Habits: The Good The Bad and The Ugly
As a long time student of psychology and sociology, one of the hardest truths I’ve had to swallow is that your beliefs don’t make you a better person, rather your behaviour does.
While the focus of these two disciplines is to unearth the underlying beliefs, motivations and intentions that drive human behaviour, the hard truth is that the average person we interact with on any given day won’t make the effort to identify what drives our behaviour. Rather they will make inferences based simply on what they observe and react accordingly.
This means that ultimately the responsibility remains with us to ensure that our behaviours are a true reflection of what we want to communicate to others. The hard part of course is that often our behaviours are so automatic that we aren’t even always aware of them. Many of our responses have become engrained habits that we are unaware of and struggle to change.
So what is a habit? Simply put a habit is a behaviour that we chose to do at some point, then repeated it, found some kind of reward in it and then did it again. And again. And again. Until it became an entrenched behaviour that is repeated pretty much involuntarily.
So how do habits work? Charles Duhigg tells us in his book ‘The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do In Life and Business’ that the brain, when left to its own devices, will try to make any routine into a habit. It does this to allow our minds to ramp down more often. This allows the brain to operate more efficiently by shifting the focus from basic behaviours to more creative and inventive activities.
Researchers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the US have established that at the core of every habit is a three-step loop in our brains: (1) cue, (2) routine and (3) reward.
The cue is the trigger that tells your brain to go into automatic mode and which habit to use. Then comes the routine, which can be physical, mental or emotional in nature. And finally, there is a reward, which tells your brain whether this is a behaviour loop which is worth remembering for the future.
So can habits be changed? Neurological studies have shown that habits actually result in the creation of physical neural pathways in the brain. Once created these pathways never disappear. However, newer neural pathways can override older ones. So what does this mean? Simply put it means that while it’s not entirely possible to get rid of a bad habit it is possible to change it and replace it with a better habit.
To change a habit, you need to break it down into its components i.e. cue, routine and reward. Cues can fit into one of five categories: (1) location, (2) time, (3) emotional state, (4) other people, and (5) the immediately preceding action. The routine will be the exact sequence of events that follow the cue. This will be a set of actions that remains unchanged and is repeated routinely when triggered. When identifying the reward you need to determine exactly what need or craving your habit is satisfying. To identify the real reward can require some experimentation – so change various elements in your routine and identify the degree to which it alters the experience, this will help you identify what the actual reward is.
Once you’ve identified the reward you can determine alternative behaviours which will allow you to achieve the same reward without the negative consequences of the original bad habit.
Your next step is to formalise the new habit by writing is as follows: When [insert your cue], I will [insert better routine], because it provides me with [insert your reward]. Place your plan somewhere where it is visible to you and review it often. Make a conscious effort to repeat you plan whenever you encounter you cue. Over time and with constant repetition the behaviour will eventually become automatic. If it fails to do so you may find that you haven’t correctly identified the reward and/or the routine may need to be adapted to better suit your particular context.
Is this an easy process? No – it takes time, conscious effort and dedication – but ultimately the rewards will be worth it. Word of warning, don’t set yourself up for failure by setting yourself goals that are way too high – break your ultimate goal into smaller achievable ones and match the habits you want to achieve in accordance with these smaller goals.
For further information or assistance in habit formation and change feel free to contact us – we’re ready and waiting to assist you on your journey of change!
COMMUNICATION
COMMUNICATION
To communicate is not just about the words that you speak. You are in fact saying a great deal about yourself and the type of environment which you are comfortable in, without uttering a single word. You do so by what you wear, your facial expression, the way you use your hands, the way you stand or sit, the way you walk, your tone of voice, even the car you drive, the watch you’re wearing and yes, certainly, the condition of your work desk and your office, how you behave towards others, how you go about completing a job (method), and finally, your words (how you say things and what you say).
