09 Jan 10 The Glamour of Live TV
Being interviewed on live TV is fun. It truly is. The lights and set-up are cool, the fact that you are in front of a million people is neat and all-in-all I would recommend it to anybody who feels they have a message they want to bring and who has some sort of expertise that the media seeks or that you can make them agree that they need to seek.
Having said that, I just had an experience with Fox Business News that also serves as a reminder that live TV is, well, live. If you are going to do this you have to be comfortable with the fact that things will happen that are beyond your control and will either push you over the edge or turn into one of those funny stories that you can keep forever.
I recently did a Special Report on CEO New Year’s Resolutions. My findings…most CEOs are conservatively optimistic about 2010. Seventy-five chief executives responded to my question and I put all of this together into a multi-page report sharing the overall themes of the findings. Not the most earth-shattering news, but news that interested Fox Business.
Now, I have a love-hate relationship with Fox as they do with me I think. On the one hand, while fairly conservative, I am not nearly as anti-government as the “fair and balanced” station is. On the other hand, because I am also not a screaming, yelling liberal, I serve a purpose for them as a counter-opinion on some topics that they can use to balance their coverage to some degree. In other words, I’m not tremendously threatening but at the same time, they can engage in a bit of a debate with me.
I say all this to say that when I am on Fox I am always on my toes because they have a tendency to try to bait their interviewees into their particular point of view. They also do their remote tapings from some difficult settings. In this case I was at the Fox 2 station in Detroit but set up on a chair with a table and a camera. Period. No monitor or anything to see who I was speaking with…just a set up so I could be filmed. In those cases the only connection you have with the actual interviewer is a small earpiece that allows you to hear what is on the air. (This takes some getting used to as well because you are then essentially talking to yourself.)
So, on December 31st I knew that Fox would be focusing on the miserable 2009 and trying their darndest to make it all about the evil Democrats. My argument was that, once you get below the dozen or so leaders that we focus on in the media, most executives were ready to get on with it in 2010. I’m sitting on my stool, earpiece firmly in place and am given the 10 second warning that we are almost live.
Then the platform my chair was sitting on broke.
Then the earpiece popped out.
Then the reporter was on the other side and we were live. I knew this was the case because somewhere in the distance I could hear my name as Dagen McDowell began the piece. Additionally, I was holding onto the bottom of the table for dear life to keep from tipping over. That “fun” moment had become horrific because I could just imagine either not answering a question she asked because I couldn’t hear her and/or disappearing from the camera frame because my chair broke entirely.
You really need to watch the video if you haven’t seen it already. I look like Quasimodo all hunched over and at one point it looks like I’m going to get up and walk away. I didn’t answer the first question at all, got close with the second, and then…when the baiting question at the end came up…I disappointed Dagen with the fact that I didn’t bite. You really should see this…she actually points her finger at me as she says, “I beg to differ but that’s an argument for another day.”
By the way, that is a perfect ending to a media appearance like that. Her comment at the end will serve as an invitation in the future to be back on Fox News with a story about the difference between the average concerns of a CEO and the ones that are most often in the news. In other words, if the purpose of publicity is in some way to get more publicity, this has the potential of being highly successful.
Of course, if I had let go of that table and disappeared from the screen as my chair collapsed, I suspect that would have gotten as much publicity in the end. At least I would have appeared on the blooper reels for who knows how long!
Tags: accountability, CEO New Year's Resolutions, Global Leadership, leadership integrity, motivation, trust
03 Jan 10 It’s a New Year
So, 2010 is upon us and we’re making some changes here at the ole IMPACT headquarters. 2009 was a year of learning and one of the things we learned was that social media, and communication in general, is a lot more difficult to keep up with than we first surmised.
Actually, the problem I have always had is to figure out the difference between what I post on the blog versus what I write in the newsletter. In 2009 I tried to keep up with two blog entries per week and one newsletter per week. Nuts! So at the end of the year I took a break from both in order to rethink the purpose behind the different channels and how best to approach them for the next year.
I just finished re-reading Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (P.S.)
