on their own.

Imagine you're living in a small community located beside a river. Everything has been great so far, however there has been recent heavy rain, and now flood waters predicted to arrive the next day. Without action, everyone in the community will lose their home to the rising flood waters. People in this small community have sand bags to help either shore up their own house, or contribute to saving the entire community by building a larger wall of sandbags to protect everyone. The catch being that everyone needs to cooperate to have enough sand bags to save the community. How do people respond to this threat to their town and household?

Recent research demonstrates that the response largely depends on the resources the individuals have at their disposal. Jorg Gross and colleagues setup a range of conditions for participants to respond to, all reflecting a similar scenario to the community at risk from a flood. Each person had some resources, equivalent to the sand bags, that they could either contribute to the community in an attempt to protect everyone, or keep in an effort to protect themselves.

The research found that when people didn't have enough resources to save themselves individually, they were most willing to contribute to the collective effort. There was still some risk here as people could act in a self-interested way, and therefore the overall community may fail. But in most cases, where everyone had the same level of resource and not enough to save themselves, they successfully cooperated to help the broader community.

As the researchers varied the resources available to individuals, behaviour changed dramatically. Those who had enough resources to save themselves started to withhold resources from the community effort, even when that led to others failing. Similarly, those who didn't have enough resources and could only rely on community cooperation tended to lose out as the inequities in the community increased over time. Inequality increased as the rounds continued. People began to stock pile resources at the expense of others' immediate needs.

What's the lesson here? If people feel they can do something on their own and don't need others in order to succeed, they are likely to act from a position of self-interest, and are also unlikely to help others out. This continues even when others are at risk of failing or missing out. This finding has obvious implications for public policy, but also applies within our organisations.

Most organisations survive through cooperation. Despite the silos that so often emerge, every organisation needs good will and cooperation to succeed. In most instances if my team "wins" and your team "loses", then the overall organisation loses. Cooperation acts like conduits between the silos, helping to share around resources and knowledge. As I've presented before, the challenge here is the increasing identification of people with their immediate team rather than the organisation as a whole. That creates conditions where people are less likely to collaborate and cooperate across teams. When we're focused on our own team, other teams become either a threat or a distraction.

As leaders, it is more important than ever to help people to see the broader role they play within the organisation, not just within the team. We need to put additional effort into communicating the purpose of the organisation in a way that demonstrates the need for cooperation in order to succeed. It's really helpful to develop a narrative about how different parts of the organisation work together to achieve the broader purpose. Individual leaders can then share that with their teams. If purpose is defined as individual teams winning, then be prepared for more competition than cooperation.

Thanks for joining me today, and remember to check out Leadership Today On-Demand. That's how you can access all of our recorded webinars and online courses, along with weekly quick hits on a range of topics. You can sign up for a free 30 day trial by going to our website, leadership.today, and follow the on-demand link. Have a great week.

Reference

Gross, J., Veistola, S., De Dreu, C.K.W. et al. Self-reliance crowds out group cooperation and increases wealth inequality. Nat Commun 11, 5161 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18896-6

Episode 101 - Five Reasons Why You Still Need an Office Oct 30, 2020

Show notes

Summary

With the shift to working from anywhere, many people have questioned why we still need an office. For others, getting everyone back into the office is seen as mission critical. In this episode we explore five reasons why you still need an office.

Transcript

Hello and welcome to episode 101 of the Leadership Today podcast where each week we bring research to life in your leadership. This week we explore the five reasons why you still need an office.

There has been a lot of debate and discussion about the need for offices. The global pandemic revealed just how possible it was for many people to work from anywhere. This has been combined with challenges moving people back into offices, while also maintaining a safe work environment. All of this is likely to lead to a shift in thinking about the need for, and role of, offices.

Most surveys reveal a mix of people who can't wait to get back into the office, people who never want to go in to the office again, and a larger group in the middle who want a mix. It's easy to foresee a challenging road ahead as organisations and individuals negotiate a seemingly endless range of options for people. Some organisations will no doubt declare it all to be too hard and push most people back into the office. Others will jump at the chance to save on prime real estate and reduce their office footprint significantly if not entirely.

But much of this debate and discussion misses the core question - what do we actually need an office for? And, to be clear, this is really about why we need to get our people together, whether that's at an office or some other venue.