And have you noticed that everyone is different as far as the list of things mentioned above is concerned? And so it should be, and thank goodness – we are all uniquely different!!
Let me tell you a story….
In the early 1920’s, an American psychologist, William Moulton Marston, developed a theory to explain people’s emotional responses. Until that time, work of this kind had been mainly confined to the mentally ill or criminally insane, and Marston wanted to extend these ideas to cover the personalities of “ordinary” individuals (like you and me J).
He authored a book in 1928 called “The Emotions of Normal People”, and said: “…this book is devoted to description of normal emotions which are so commonplace and fundamental in the every-day lives of all of us that they have escaped, hitherto, the attention of the academician and the psychologist.”
To test his theories, Marston needed some way of measuring the personalities he was trying to describe. His solution was to develop his own test to measure four important factors. The factors he chose were Dominance, Influence, Steadiness and Compliance – and the DISC behavioural profile assessment was born.
Why talk about the DISC when the title refers to Communication? It’s simple – the DISC behavioural profile gives you information about:
- How you prefer to communicate with others (and therefore prefer others communicate with you)?
- How you go about achieving your goals? (method)
- What type of work environment you need to thrive and be motivated?
- What you need to thrive and be motivated?
- What behaviors you tend to exhibit under stress?
If it gives you all this information, what information does it give your manager, team leader or colleagues about you? Exactly the same! And wouldn’t it be fantastic if your manager new exactly what you need to thrive and be motivated, or what your preferred style of communication is, etc.? And, what if you know this about your fellow team members and because you all know this about each other, you can apply this knowledge when you work with each other every day? Do you think this knowledge would make a huge difference to the way you interact with each other?
If you’re in sales or marketing, a question to you: if you can make predictions about a client’s preferred way of interacting, and the type of information s/he would need, would that help you increase your sales?
The answer is simple: we provide you with your own DISC profile report, and then spend time with you, training you in the use of this model, in other words, we teach you to “read” the behaviour of others to help you interact more successfully with them.
We have one non-negotiable: we need a small group of people (at least 6) to attend this training together, so that you can experience the differences in the individuals in the group and learn to identify the behavioural cues and to interact effectively with each profile type.
This training is ideal for: work teams, sales teams, managers, supervisors, church leaders and individuals who are keen to learn about self and how others differ. Contact us by mailing us at info@trigonsa.co.za.
EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF THE STRUCTURAL VARIABLE OF NORMS ON THE TEAM DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
PART 3 OF 3
Part 1 of this blog series started the discussion of how team norms can impact on the effectiveness of said team’s decision-making ability.
In part 2 we looked at those norms which have been found to enhance team decision-making.
Now in the 3rd and final installment we will touch briefly on the norms which inhibit effective team decision-making.
- Formal norms (norms that are written or otherwise conspicuously and intentionally adopted by a team e.g. rules or operating procedures) that are established early in the team’s development may come into conflict with norms that emerge informally as the team’s development progresses. Such norms may be inconsistent with one another resulting in confusion, which would impact negatively on the team’s ability to perform their tasks (one of which may very well be decision-making) (Davis, 1969). The team must ascertain whether or not the formal and informal norms are consistent with one another. Any inconsistency can result in the divided loyalties of team members as well as confusion with regards to expected behaviours.
- Norms that prohibit any form of dissent within the team can decrease member satisfaction and commitment as well as stifling creative and critical thinking all of which is detrimental to the team’s decision-making (De Dreu & West, 2001; Gouran, 1974). While many teams ultimately strive for harmony and consensus and take active measures (i.e. through the setting of norms) to avoid conflict within the team, research seems to indicate that stifling all conflict might prove to be the team’s worse mistake. Minority dissent within the team has been linked with increased creativity and increased critical and analytical thinking within the team. All of which contribute greatly to the team’s successful completion of its duties (including decision-making) and overall team member satisfaction (De Dreu & West, 2001). It has been argued that minority dissent is surprising and leads majority members to wonder why the minority thinks the way it does. Majority members seek understanding of the minority position to better reject it, this process forces them to analyse information from another perspective, which forces them to think critically (De Dreu & West, 2001).