There’s the model I want to use. I have tried in the past to create a blog that is educational and addresses substantive issues with leadership tips, etc. But that’s also what I’m doing with the newsletter. So I have decided that this year the blog will be much less scientific and a lot more…well, fun. It will be OPINION and hopefully in so doing will be not only an added thought value for you, but also more entertaining and engaging than the mini-lectures that have occurred here in the past. Also in a fit of independence and spontaneity, I will commit to at least a weekly blog entry but there might be some weeks where there are several. Who knows? Why not?
The newsletter on the other hand will become more substantive and provide more information and ideas than it has in the past. I am going to publish it in pdf format for those who like to print things or want to read them on their Kindle or Sony Reader (or iPhone or whatever). The objective of the newsletter is to create something that you will want to keep and to which you may want to refer. This allows me to have guest columns as well as much more useful content in one place on a monthly basis.
More than anything, as we move along on this quest to get it right, I invite you to give me feedback and input on what you think would be most useful. In the meantime, we’ll keep messing with the formula until we get something that works. For example, right now I have two websites: www.ImpactSuccess.com and www.GlobalLeadershipDialogue.com. I’m not sure this makes sense any longer and perhaps there should just be one. I think I have two partially valuable sites right now and not one that is a powerhouse. Maybe there’s a way to address that. Anyway, you get the picture. (If you have an opinion on this, I would love to hear it).
Off we go now into the new decade. We will keep learning and evolving and we invite you to do so with us. I suspect this is another case where there is no right or wrong answer, at least not one that is readily apparent. In the meantime, we’ll keep trying and see what we learn this time. Happy New Year!
Tags: engagement, Global Leadership, great leadership, trust, vision
01 Dec 09 The Ridiculous Focus on Approval Ratings
Ok, you can probably tell by my title where this blog is going to go. I have become increasingly more fascinated at the desire that we have to measure effectiveness primarily through numbers. I’ve written on this before in a corporate setting with the idea that measures established to make the vague more concrete become overly important and allow us to ignore the not-so-measurable environmental and cultural changes that are going on around us as leaders. I don’t think we should throw out all of the numbers…I just think we get obsessed with them.
But this is not my point right now. I have noticed more and more this obsession with approval ratings. For example, there was panic a week or so ago when President Obama’s approval rating dropped below 50%. Now it is back to above 50% but the whole issue was silly because there is a 5% margin of error. In other words, we have no idea whether 45% is that much different than 55% because the range of scores is 10%.
Ok, that’s one thing, but here’s the real issue. Leaders can not lead effectively worrying about rolling approval scores. President Obama was not elected to gain public approval. He was elected to lead the nation. The same is true of every governor, mayor and other official who serves public office. Chasing public approval is like chasing employee approval…there are times when you are simply not going to have it. Why is that?
The biggest reason that approval ratings need to be put back on the shelf is that they are short-term measures. Approval ratings as published always represent an immediate and timely response at a specific moment in time. Leadership on the other hand is measured over the long term. You can’t adequately make decisions that are visionary or complex and worry about the response you will get on the day you make that decision. This is the paradox of approval ratings. When published as if they are substantial news, we get confused and concerned because we get the impression that there is something terribly wrong.
One other thing to remember about approval ratings on a large scale. The most reported ratings, those conducted by Gallup, are conducted by phoning between 3000 and 4000 people with the question, “Do you approve of
This is the equivalent of asking 1 person in a sell-out crowd at the new Dallas Cowboys Stadium to represent the views of the nation.
While it would be great if we could predict the effectiveness of our President or any other leader based on a simple measure of public opinion, we simply cannot. The same is true of corporate leaders or others in complex systems. There is simply too much we do not know at a given point of view and too great a diversity of opinion to ensure a valid measure. It is important that our leaders hear our views and opinions, but simply having these opinions is no reflection of the effectiveness of the leader.
What do you think?