Research suggests there are five main reasons to get people together:

1. Community - As people were forced to work from home, this was one of the most cited reasons why people missed the office. We are social animals and long for connection with others. Video conferencing doesn't match the connections people can build face-to-face.

2. Collaboration - While collaboration software and platforms can help, they fail to allow the kind of constructive conflict needed to truly collaborate and generate new ideas. To be clear, I'm not saying that all collaboration needs to happen face-to-face, but there are efficiencies provided by being in the same room at the same time when deeper collaboration is required.

3. Culture - "How we do things around here" is difficult to establish and sustain when we're not in an office together. Communicating strategy and direction, celebrating milestones and achievements, establishing agreed ways of operating - these are all much easier when we have a group of people in a room together. Without being physically together, it becomes much harder to build trust. People then tend to create identity with their team rather than the organisation. This can lead to conflict between teams and competing interests, rather than trying to work together to better the overall organisation.

4. Climate - It's difficult to generate a consistent experience of "how it feels to work here" when people are having such diverse experiences of the workplace. Getting people together helps to create a shared climate.

5. Capability - This, I believe, is the sleeper issue in the work from anywhere movement. Picture yourself at the start of your career. How much of your development occurred just by being around more experienced people, being invited into meetings to observe, and having that chance to be mentored? All of this is harder when people aren't together.

Now, please don't hear me wrong - this isn't an anti work from anywhere statement. In fact, I've been a work from anywhere guy for the best part of ten years. But it's easy to overlook all the seemingly small and incidental interactions that build community, collaboration, culture, climate and capability. These accumulate over time to play a really important part in each person's engagement, satisfaction and contribution. If people shift to two or three days in the office, it reduces all of these incidental moments by half.

To replace that, we are going to need to be far more intentional about community, collaboration, culture, climate and capability. We can no longer leave them to chance. Instead, we will, from time to time, need to bring our people together face to face with a clear purpose and focus on each of these five areas. Trying to build these virtually is inefficient. What 5 minutes together face-to-face does for building trust might take hours over email or Slack or even video conference.

So you may not need an office anymore, but you will always need to bring people together face to face. We need to be very intentional when we have that increasingly rare opportunity to all be in the same room at the same time. Make sure it happens, and make the most of it.

Thanks for joining me today, and remember to check out Leadership Today On-Demand. We have a new quick hit video posted every week which is a similar format to our podcast. On top of that are ten recorded webinars on topics like procrastination, imposter syndrome, well-being, assertiveness and influencing, with a new webinar added each month. In addition we have our online courses which you might want to check out. You can sign up for a free 30 day trial by going to our website, leadership.today, and following the on-demand link. Have a great week.

Episode 100 - In the Mood to Procrastinate Oct 23, 2020

Show notes

Summary

Procrastination plagues many of us. It seems we are endlessly creative at avoiding things that we know are important. This week we explore different ways to think about and avoid procrastination.

Transcript

Hello and welcome to episode 100 of the Leadership Today podcast where each week we bring research to life in your leadership. This week we explore different ways to think about and avoid procrastination.

Procrastination plagues many of us. In fact, research suggests that around 25% of people have procrastination as a defining personality trait. But whether you procrastinate all the time or just every so often, I'm sure you would love to procrastinate a little less.

And that's not surprising, particularly given that procrastination is associated with a range of negative outcomes including low self-esteem, high pessimism, high anxiety, boredom, fatigue and detachment.

One definition of procrastination is "voluntarily delaying an intended task despite expecting to be worse off for doing so". This highlights a few key aspects of procrastination:

It's voluntary - procrastination is something that we choose to do
It gets in the way of our intentions - despite wanting to do one thing, we introduce something else as a replacement, even if that replacement is just staring at the ceiling
We know it will make things worse - procrastination never makes things easier, and we typically know that at the point we choose to procrastinate

So given all of this, why do we procrastinate? Researchers describe procrastination as "a form of self-regulation failure involving the unnecessary and voluntary delay of important tasks for the purpose of short-term mood repair." Put simply, procrastination is about prioritising short-term mood repair over long-term goal pursuit. We procrastinate because it makes us feel better in the short-term. In fact, research demonstrates that the more negative our mood, the more time we spend procrastinating. We use procrastination to feel better. Understanding this can help us to reduce how often we procrastinate. Once we recognise that we're actually delaying and amplifying negative mood, we can appreciate just how self-defeating procrastination can be. In addition, we can look for ways to boost our mood prior to undertaking a task where we think there is a risk of procrastination. Schedule those tasks where procrastination is a risk at the points of your day when your mood is typically most positive.