- If the members of a highly cohesive team establish a norm of low-level productivity, then they will adhere to that standard (Gouran, 1974). Highly cohesive teams are often more committed to the actualisation of the team’s norms. However, this does not only apply to norms that enhance the team’s decision-making quality. In cases where the team adopts a low standard or norm of productivity they will remain fiercely committed to such a norm. This results in reduced team task performance and subsequently impaired team decision-making as well (Gouran, 1974).
- Teams that have norms that promote the importance of consensus or agreement per se run the risk of stifling critical thought, which can lead to reduced levels of performance (Cihangir, Postmes & Spears, 2001). Team norms of consensus impacts on how team members value shared information versus unshared information. If the team’s norms are strongly tilted toward reaching consensus, it could be argued that shared information would be regarded as having higher value, because it reflects and feeds this consensus. The valuing of shared information is likely to lead to a higher probability of incorrect decisions being made by the team (Cihangir, Postmes & Spears, 2001).
Make sure to check back in for our next blog where we will tackle more issues regarding team development and optimisation.
Sources:
Todkill, LI. 2004. An investigation into team decision-making and the influence of group structural variables: A case study of a management team. Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Magister Artium in Sociology in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Port Elizabeth
EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF THE STRUCTURAL VARIABLE OF NORMS ON THE TEAM DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
PART 2 OF 3
Our previous blog started the discussion of how team norms can impact on the effectiveness of said team’s decision-making ability.
In part 2 of this blog series we will focus on those norms which have been found to enhance team decision-making.
- Effective norms that specifically detail how a team will deal with dissenting team members can go a long way towards reducing the negative effects of conflict on team performance. Specifically these norms should encourage the recognition of conflict as well as a co-operative style of management as these have been found to improve the quality of team decision-making (Galanes, Love & Wall, 1987).
- Norms that encourage the active participation of all team members enhances the quality of the team’s decision as well as increasing team member satisfaction (Baker, 1988; Mayer, 1998). Most researchers would agree that an essential component of any successful decision-making team is the active participation of all its members. This type of behaviour may help to promote full consideration of the issues associated with a problem and may well lead teams to avoid making poor decisions because no one objected to the current or proposed path (Mayer, 1998). However, more often than not we find that not all team members will participate equally during the discussion process. Literature has found that variables such as visibility (i.e. how well a person can see and be seen by others in the team) and seating patterns affect both communication and participation (Baker, 1988).
- Norms stating that all communication between team members is to be honest, free and open can prevent teams from falling victim to the Abilene Paradox. The Abilene Paradox can be defined as the making of decisions that privately the team members disagree with, but publicly accept. One of the main characteristics of this phenomenon is that the team members fail to communicate their desires and / or beliefs to one another and, most importantly, sometimes even communicate the very opposite of their wishes based on what they assume are the desires and opinions of the others.
- A norm of honest, free and open communication can also result in the identifying of underlying emotional issues within the team, before they become too disruptive to the team’s decision-making activities (Duffy & Shaw, 2000). In particular this norm can help identify and circumvent the emergence of what is known as the Salieri Syndrome. The Salieri Syndrome refers to the experience of envy within the team setting. Envy occurs when the perception exists that a person lacks another’s superior quality, achievement, or possessions and either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it (Duffy & Shaw, 2000). Envy in the work team is thought to result in lower levels of team performance and satisfaction and higher levels of absenteeism rates. Envy can also influence team outcomes indirectly as it increases social loafing and decreases team cohesion (Duffy & Shaw, 2000). Such behaviours have all been linked to ineffective team decision-making.