Tags: accountability, approval ratings, communication, Global Leadership, integrity, leadership approval, performance, politics
06 Nov 09 Chickens, Eggs and Change
There is an interesting debate going on amongst those who have little else to debate these days. The question is this. For effective change to take place, does one first change the organizational structure and systems and then adapt a strategy (and human strategy as well) to fit the new structure and system, or does one start with the strategy and mindset changes and then adapt the systems and structure to fit it?
This is one of those interesting leadership questions because, if you have an answer, you probably believe it is the only logical answer to have. Of course my answer is one of those amazingly frustrating answers for many people. I believe it depends on the change being instituted and the context of the specific leadership and organizational challenge.
In my opinion, it is possible for a full scale and successful change initiative to be instigated by the recognition that current systems, hierarchies and processes are either producing less than desirable results or, more likely, are not creating results quickly enough. This is a carry over from the industrial age that we haven’t quite settled yet. Systems that create efficiency and run at the lowest cost are not necessarily the same systems that create the greatest speed or quality. As I’ve written here before, the obsession with cost reduction has created many organizations that now find themselves able to do things inexpensively, but without innovation or speed to market.
On the other hand, organizations that have flat structures, few complex processes and an innovative mindset are not immune to dealing with change. The current economy for example has hit everybody. Many of these innovative companies (Google, 3M, Apple) have come to recognize that their cowboy mindset worked well in good times, but did not prepare them for the more team-oriented approach that may be necessary today. Yes, these companies have had teams forever, but the kind of collaboration that is necessary now is so entirely cross functional and focused that few organizations are accustomed to it. These aren’t organizational design issues…these are internal issues. In these cases, the mindset has to change first, and the design will follow.
Standing still is not an option
Finally, we have to get away from believing that there is one way to either make change happen or even to describe the phenomenon that occurs during change within an organization. We have become comfortable with approaches and theories that date back to a much more stable and industrial age. For change to work, leaders have to have open minds and hearts and be willing to understand that they don’t understand.
“>
Tags: accountability, change, communication, culture, Global Leadership, innovation, Leadership characteristics, trust, vision
17 Oct 09 Why so angry?
Friday afternoon I was running errands when I realized that absolutely everywhere I went, there were angry people. Angry in the parking lot because a car was parked over the line, angry in the grocery store because the older lady at the self-check-out didn’t know how to use the machine and angry on the road because somebody in the right lane needed to cut over quickly to turn left. Earlier I was updating my column on TheStreet.Com and reflecting on the fact that, when people disagree with me (or any writer it seems), they don’t simply express their opinion anymore but feel the need to call me (or any writer it seems) an idiot because we don’t share the same point-of-view.
As leaders, this is an important trend to which we should pay attention. Anger serves many purposes, at least in the short-run, and one of those is to oppose and offset authority. More specifically, rage provides an internal justification for setting the balance straight. When there is a perceived power imbalance we have a number of strategies to achieve equilibrium and one of them is righteous indignation. We feel we have a right to be angry which in turn tends to surface the inequality and, if nothing else, turn the attention (or power) to the angered rather than to the offense. And this move almost always eliminates any possibility of a mutual solution. Anger can be a powerful and appropriate tool when the outcomes are limited to a “go” or “no-go” set of variables. When the solution needs to be found in a more complex range of options, anger is counterproductive.
Anger should not be the first choice
I don’t propose to have all of the answers about dealing with the anger issue but I do know that it is an ongoing challenge for leaders when they try to engage their employees or deal with the realities of an imperfect world. The first step is to ensure that you are not modeling the behavior yourself. Attempting to motivate others through anger simply reinforces the idea that you hold angry people in high respect. Rewarding angry behavior has the same outcome. Helping your followers develop conflict strategies before an issue arises, and holding them accountable to using them, may be the best strategy of all.
What do you think? Is so much anger justified? Is there a way you have dealt with this in the past from which we could all learn?
Tags: accountability, anger, courage, Energy, Global Leadership, honesty, trust
09 Oct 09 Leading with the Brain
First, let’s get one thing out in the open for those of you who have not figured this out yet. I’m a nerd. There are certain things that I really get jazzed by that to others would be mindnumbingly boring. I get that and I’m comfortable with it. I can live with myself.