I think it's also important to consider how you think about procrastination. Consider someone who says "I am a procrastinator" versus another person who says "I procrastinate". The person who describes themselves as a procrastinator sees procrastination as an ongoing trait, part of their personality, and part of who they are. For that person to overcome procrastination requires a change of identity, not just a change of thoughts, feelings and behaviour. In contrast, the person who says "I procrastinate" sees procrastination as a passing state, that it is task-specific, and that it is how they act sometimes. In that case overcoming procrastination requires a change of thoughts, feelings and behaviour, but not a change in how the person sees themselves. If you want to reduce how often you procrastinate, start by thinking about procrastination as something you choose to do, rather than something that defines who you are.

We often fail in making meaningful change because we try to stop procrastinating rather than trying to pursue the opposite of procrastination. The opposite of procrastination isn't just getting things done on time, it's actually a state that psychologists call flow. Flow is a positive state which feels great, where time flies, where we can focus our attention, and adapt and be flexible. How do we achieve flow? A lot of it comes down to how we are led. People are more likely to achieve flow in their work when there are clear goals, flexibility or autonomy in how we achieve those goals, and immediate feedback. But we also need to be challenged and have our abilities matched to the task. As so often is the case, flow requires an environment where we are stretched and supported.

If you struggle with procrastination, here are some things to try:

Choose to be stretched in an area of interest - boredom increases the risk of procrastination, so we want to focus on tasks that are interesting to us
Set goals and deadlines to work towards - we prioritise and work harder to achieve tasks that have a deadline, so use that to your advantage
Boost your mood before you begin - go for a walk around the block or some other mood-boosting activity before you tackle that activity you typically put off
Turn off wifi or pull out the blue cable - our computers provide a myriad of tempting distractions, so do whatever you can to reduce these
Involve others for encouragement, mentoring and feedback - it's harder to procrastinate when others are checking in on you and holding you accountable
Work in bursts - set a timer for 15 minutes and start working, then assess how you're going at the end of that time - you will usually find you're happy to then invest another 15 minutes

Hopefully today's podcast has given you some new ways to think about procrastination and some ideas about how to avoid it in the future. If you have used today's podcast to avoid doing something else, then just go and do it now!

If you enjoyed this week's podcast and want to go a bit deeper, I have a free webinar happening this week called "A Procrastinator's Guide". If you can't make the webinar or have missed it, don't worry. We publish recordings of all of our webinars on the Leadership Today On-Demand service. Just go to the leadership.today website and follow the on-demand link to sign up for a free 30 day trial.

As usual, you will find all of the research used for today's episode in the show notes. Thanks again to our researcher Lauren Staveley for scouring journals to track all of that down.

And given we have hit the 100 episode mark, I would really appreciate it if you could take some time to provide a rating and review via Apple Podcasts, and also tell a friend about the podcast. That makes a huge difference. Have a great week.

References

Göncü Köse, Asli & Metin, Baran. (2018). Linking Leadership Style and Workplace Procrastination. The Role of Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Turnover Intention. Journal of Prevention & Intervention Community. 46. 10.1080/10852352.2018.1470369

Sirois, F.M. and Kitner, R. (2015) Less Adaptive or More Maladaptive? A Meta-analytic Investigation of Procrastination and Coping. European Journal of Personality, 29 (4). 433 - 444. ISSN 0890-2070

Sirois, F.M. (2014) Procrastination and Stress: Exploring the Role of Self-compassion. Self and Identity, 13 (2). 128 - 145. ISSN 1529-8868

van Eerde, W., Klingsieck, K.B., Overcoming Procrastination? A Meta-Analysis of Intervention Studies, Educational Research Review (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.002

van Eerde W., Procrastination at Work and Time Management Training. The Journal of Psychology (2003), 137 (5), 421-434

Episode 99 - How to Create Meaningful Work Oct 16, 2020

Show notes

Summary

Motivational speakers encourage us to find our purpose in life - our why. But leaders are better off focusing on creating meaningful work.