- Norms that encourage the vigilance of team members can enhance decision-making effectiveness. Vigilance can be described in terms of adequately assessing the problematic situation; adequately assessing the requirements for an acceptable solution; offering alternatives; evaluating the positive and negative qualities of the alternative solutions; suggesting goals; supporting ideas with information and reviewing tentative decisions put forward by the team (Diliberto, 1992; Mayer, 1998).
- Norms that encourage all team members to critically evaluate the information and ideas discussed by the team will enhance team effectiveness and improve the quality of their decision-making outcomes (Cihangir, Postmes & Spears, 2001; Forsyth, 1999; Janis, 1972). More specifically critical evaluation behaviours have been linked to the prevention of phenomenon such as groupthink, which has been linked to ineffective decision-making in teams (Janis, 1972). Groupthink refers to a strong concurrence-seeking tendency that develops in highly cohesive teams, which interferes with effective team decision-making. Cihangir, Postmes and Spears (2001) found that in cases where norms for individual independence of thought existed in a team, improved levels of team decision-making was experienced. It was felt that such teams placed a greater value on unshared information than on shared information. Literature indicates that valuing shared information will lead to a higher probability of incorrect, decisions being made (Cihangir, Postemes & Spears, 2001).
- Norms should foster co-operation over competition as this has been found to increase team effectiveness and improve decision-making quality (Forsyth, 1999; Gouran, 1974; Mayer, 1998; Sonnetag, 2000). Co-operation can be described as behaviours that aid the performance of another team member or contribute to the ease with which team members’ co-ordinate their efforts (Forsyth, 1999). Mayer (1998) states that information exchange increases in a co-operative team atmosphere and that the co-operative atmosphere, therefore, improves the quality of the decision eventually made by the team. Examples of co-operative behaviours include being “willing to share knowledge”, “supports others”, “able and willing to work in a team”, “reaches compromises if necessary”.
- Norms that encourage personal and team reflection, allows the team not only to learn from their successes and failures, but also to identify potential areas of concern or worry of the team members (Gutherie & Miller, 1978). Gutherie and Miller (1978) identify some general principles regarding effective team decision-making effectiveness. This includes ensuring that opportunities for reflection are built into the team’s decision-making process, to ensure that the team can learn from its mistakes as well as its successes.
- Norms allowing team members to change their minds should be encouraged to prevent them from feeling “locked” into a particular course of action. This is essential if the team wishes to avoid harmful decision-making making traps such as groupthink (Janis, 1972). Team members must be encouraged to change their minds freely, should they encounter information that changes their original opinions.
Make sure to check back in for the final installment of this blog series where we will focus on which team norms are destructive to the team decision-making process. And remember Trigon is always on hand to assist you directly with any queries you might have on this or any topics related to team optimisation.
Sources:
Todkill, LI. 2004. An investigation into team decision-making and the influence of group structural variables: A case study of a management team. Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Magister Artium in Sociology in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Port Elizabeth
EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF THE STRUCTURAL VARIABLE OF NORMS ON THE TEAM DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
PART 1 OF 3
Introduction
Our entire society functions through the organisations of which it is comprised. Most organisations make decisions within team settings. Such decision-making has far reaching consequences. This becomes even more apparent when one realises that the process of decision-making is embedded in nearly every facet of our society, whether it be political, legislative, judicial, or economic, as these social systems function through decisions made by teams (Ellis & Fisher, 1994; Fisher, 1974). Although we are often unaware of the pervasive influence of team decisions, the effects of those decisions on our lives are inescapable. Furthermore, one can also argue that the solution to every social problem – crime, poverty, inflation, unemployment, denial of human rights – is ultimately dependent on effective decisions made by teams concerned with and able to cope with those social ills (Ellis & Fisher, 1994; Fisher, 1974). When one takes note of the relative importance of the process of team decision-making in context, one can also note the widespread devastating effects ineffective decisions can have. These can include economic, social, and political effects.