Having said that, there is the coolest article in the Autumn 2009 edition of strategy+business (yes, I subscribe) on recent neuroscience research and the brain that relates directly to the issue of effective leadership.Of course I’m such a nerd that I couldn’t just read the article but I had to find the sources that were cited in the article and read them too. If you hang out with me, it’s just a moment-by-moment flow of excitement!
Actually, it is honestly a very interesting article titled “Managing with the Brain in Mind,” by David Rock of the NeuroLeadership Institute and author of the book “Your Brain at Work.” In this article, Rock makes the argument that a person’s job is not simply a transaction—they work for you, they get paid. While this is an important aspect of our work, even more importantly, we view our workplace as a social system. Much research has shown that the brain is a social mechanism, looking for connections between people, events and data, so it would only make sense that much of our work life would be seen the same way.
The interesting addition to this information that Rock adds to the dialogue is that the concept of “threat” applies to our primacy of social interaction. In other words, perceived threats to the social aspect of our work life will evoke the same response as perceived personal threats to our being. Our brains function in a way that we attempt to either flee the threat (by checking out, disengaging, or actually leaving our jobs) or fight it (through aggression either passive or active). Rock proposes that there are five qualities that enable employees to mitigate and handle these threats and that these are crucially important for leaders to understand:
Status: Research indicates that we are constantly assessing our status in relative terms to those around us. Threats to status are endemic in the organization when we give performance reviews, promotions or even passing comments in staff meetings. Research also indicates that something as simple as acknowledging a followers contribution can raise perceived status. Leaders who are sensitive to the status needs of their followers can offset this threat by the way they interact.
Threats light up our neural pathways
Certainty: As humans, we love stability and certainty in part because these are conditions that are less taxing to our brains and bodies. When we are not having to worry about what happens next, we are able to operate in a comfort zone. On the other hand, uncertainty registers in our brain (in the anterior cingulate cortex!) as a potential threat until investigated and understood. Transparency is the antidote to this issue. By sharing as much information as possible and keeping followers informed about current and future issues, effective leaders are able to avoid short-circuiting the resources necessary to get the job done.
Autonomy: Autonomy is the feeling that we as individuals are able to make our own decisions and chose our own courses of action. Perceptions of limited autonomy create a feeling of helplessness and a threat response related to the fact that our survival is not by our own choosing. Leaders who want to reinforce autonomy know that being micromanaged is a threat felt at a very deep level. Followers need choices, not just in the details of their work but in the bigger picture issues of balance and priority.
Relatedness: In our best efforts, and for the sake of diverse opinions and experiences, we often put together teams of unrelated people to focus on a crucial issue. However, the neural pathways triggered by meeting new people put us in a friend-or-foe assessment phase. While many of us like to think that we trust people until they show us that we can’t trust them, the fact is that we are suspicious at the onset of any new relationship. Leaders need to be thoughtful about the teams they form and, if made up of unrelated people, the team needs time to assimilate. Further, by cutting off individuals from social interaction, we stimulate the same kind of threat response. Leaders need to attend to the social needs of those they assign to positions that will keep them isolated.
Fairness: Fairness is a concept that is also related to the limbic system of our brains. If violated, the response is hostility and lack of trust. As we have discussed in this blog before, I will only commit my actions to you if I trust you. If I don’t trust you, I spend a lot of time in protectionist mode, making sure that all of my bases are covered and that I am in a position to survive if and when you betray me. Openness and transparency are again the best responses to this issue. Leaders who are clear about the process they are using, and then apply it consistently, are seen as more fair than those who keep their thoughts a secret.
David Rock uses SCARF as the acronym for these behaviors and as the foundation for advising leaders on how to manage people in the manner that their brains work. While I think it is highly interesting and helpful, I also don’t see neuroscience as the unifying theory to human behavior. It doesn’t answer the whole question of why we do what we do, but cognitive science may provide part of the answer. As a survival instinct, we act to avoid threats and, if brain research can give us some insight on what triggers the threat response, it is a valuable addition to the toolbox of the leader.