Transcript

Hello and welcome to episode 99 of the Leadership Today podcast where each week we bring research to life in your leadership. This week we explore how to create meaningful work.

Motivational speakers often encourage us to find our purpose in life - our why. If we know why we do what we do, then the things we do become more important and meaningful.

Thankfully, as leaders, we don't need to help our people to uncover their purpose in life. We do, however, have a significant role to play in creating meaningful work. While meaningful work isn't quite the same as a life purpose, it is still a significant part of a meaningful life for many.

Reseach which I've included in the show notes demonstrates that meaningful work links strongly to work engagement, commitment and job satisfaction. In addition there are weaker links to life satisfaction, life meaning, general health and intentions to stay at a workplace.

If I provide meaningful work, I'm providing significance. There's an appreciation that the work really matters.

Now, clearly, there are some parts of our work that aren't wrapped up in deeper meaning. Thankfully research shows that our sense of meaning in work is made up of the various episodes and elements of our work. As humans, we effectively weigh up the various parts to determine, on balance, whether our work has meaning. In fact, the overall sense of meaning makes the meaningless activities tolerable. I will put up with the meaningless parts of my work if the meaning bank account balance is in credit.

To build meaning we can help our people to answer these questions about their work: Why does it matter? What does it contribute to? How does it contribute?

Five whys is great technique to use to explore meaningful work. We covered it in more detail in episode 20. It helps us to take our focus further up the meaning chain. Let me share an example.

I used to manage a team, and part of their role was packing boxes with materials that would be used on leadership programs - all the handouts, materials and everything else that would be needed on that program. They would then send the box to the venue. Now, that job sounds pretty boring and devoid of meaning. So it prompts me to ask five 'why' questions. Packing boxes with materials - why does that matter?

Packing the boxes allows consultants to run leadership programs. That's okay, but why does that matter?

These leadership programs help increase leadership capability for thousands of leaders. Why does that matter?

As those thousands of leaders improve their leadership, it also improves the work lives of tens of thousands of other people. And why does that matter?

That increased satisfaction multiplies out to all of their connections, to improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

Okay - now maybe that was one step too far, and perhaps we didn't need the full five whys. But hopefully you can see how using the five whys can help us to create meaningful work for our people. Try it out this week and let me know how you go.

Thanks again to Lauren Staveley, our research assistant, who tracked down the research for today's episode. As a reminder, we are still offering a free 30 day trial of our Leadership Today On-Demand service. It includes two online courses, together with recorded webinars, and quick hits on a range of leadership topics. Just go to the leadership.today website and follow the on-demand link.

Have a great week.

Reference

Blake A. Allan, Cassondra Batz-Barbarich, Haley M. Sterling and Louis Tay. Outcomes of Meaningful Work: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Management Studies 56:3 May 2019

Episode 98 - Making Virtual Team Feedback Real Oct 09, 2020

Show notes

Summary

Feedback is tricky at the best of times, but particularly challenging in virtual teams. Research demonstrates some ways to improve that situation.

Transcript

Hello and welcome to episode 98 of the Leadership Today podcast where each week we bring research to life in your leadership. This week we explore ways of improving feedback in virtual teams.

There are many challenges associated with leading and working in virtual teams. Not having everyone in the same place at the same time is tricky. Things we take for granted, like giving and receiving feedback, can fall away completely.

We have covered feedback quite a bit on this podcast because it really matters to performance and development. We know that as we progress in an organisation, we receive less feedback. We also know that as our performance moves further away from expectations, we also receive less feedback. It seems at the moments when we really need to know how we're doing, the feedback we need is missing.

Virtual teams provide further challenges when it comes to feedback. When we're not working together face-to-face, we're less likely to 'see' each other in action. There are likely fewer opportunities to provide feedback, and fewer things to provide feedback about.

So what can we do about this?

Research by McLarnon and others specifically looked at Global Virtual Teams. Not only did these teams not have the opportunity to work together face-to-face, they had additional challenges of navigating multiple time zones and cultures. The research involved trials of different ways in which virtual team members could provide feedback to each other.