Ultimately one must realise then that the highly prevalent nature of the decision-making team in society has resulted in the situation where the outcome of the decision-making process holds serious implications for the team itself, for the organisation of which they form a part of and for society as a whole. For this reason it becomes that much more important to take any steps necessary to ensure that the integrity of the team decision-making process is maintained or even enhanced.
The key question is: are team’s better decision-makers than individuals? Lorge and his colleagues (in Davis, 1969), made an extensive and critical review of the literature up to 1958 in this regard and concluded that generally speaking, teams outperform individuals. Davis (1969) also states that teams are more likely than individuals to come up with a correct response, they make fewer errors, and frequently they arrive earlier at a response or learning criterion. However, the superiority of the team all too frequently is not as great as would be expected. In fact many studies show that often the product of the “best” individual is superior to that of the “best team” (Baron, Kerr & Miller, 1992; Collins & Guetzkow, 1964). So who is better, individuals or teams? This is not a question that can be answered definitively either way rather it should simply be answered as follows: “It depends—!” What is clear, however, is that an awareness of all variables that impact on the quality of team decision-making need to be explored and understood in order to ensure that decisions made by teams are of as high a quality as is possible given the context in which they find themselves.
A review of literature reveals that variables impacting on team decision-making quality can be divided into two broad categories, namely: (1) Variables related to the team’s structure and (2) Variables related to team processes. Literature also reveals that the nature of the relationship between each of these variables is highly complex and well beyond the focus of an article of this nature. For this reason this article and the two that follow will narrow its focus to the exploring of the effects of the structural variable of team norms on the team’s decision-making process. The reason for selecting this particular variable as a point of examination is simple. Team norms perform an important regulatory function in small teams indicating to us then that the said variable should have a significant impact on the team decision-making process.
Norms Defined
Norms can be divided into two categories namely descriptive norms and prescriptive norms. Descriptive norms define what most people would do, feel, or think in a particular situation while prescriptive norms describe the sorts of behaviours people ought to perform (Forsyth, 1999). Norms, therefore, provide team members with guidance regarding how they should and should not behave. They also provide them with a means of predicting the behaviour of their fellow team members. Norms tend to emerge naturally irrespective of whether the team members specifically discuss them or not. However, if norms are not openly discussed, debated and agreed upon by the team members, in the early stages of team development, it may result in reduced commitment from team members later on.
Specific team norms can either have a facilitating or inhibiting effect on team performance and team decision-making.
These will be discussed in the next two articles so be sure to tune in! And remember Trigon is always on hand to assist you directly with any queries you might have on this or any topics related to team optimisation.
Team Relationships
Team Relationships
The work team is a group with a specific goal, which cannot be achieved without the contributions of every individual member of the team. Two members of a six-member team, for example, cannot help produce an end product and take credit for it at the expense of the other members of the team. While it is possible that they may produce the end product on their own, work teams have been composed in such a way as to bring together a specific number of individuals with specific competencies and skills to ensure a quality end product in the best efficient manner.
Often times when one talks “team”, it is all about reaching goals and targets, and we forget that the team would not be able to function if it wasn’t for the relations that existed within the team. And perhaps in your opinion your team is not really into spending much social time together, including the back slapping and the jokes, the cup of coffee or the quick gossip together – but this is not necessarily what we’re referring to here.
Relations does not only exist around the coffee table, it exist around the execution of the job – while working on the machines, while on the road, even where team members are in different geographical areas and as such, deemed “virtual” teams, only communicating via email, Skype and social media.
Where there are interpersonal relationships, people make choices – where to sit or stand; choices about who is perceived as friendly and who not, who is central to the group, who is rejected, who is isolated, who can be trusted and who shouldn’t be trusted, etc.
Moreno says, “Choices are fundamental facts in all ongoing human relations, choices of people and choices of things. It is immaterial whether the motivations are known to the chooser or not; it is immaterial whether [the choices] are inarticulate or highly expressive, whether rational or irrational. They do not require any special justification as long as they are spontaneous and true to the self of the chooser. They are facts of the first existential order.” (Moreno, 1953, p. 720).