Tags: change, communication, Energy, Global Leadership, Leadership characteristics, trust
05 Oct 09 Change Acceptance–Part 2
If Change Acceptance starts with Unawareness and ends with Owning, how long does it take and how do you advance through the stages? This is an important question since, left to our own devices, we will advance at least to the “Knowing” stage. Eventually. Helping your followers discover Buying and Owning however is usually a conscious effort. But it doesn’t have to be a complicated one.
1. When your followers are Unaware. The challenge with unawareness is timing. There may be a short period of time where followers need to be unaware because whether or not a change is likely to happen may be unsure. It will always be that, as a leader, you have information that not everybody else has. While I strongly support transparency, there is sometimes a period of time where you have to get it together before discussing it. But beware…this has to be a very short period of time. Unawareness starts to go away with the first hint of new information or activity. As soon as the change begins, it is important to provide information to everybody as quickly as possible.
2. When your followers are Suspicious. Once information begins to flow, suspicion will follow even in the healthiest situations. Followers have to go from hearing the information to somehow understanding it. While information is the antidote to unawareness, dialogue is the antidote to suspicion. Our minds hate a vacuum, so if you do not provide an opportunity for us to air our concerns and for you to answer our specific questions, we will add to the story ourselves. Open and honest discussion will eliminate much of the space available to rumor.
3. When your followers are Knowing. You must really pay attention once you feel that your followers are up-to-speed on the new direction and the change that is underway. This phase is crucial because here there will be some who decide to “opt-out.” Now that they are aware of the change, they may decide it isn’t worth it to be invested in the change. In this arena, both passive and active support and resistance start to take place. And the danger around those checking out is that they will take others with them. To continue a positive momentum, not only should you be sharing information and continuing dialogue, but actively engaging followers to make the change happen. Committees or project groups should be put together in this stage so that they can take the next step to owning. We don’t own those things that we talk about…we own those things that we do.
The team has to be involved for change to be accepted.
4. When your followers are Buying. Once you see the support building for the change it is time to stop talking so much about it and start supporting whatever activity that you see moving the organization in the right direction. This is a time of great positive action, yet it is also a time to be careful. Your objective in this case is to make the change concrete. You don’t want to continue building cheerleaders…you want to start developing owners. Let go of some of the details and let their creativity take a role. Continue supporting, but stop shaping and let others take that role. Only then will they feel it is their own.
5. When your followers are Owning. It is likely that another change will come soon, if it hasn’t already. In many cases, organizations are still trying to figure out how to buy one change when they are suspicious of another. It is important to celebrate the ownership of the change by reflecting to your followers what THEY have accomplished. This is sometimes a difficult place for leaders because they have worked hard on the success of the change and now feel that they no longer get credit. Don’t worry…everybody will know the role you played. But you should not be reminding them. All of your conversation should be about when “we” started this and how “we” or “you” have succeeded. If you insist on taking credit in the end, you will find it harder to pass along ownership in the future.
Unfortunately, there is no hard-fast rule about how long this takes. It takes as long as it takes. But if you will focus on moving your organization through the process, you will find that you can accelerate it. Remember, you are ahead of them in coming to grips with the change. Be patient but be diligent. The sooner your followers own the change, the more effective you and your organization will be.
Tags: change, courage, expectations, Global Leadership, trust
23 Sep 09 Moving Into the Space
This is an interesting time for many who are in leadership positions because, on the one hand, they have either recently been promoted or recently taken on greater responsibility. As a result of reorganization or restructuring, I have met many people who have been promoted even at a time where the focus of the news is on those who have been laid off from their jobs. These are the “Survivor” leaders whose career advancement is bitter sweet. They are in new areas of responsibility with new employees but at a time (and sometimes speed) that they did not anticipate.
At the same time, there are, and will be, a large number of people who have new leadership roles, not because of negative business outcomes but because their business is in recovery. As much as we are skittish about whether or not the business world is really on the mend, now a year after Lehman’s demise, business are getting their feet back under them. This requires strong management and leaders who can take new positions with authority and success.