What they found worked best in virtual teams was structured, regular feedback. Setting up a structured way to request and distribute feedback made a big difference, as did building in opportunities for feedback on a weekly basis. This meant that feedback was given in a timely manner. It allowed people to modify their approach, and also helped the team to better coordinate their efforts.

Other research by Kingsley Westerman and colleagues found that verbal feedback works better than written. People value the effort a leader takes in making a phone or video call rather than just sending an email or text. In addition, the researchers found that leaders who provide verbal feedback are seen as more competent and trustworthy.

All of this goes to show that feedback in virtual teams is just as, if not more, important than in traditional face-to-face settings, but there are unique challenges to overcome.

Here are some thoughts you can take into your week if you are leading or working as part of a virtual team:

Recognise that people still need feedback - independent of the way the team works, individuals still need to receive feedback to perform and develop.
Identify opportunities for feedback - you may need to orchestrate opportunities to gather feedback. That might include sitting in on a video conference, or working through some written work with an individual directly.
It helps to structure the feedback process - explore systems where individuals are prompted to provide feedback to their colleagues during the week, rather than waiting for longer-term milestones or formal reviews.
Say it rather than write it - as we explored three episodes ago, just pick up the phone and provide the feedback verbally.
Make it real time when you can - work on your ability to provide feedback in the moment using simple methods such as Situation, Behaviour and Impact, which we covered all the way back in episode 5 of this podcast.
Incorporate team performance and individual contribution - whether the team is performing well or not-so-well, explore further to uncover the contribution of individuals.

A big shout out to our brilliant research assistant Lauren Staveley who tracked down the research for today's episode, which you can find in the show notes. Also, if virtual teams are of interest, then you are going love our brand new Six Daily Practices of Remote Leadership course - complete with a workbook and two hours worth of research-based practical advice to lead teams more effectively while also looking after yourself. You can sign up for a free 30 day trial of our Leadership Today On-Demand service, which gives you enough time to complete the course, watch a few recorded webinars, and even check out some quick hits on topics like feedback, influencing and assertiveness. Just go to the leadership.today website and follow the on-demand link.

Have a great week.

Research

Kingsley Westerman, C., Reno, K. And Heuett, K. (2018) Delivering Feedback: Supervisors' Source Credibility and Communication Competence. International Journal of Business Communication, Vol 55(4) 526-546.

McLarnon, M., O'Neill, T., Taras, V., Law, D., Donia, M. And Steel, P. (2019) Global Virtual Team Communication, Coordination, and Performance Across Three Peer Feedback Strategies. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. 2019, Vol. 51, No. 4, 207–218

Episode 97 - Shocking - Decisions Improve When We Consider Others Oct 02, 2020

Show notes

Summary

As human beings we often act out of self-interest, but is that the best way to lead others? Recent research sheds a light on whether we make better decisions when considering others.

Transcript

Hello and welcome to episode 97 of the Leadership Today podcast where each week we bring research to life in your leadership. This week we explore whether we make better decisions when considering others.

I define leadership as achieving results through people for good. The 'for good' element is a values statement on my part - it's how I would hope leaders would act. I'm sure you would also hope that leaders are aiming for collective benefit more than just self-interest.

However, it seems when it comes to learning and decision making we are wired to think primarily of ourselves first. Take, for example, experiments where people are asked to learn a new game in return for a cash payout. Participants learn faster and make better decisions when earning money for themselves than when they are earning money for someone else. Self-interest leads them to put more effort and attention into the learning process.

But what about when there's a downside? What if, instead of earning money, we are trying to avoid a penalty or harm? Are we still primarily self-interested?

Recent research using an electric shock game provides an insight into these questions. Now, let's be honest here - psychologists have had a long and occasionally dodgy love affair with passing electricity through people in the name of science. Remember the time we found out that most people would electrocute others to the point of them pleading for help and becoming unconscious rather than disobey someone wearing a lab coat? Thankfully, we do have some ethics and no one in that famous Milgram experiment was actually delivered an electrical shock - it was all actors. In the case of this recent research, the shocks were very much real, but weren't harmful. The experiment involved two versions of a task where participants would choose between two abstract symbols, one of which would lead to a lower chance of delivering an electrical shock. In one version of the experiment the shock would be delivered to the participant making the decisions. In a second version, the shock would be delivered to someone else. Participants performed better on the task when their choices would result in a shock for someone else, than they did if they were the ones receiving the shock. A level of empathy meant that people worked harder to optimise their decisions to reduce harm to others.

fMRI scans during the experiment revealed different brain regions being activated in the two different versions of the electric shock game. If the shock is being delivered to the participant making the choices, regions associated with evaluating decisions light up. If the shock is going to be delivered to someone else, areas associated with evaluating the emotional state of others also light up.