The relational choices team members make has quite an impact on the functioning of the team. For instance, if some of the team members do not trust another team member, this has a major impact on how decisions are made by team members and how they react to information; in other words, it has a huge impact on the dynamics within the team, and it will show in the performance of this team.
How do you determine then what the relational patterns are within a team, especially a team that you know has problems: they aren’t meeting deadlines, there seems to be friction in the team, there seems to be cliques within the team, some members are excluded from communications, etc? The answer is: sociometric assessment.
For those unfamiliar with sociometry, here is a more formal definition:
Sociometry is a method used to present complex individual relationships and network data in a graph form. It attempts to measure and understand the social world [of the team]. To the sociometrist, the individual and his / her forged relationships are very much part of this social world. The flexible nature of sociometry as a method of analysis is clearly observant from this in that it treats each social situation as unique. In being able to do this, the value of sociometry is emphasised (Moreno, 1953:1xxx).
When a sociometric assessment is conducted, the results are depicted on a sociogram. This sociogram provides evidence of real social structures existing in the specific team. It immediately gives information about the nature and the status of the specific relational network in the group, and immediate steps can be taken for intervention.
So what does the sociogram tell you?
- It helps identify the structural components of the team: roles, norms, values and communication patterns,
- It tells you about group status relations i.e. power or authority statuses within the team
- It provides information about intra-group relations, referring to rejection and attraction patterns between team members
How does the above information help you in understanding and leading your team more effectively?
- It gives you a means for the identification of the current and real sociometric relational structure of your team – how relations are now, not how it was some months ago.
- It assists in the identification of current and real relational problems within a group.
- It provides an opportunity to deal with the identified problems immediately as well as to assess the outcome of interventions on a continuous basis.
- It allows for an analysis of a group’s relational structure as a single unit of analysis thus enabling the application of the scientific principles of objectivity, validity and reliability.
- It does not claim to be the only method for the analysis of social structure, but it allows for the opportunity for the application of other methods of analysis. In other words, whether used on its own or in conjunction with other methods, its aim is to provide data as it exists i.e. in the form that those that provide it have presented it.
- It enables the generating of subjective data (as embedded in the personal response choices obtained by means of the sociometric test) without the need for research manipulation.
OK, this is all quite a mouthful and hopefully a bit of food for thought. Bottom line: you have a team with problems? This is where Trigon Consulting comes in and does a sociometric team assessment. Based on this assessment, a team intervention is designed to bring about positive change within the team.
Sources:
- Laubscher, A. 2004. The influence of sociometric status and temperament style on the relational patterns in work teams: an exploratory study. Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Magister Artium Sociology, University of Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
- Moreno, J. L. 1953. Who shall Survive? Beacon, New York: Beacon House.
HOW TO BE THE WORLDS WORST MANAGER: A STEP BY STEP GUIDE ON HOW TO RUN YOUR DEPARTMENT AS INEFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE
PART 4
Before we proceed with today’s lesson on management inefficiency, let’s take a few seconds to review what we have covered to date.
- In part one, we learned that ineffective managers should never develop job descriptions, grade positions, conduct performance appraisals or implement succession plans.
- In part two it was explained why a bad manager should never delegate responsibility and accountability to their subordinates, as well as the pitfalls of including employees in the decision making process.
- Part three of our series focused on leading one’s employees by example and embracing the three key behavioral patterns of dishonesty, negativity and disrespect.
Today we will take a look at how an ineffective manager should go about ensuring that their employees feel underpaid and under valued.
Let’s face it, virtually every single employee in South Africa (and most likely worldwide) is of the opinion that they are underpaid. This simply cannot be true. The more likely scenario is that employees are simply unable to manage their personal finances, and as such you could continually increase their salaries and still be faced with the same complaints.
However, this is a reality that seems lost on most human resource personnel. They are constantly advocating that the following be done:
- Finalization of employee job descriptions.
- Grading of all positions within the company.
- Comparing jobs with current market salaries and / or salary surveys.
- Establishing a minimum and maximum earning threshold for jobs and grades.
This is simply madness personified. The sheer cost of the exercise alone would be enough to give one sleepless nights, then if you think of the impact of having to increase the earnings of employees who have been found to be “underpaid” one might as well throw oneself in front of the bankruptcy express! The fall-out of having employees who feel underpaid and unhappy seems minimally disruptive in comparison.
Why all of a sudden should a manager’s main concern be with the “feelings” of their employees? Not only is management being constantly nagged about underpaying their staff, but they are also being cautioned to be wary of creating additional unhappiness by behaving in a manner which further accentuates the salary discrepancies between their own earnings and that of their employees. This is beyond ridiculous. Surely employees are savvy enough to know that in any organization the boss will always be the higher wage earners (they do after all carry the bulk of the responsibility for the business’s success)?
This being said, what exactly is wrong with managers or business owners enjoying their hard earned money? So what if they arrive at work in a brand new Mercedes, days after having retrenched staff? Who cares if they spend their days complaining about the building costs of their new beach house, when they have just advised staff that there are insufficient funds to pay bonuses? Employees should be smart enough to realize that as the managers and owners are the driving force behind the enterprise, their financial needs must take priority over that of lower-level employees.
So how then does one address the issues above, without actually having to stick one’s hand into one’s pocket? Well one of the secrets of management success is to circumvent the issue of underpaying employees, by ensuring that staff feels as though they are valued. If necessary overstate the importance of their contributions to the company. This will go some way towards buying management some goodwill from their employees and further postponing those hideously awkward and time consuming debates surrounding salaries. Some may argue that this creates an unfair expectation amongst employees – after all if their contributions are so instrumental to the organization shouldn’t they be paid accordingly? That is ultimately not the concern of management – the point is to simply placate them for the time being, until another viable excuse can be derived.
Another way, in which one can circumvent the unhappiness of staff regarding their pay rates, is to play around with their job titles. You would be amazed at how easily an impressive sounding job title can immediately make an employee feel more valued and important. But be warned, this can sometimes lead to an unexpected backlash as you’ll always find the idiot employee who feels that their salary and their job title should be in alignment. The fact that they do not carry out half the functions normally associated with that job title is apparently irrelevant to the salary equation. Now while some would argue that this problem is caused by management themselves as a result of playing games, one could also argue that it simply reaffirms the earlier assertion that employees will never be satisfied.
Leave A Little Gas in The Tank – The 80% Energy Rule
Leave A Little Gas in The Tank – The 80% Energy Rule
Remarkable where one sometimes finds the most interesting opinions and ideas about career success ………. Take Justin Jackson, a product manager in the IT industry. He went looking for inspiration and found it on the Japanese island of Okinawa.
Jackson was going through a professional crisis at the time. He was managing a start-up business, was a family man with four children, did volunteering and was involved in a variety of side projects when he was not at work, and he was studying for another degree and loved the “busyness” of his life. (Does this sound familiar?). No surprise – he “cracked” and fell into a depression – he had no reserves left to deal with anything new. He started looking for ways to do things differently.
On Okinawa, he discovered that people, generally, maintained a high standard of health, and this was especially evident in the high number of very elderly –a high percentage of residents seemingly easily reach their 100th birthday. Wow! Their health and longevity had to do with a specific practice, which translated, means “eat until you are 80% full”. Jackson decided to apply this principle to his schedule.
For most people, 80% of anything is just not acceptable. It has to be 100%, NO! – a 110% – with all cylinders firing maximally at all times. And this should apply to all areas of your life: career, finances, relationships, health, etc. But here we are being told 80% will do; in fact, 80% is recommended! How does this work?