There are plenty of challenges to making this happen but one of the most difficult to figure out is how to take the role previously filled by somebody else and make it your own. If your predecessor was a well-loved figure, you have the challenge of “filling big shoes.” If your predecessor was a jerk, you have the additional challenge of letting people know that you are not the person who was there before you. In either case, while wanting to move at a speed that does not overly disrupt the lives of employees, you also need to start making things happen. The “I’m new in this position” response is short lived because, in your new position, you are expected to deliver results. New results as a new leader.
Be yourself in your new leadership role.
Tip #2: Listen. Often leaders in new roles have the unbearable urge to start “doing something” immediately in order to establish that they are not the boss.While it is likely that there are expectations that you do, indeed, get things done, there is an opportunity at the onset of a new position to listen to those who are going to be impacted by your leadership. Even if this is a leadership position in an area where you have been working for 20 years, taking the time to listen to your new followers will not only send the message that you want to make changes together, it will start to cast you in the new light of your new position. No matter the urgency, have at least a few small group or one-to-one conversations with your employees about what they see as the priority and even what advice they have for you as the leader.
Tip #3: Let your predecessor go. By this I mean there is little or nothing constructive to talk about when it comes to the person who was in the position before you. In your very first communication with your new employees it may make sense to in some way honor the person who preceded you. But that’s about it. Whether they were great or terrible, they are now in the past. Don’t participate in the inevitable employee conversations about the “old days,” and don’t let comparisons drive your behavior. It is only normal that employees will, for awhile, measure your words and behaviors against those to which they have become accustomed. But that doesn’t mean you need to. Soon enough, the past will be behind you and continuing to evoke history, or compare yourself to the one who came before, will only make that transition more difficult.
When Jeffrey Immelt took the reins of GE he told people, “There is no way I am going to out-’Jack’ Jack.” The same is true for your new role. Don’t try to outdo somebody who is no longer in the picture. Be yourself, listen to your folks, and move on. Comparisons are inevitable but they should not drive any of your behavior. The problems that you inherited are now your problems and the fact somebody else may have created them is irrelevant. It is your chance to lead and to do it as only you can do.
Tags: authenticity, congruency, consistency, expectations, Global Leadership, Leadership characteristics, leadership integrity
18 Sep 09 The Danger of Dogmatic Leaders
So, I’m in a local Walgreen’s and the person in front of me is talking to the cashier about the fact that Michigan is about to put a tax on soda (”pop” for those of you from other areas). It goes like this:
Customer: “So, my son says they are going to start taxing soda. I think we’ve got about enough taxes.”
Cashier: “Yeah, it’s going to be a Socialist state before long. We’re turning into Russian Communists.”
While I managed not to actually snort through my nose or something, I was extremely puzzled. What does paying too much in sales taxes have to do with being Socialists? And how does being a Socialist state with too many taxes have anything to do with Russian Communists? And how does this conversation begin because Pepsi is about to be taxed in Michigan? By the way, the conversation ended with both of them nodding sympathetically to each other so apparently it was me that missed the point.
As I thought about this later it occurred to me that this kind of thinking, and these conversations, happen all of the time because of our tendency to be so dogmatic in our thinking that it doesn’t matter what is said, we have our opinion. If the customer had said, “They are going to repave the road,” it is just as likely that the cashier would have brought up the Socialist/Communist issue. By definition, dogmatic people have beliefs that are to be undisputed and do not require any particular basis in fact. I believe it because I believe it and if you don’t believe it, you are wrong.
Dogmatic leaders don't use reason. They use volume!
This behavior causes many dysfunctions. For one thing, followers of leaders that are dogmatic have no idea why they believe what they believe…only that their leader does. This creates a dysfunctional situation where the follower may hear or see discrediting evidence about the leader but can not accept it as evidence because…well…because their followership is based primarily on belief about the leader, not on evidence. So, when an auditor starts to question the ethics of decisions, or business results start to decline because the decisions are poor, neither the leader nor the followers will challenge the practices because they are “right.”
It is also impossible to compromise with dogmatic leaders because there is no compromise. Look at the current health care debate raging in Washington. Many of the political leaders have taken an unbending position (on the right and the left) based on ideology and not on the needs or wants of the people. Dogmatic leaders tell people what they should believe and then poll them, using the results as proof that they are right. This circular approach creates a no-lose situation for the Dogmatic Leader.
Truly effective leaders have to understand that the strength of their convictions is based on what they believe to be true at the time. Leaders who care about the welfare of their followers take the time for open discussion and consideration of options. Even when they are sure of themselves, they are always seeking indications that their direction or opinion might need adjustment. These leaders do not measure the intelligence of others by how closely others agree with them, but by how willing others are to be innovative and accountable to the outcomes. They start with the problem and work their way to a solution, not the other way around.
Tags: accountability, dogmatic, fear, global leader, Global Leadership, politics
16 Sep 09 The Myth of Motivation
If you are a student of leadership, you really need to know the name Daniel H. Pink. He is a career analyst and author of a trifecta of best sellers including the latest The Adventures of Johnny Bunko: The Last Career Guide You’ll Ever Need
If you want to know how unconventional Pink is, you have to check out this career guide. It is written and illustrated in Manga style (Japanese comic) and is the only graphic novel ever to become a BusinessWeek bestseller.
While his writing is interesting, his latest video on motivation is the real topic of today’s post. In his video, Pink talks about an old study called “The Candle Problem” and it’s re-emergence in the work of Sam Glucksberg of Princeton University. In the new studies, Glucksberg provides various motivations for solving the puzzle of the candle. In some conditions he incentivizes participants with money, in other cases with nothing. What he finds is amazing.
While I don’t want to go into the detail of the problem in this entry (you can find it if you watch the video), the important finding is this. When participants are offered a monetary incentive for solving the problem, their response time is actually much SLOWER than those who are not offered money. That’s right. An incentive to solve the problem faster actually slows the process down.
This research was funded by the Federal Reserve Bank of all things, and they played with versions of the incentive and versions of the puzzle. They continued to find the same thing. Monetary reward slowed the process except in one condition. If the puzzle was presented in a way where the solution was obvious, participants actually completed the puzzle more quickly when offered money. If there was no thinking to be done, but only action, money served as a strong motivator.
It takes more than money to boost performance
Pink reveals some additional studies done at MIT and found that, in a series of games where participants are offered small, medium and large rewards for winning. The same thing happened. If the game requires only mechanical task work, the rewards influenced the completion times positively. But if there was any cognitive component of the game that required higher level thinking, rewards actually slowed the process down. By the way, this research was replicated across many cultures, ages and situations. It appears to be consistent no matter where you sit on the globe.
Here’s the point. Extrinsic rewards (bonuses, prizes, etc) are distractors when leaders are trying to achieve greater results. They simply don’t work. We have often said that money isn’t everything, but it might be that money is actually a negative thing. The intrinsic rewards of engagement, solving the problem, adding value and working together continue to show greater results than the standard “carrot and stick” approach.
So if, as Pink claims, there is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does, why do we keep doing it? It’s not because leaders are unaware of the mismatch…it has been studied for decades. It might be because we default to a logic that is comfortable and easy. Perhaps we offer incentives because we don’t have the creativity to create business situations that are engaging in other ways. If that’s the case, we are going to have to challenge ourselves in the current business environment to find new ways to engage and motivate since the problems we face are less tactical and more cognitive. Until then we may keep throwing money at internal issues that simply refuse to go away.
Tags: commitment, engagement, Executive Compensation, Global Leadership, motivation
Twitter Updates!
- impactsuccess: 'Stop J_Canfield'impactsuccess: 'Stop J_Canfield' […]
- impactsuccess: Now that I'm professoring again I think I'll grow a long gray ponytail.impactsuccess: Now that I'm professoring again I think I'll grow a long gray ponytail. […]
- impactsuccess: On the plane and headed to Dallas to work with some awesome leaders!impactsuccess: On the plane and headed to Dallas to work with some awesome leaders! […]