So that's great news - when we are aware of a downside for others, we tend to demonstrate greater care in our decision making. What's really interesting it that greater care leads to more effective decisions being made. Our decisions improve when we consider others.

So what does this mean for the way we lead? Hopefully you're not in a workplace that has a penchant for delivering electrical shocks. But, as leaders, our decisions often have potential upside benefits and downside impacts on others. The standard business mantra is that decisions should be focused on data - just stick to the facts. While there's some truth to that, we need to broaden what we include as data. We need to extend our definition of 'data' to include the potential impact on others. The research suggests that isn't just good for others, but ultimately leads us to make better decisions.

I trust you found the podcast helpful. And remember to check out Leadership Today On-Demand. It includes all of our video content, including our brand new Six Daily Practices of Remote Leadership course - complete with a workbook and two hours worth of research-based practical advice to lead teams more effectively while also looking after yourself. You can sign up for a free 30 day trial, which gives you enough time to complete the course, watch a few recorded webinars, and even check out some quick hits on topics like feedback, influencing and assertiveness. Cancel your subscription at any point during the first 30 days and you won't pay a cent. Just go to the leadership.today website and follow the on-demand link.

Reference

Lukas L. Lengersdorff, Isabella C. Wagner, Patricia L. Lockwood, Claus Lamm. When implicit prosociality trumps selfishness: the neural valuation system underpins more optimal choices when learning to avoid harm to others than to oneself. The Journal of Neuroscience, 2020; JN-RM-0842-20 DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0842-20.2020

As reported in Science Daily - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200824131811.htm

Episode 96 - Does Being a Jerk Get You Ahead at Work? Sep 25, 2020

Show notes

Summary

There's a popular mythology in business that being self-centred and cold towards others helps you to get ahead. But does being a jerk get you ahead at work? Research released this month addresses this question.

Transcript

Hello and welcome to episode 96 of the Leadership Today podcast where each week we tackle one of today's biggest leadership challenges. This week we explore whether being a selfish jerk helps you to get ahead at work.

There's a popular mythology in business that being self-centred and cold towards others can help you to get ahead. That if I act like an intimidating jerk, it will help me to get ahead at work. The thinking being that operating in this way will help me to amass power and influence.

American baseball player, coach and manager Leo Durocher exemplified this approach well, perhaps not surprisingly given his nickname of Leo the Lip. Some of his more entertaining quotes include "nice guys finish last" and "show me a good loser and I'll show you an idiot". His winning ratio was 54%, so I guess he was a self-proclaimed idiot 46% of the time.

In the business world, people like Steve Jobs are held up as examples of how being aggressive and intimidating helps you to get things done. That being a jerk helps you to push through the constraints that hold others back. In fact, his close friend and former Apple designer Jony Ive described it like this: "I think honestly, when he's very frustrated, … his way to achieve catharsis is to hurt somebody. And I think he feels he has a liberty and licence to do that. The normal rules of social engagement, he feels, don't apply to him. Because of how very sensitive he is, he knows exactly how to efficiently and effectively hurt someone. And he does do that."

Disagreeable people are driven by self-interest and a lack of consideration for others. So how would this help them to progress more quickly up the corporate ladder? The popular thinking is that the time nice people spend looking out for others might hold them back, giving disagreeable people an advantage. Their intimidation then allows the disagreeable person to amass power and influence.

But are disagreeable people actually more likely to get ahead? Research by Anderson, Sharps, Soto and John published just this month explored precisely this question. They identified disagreeable people and then tracked their careers over the next 14 years.

Now, I know the question you're asking - How do you identify a disagreeable person? The researchers used personality patterns associated with the likelihood to be hostile towards others, deceive and manipulate for their own gain, and ignore others' welfare as indicators for disagreeableness.

So what did they find? Their key finding is that disagreeableness does not predict attainment of power. Disagreeable people are not more likely, but just as likely, to reach positions of power and influence. It didn't help their career, but it didn't get in the way either.