Firstly, Jackson became aware of the amount of energy he was spending at the office, and deliberately paced himself so that he was only spending 80% of his mental energy throughout the day. Immediately, the question comes up: How do you know when you have reached 80% of your mental energy? Jackson describes it as follows:
“It’s a state of being mindful. I try not to over stimulate my brain: I pick 2 – 3 big things to accomplish a day. After that, I focus on little things that don’t require as much energy.”
In other words, don’t fill you schedule to the brim, but only 80%? It makes sense, because it does give you time then to manage the crisis and unplanned things that often land in your lap, and to smell the roses inbetween.
It’s about planning and prioritizing MINDFULLY, is it not?
According to Jackson, the benefits have been huge: he has more mental capacity to deal with crisis and is at a much lower risk for burnout, and he is much more focused and creative when he works.
This notion of “leaving a little gas in the tank” at the end of the day sounds like good advice to me; Where does it say you have to fall into bed like a dried out rag in the early morning hours every single night to prove your value? What do you think?
HOW TO BE THE WORLDS WORST MANAGER:
A STEP BY STEP GUIDE ON HOW TO RUN YOUR DEPARTMENT AS INEFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE
PART 3
Today we embark on the third phase of how to become the World’s Worst Manager. To do this you’ll have to cast your mind way back, to when you were sitting on your mother’s knee or listening intently to your long suffering teachers. You’ll remember the advice they so desperately tried to impart to you that the best way to lead is by example. If that is in deed true, what example exactly would the World’s Worst Manager be setting for his / her employees?
The World’s Worst Manager teaches his / her employees the following:
Dishonesty is acceptable. Bad manager’s typically engage in the following types of behaviours, all of which create an environment in which dishonesty is considered to be acceptable:
- Over-promise and under-deliver (both to clients and to employees) – the important thing is to seal the deal or stay out of trouble. After all there’ll always be a handy patsy floating around to take the fall.
- Always take the credit for a job well done even if others were instrumental in the success as well.
- Downplay own mistakes and over emphasize past successes.
- Use ignorance as an excuse for poor performance or as justification for mistakes made i.e. make use of phrases such as “I didn’t know” or “No one told me”.
Look for the negative. Bad managers are virtually Olympic class “discouragers”. They consistently focus on the negative aspects of any situation and actively discourage the generation of new ideas by finding all the reasons why an idea won’t work. They are overly critical of the decisions made by others and have adopted the viewpoint that everyone is out to get them.
Treat people with disrespect. Bad managers work on the assumption that the amount of respect shown to others is directly proportional to the status level occupied by the person within the organization. By that logic managers are guaranteed the respect of their employees by virtue of their job title, and have no obligation to behave respectfully towards their employees as this is not warranted by their position within the organization. Disrespectful behavior manifests itself in a myriad of ways:
- Failing to abide by basic company policies and procedures e.g. punctuality, while simultaneously disciplining staff for these same transgressions. Late arrival and early departures as well as long lunches are after all the right of every over stressed manager.
- Not taking into consideration the deadlines of subordinates and providing essential information or input at the last possible minute. The fact that these employees will now have to work overtime in order to meet their deadlines is not the concern of our illustrious leader.
- Making last minute changes to reports and / or presentations the day these are due. The amount of work that is required to effect these changes is irrelevant and the extension of thanks or apologies to effected employees certainly isn’t necessary.
- Lecturing staff on the importance of working within a budget and the negative impact that overspending will have on the department and then turning around and making maximum use of all managerial perks causing the departmental budget to become further restricted.
By embracing the premise that one leads by example, we can be rest assured that our current quest will not only result in the creation of the World’s Worst Manager, but also in the World’s Worst Employee! Now that’s a result any manager should fight to take credit for.
Join me again next time when we continue down the road of effective mismanagement!
Trigon Consulting 
Recent Comments