The researchers described four main ways people can attain power:

Dominant-aggressive behaviour - fear and intimidation
Political behaviour - building alliances with influential people
Communal behaviour - helping others
Competent behaviour - being good at your job

The key to understanding why jerks don't get ahead is in the trade-off the disagreeable person makes. The researchers suggested that any assistance being intimidating gave in seeking out power was counteracted by poor relationships with others. Their results suggest that a lack of communal behaviour counteracts any benefits of dominant-aggressive behaviour and self-interest.

So being disagreeable doesn't work. But can the opposite also be true? Can we be overly agreeable? While the researchers didn't explore this, it's easy to see how being overly nice might also get in the way - that always focusing on helping others without placing any emphasis on our own needs and interests could also be a problem.

I think the key to striking the right balance is through true assertiveness - having a genuine interest in others' needs and interests, while also confidently presenting our own needs and interests. If you want to explore that further, then check out episode 6 from way back in August 2018 where we pick apart what true assertiveness looks like.

And if you want to go even deeper, check out our Boost Your Assertiveness course at Leadership Today On-Demand. Our On-Demand service is an annual subscription that brings together all of our video content, including online courses, recorded webinars, and quick hits on a broad range of leadership topics. You can sign up today for a free 30 day trial which gives you plenty of time to complete the course and take a look around. Just go to the Leadership.Today website and follow the On-Demand link. Have a great week.

Reference

Cameron Anderson, Daron L. Sharps, Christopher J. Soto, and Oliver P. John People with disagreeable personalities (selfish, combative, and manipulative) do not have an advantage in pursuing power at work. PNAS, 2020 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2005088117

Episode 95 - Just Pick Up The Phone Sep 18, 2020

Show notes

Summary

Picture this scenario. You need to make contact with someone that you haven't spoken to in quite a while. Do you call or just send them a text or email instead? It turns out that our chosen communication method is often driven more by fear than effectiveness.

Transcript

Hello and welcome to episode 95 of the Leadership Today podcast where each week we tackle one of today's biggest leadership challenges. Picture this scenario. You need to make contact with someone that you haven't spoken to in quite a while. Do you call or just send them a text or email instead? It turns out that our chosen communication method is often driven more by fear than effectiveness.

To explore this, researchers asked 200 people what they thought it would be like to reconnect with an old friend via email and phone.

Even though people thought a phone call would lead to great connection, they feared a call would be more awkward. People were far more inclined to use email than pick up the phone. In that moment they performed a quick cost-benefit equation. Is the better connection worth the awkwardness? Apparently not.

They then divided the group randomly into an email group and a phone call group and had them actually contact that old friend using that method.

So was the preferred choice of email the right one? Those who were forced to use the phone found their calls actually went far better than they predicted. The phone call led to an even deeper connection, and was far less awkward than anticipated. So using the phone is the better option.

"But wait a second" I hear you say - "Doesn't a phone call take longer?" That's a fair question to ask. If a phone call takes longer than an email, then maybe the email is better after all.

Indeed, researchers found that participants also thought an email would be faster than a phone call. However, it turns out that the phone calls took around the same amount of time as reading and responding to email.

Does this actually happen at work? Absolutely. It's likely that people are choosing communication methods that don't maximise connection because they think the alternative will be awkward and inefficient.

We communicate a lot through our voice, and not just through the words that we say. Our tone, pace, pitch and volume all come together to communicate a richer message. The research is pretty clear - if the goal is to build trust and connection, look for opportunities to be face-to-face and, if that's not possible, then pick up the phone and give the person a call. It's likely to be far less awkward and far more effective than you expect.

As I encouraged a few episodes ago, it may even be worth replacing a video conference using Zoom or similar with a phone call. You can find out more about that in episode 92. All our past episodes are available via the Leadership.Today website or wherever you get your podcasts. And, while you're thinking about what to listen to next, why not provide a quick rating or review? It really makes a difference.

Have a great week.

Research

Kumar, A., & Epley, N. (2020). It's surprisingly nice to hear you: Misunderstanding the impact of communication media can lead to suboptimal choices of how to connect with others. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000962

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Leadership Today – Practical Tips For Leaders

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected