Wednesday, August 28, 2013

What's better: a masculine leader or a feminine leader?


"Feminine" Values Can Give Tomorrow's Leaders an Edge

Pew Center study released in May revealed that working mothers are the sole or primary provider in a record 40 percent of U.S. households. Only a few days before, hedge fund billionaire Paul Tudor-Jones created a stir by remarking at a conference that women will never rival men as traders because babies are a "focus killer".
Here we have the dynamics of a new economy colliding with the old establishment like tectonic plates. But as developed nations restructure from manufacturing to knowledge and services, my bet is on the moms, or more specifically, women — and men who can think like them. Survey data my colleague Michael D'Antonio and I gathered from 64,000 people in nationally representative samples in 13 countries — from the Americas and Europe to Asia — point to widespread dissatisfaction with typically "male" ways of doing business and a growing appreciation for the traits, skills and competencies that are perceived as more feminine.

The results, published in our new book The Athena Doctrine, reveal that 57% of people were dissatisfied with the conduct of men in their country, including 79% of Japanese and South Koreans and more than two-thirds of people in Indonesia, Mexico, U.K and the United States. This sentiment is amplified among the millennial generation (young men and women age 18-30) of whom nearly 80%are dissatisfied — most notably in highly masculine societies like Brazil, South Korea, Japan and India.
If people have grown cold on male-dominated structures and leadership, they offer a solution: Two-thirds of survey respondents felt that "The world would be a better place if men thought more like women", including 76% of the French and Brazilians and 70%of Germans. Those stats include majorities of men who equate masculine incumbency with income disparity, continuing high levels of unemployment and political gridlock.
Curious as to how leaders could "think more like women," we asked half our sample — 32,000 people around the world — to classify 125 different human characteristics as either masculine, feminine or neither, while the other half rated the same words (without gendering) on their importance to leadership, success, morality and happiness. Statistical modeling revealed strong consensus that what people felt was "feminine" they also deemed essential to leading in an increasingly social, interdependent and transparent world.
top10competencies.gif
We next visited 18 countries, interviewing over 100 innovative women and men in medicine, politics, education, start-ups, NGOs and other sectors of the economy. Here are two of many examples we came across that show how anyone can lead with a more feminine ethos:
Empathy Is Innovation. While leaders spend considerable time and effort trying to envision markets and pushing out innovation, empathy can often generate simple, yet breakthrough ideas. In her years working as an advocate for charities in Britain and abroad, Anna Pearson noticed a pattern: there were many people who wanted to volunteer — but were too busy (or had schedules too varied) to commit to a cause. To bridge the gap between what volunteers could give and what people need, Anna re-imagined volunteering on a very small scale. Her London-based non-profitSpots of Time connects organizations with people who can give an hour or so at a time, and often at a moment's notice. The lesson? Anna trained her empathy not just on beneficiaries of charity but also on volunteers. That kindness and sensitivity to others was the catalyst for creativity.
Vulnerability Is Strength.You can't read a business article today without hearing about "learning from failure". (A Google search for the phrase yields 129 million results.) But maybe there'd be less failing if we were willing to admit what we don't know in the first place. In Berlin we met Dr. Ijad Madisch, a Harvard-trained virologist who kept "getting stuck" in his experiments. When he asked his colleagues for help, he was chastised. Big-time scientists were supposed to project an image of supreme competence. Madisch realized that science needed a global community where the work took precedence over egos. So he started ResearchGate, a social network for scientists, which now has some 3 million members across 200 countries. The lesson? By letting down his guard and showing candor and humility, Madisch not only helped himself but also inspired others to join his cause. This advanced research far more rapidly than the old approach of working in cubicles and meeting at conferences.
Today's work requires a new leadership paradigm. Look at the list of competencies above and — whether you're a man or a woman — start working on them.
More blog posts by John Gerzema
John Gerzema

JOHN GERZEMA

John Gerzema is executive chairman of WPP Group’s BAV Consulting and a fellow at The Athena Center For Leadership at Barnard College. He is co-author of the new book, The Athena Doctrine: How Women (And The Men Who Think Like Them) Will Rule The Future, the proceeds of which support the United Nations Foundation’s Girl Up Campaign.

Monday, August 26, 2013

Do you know the mood of your team?

Many of my executive clients feel soft skills are sometimes under-utilized, overlooked and even seen a "hoke" in the everyday business world. But, knowing how to identify those 'soft skills' can really make in impact on your team and productivity. Business isn't just business - it's people. If your people are not engaged, then business won't grow. Humans like to work, but we also want to feel like we are needed, helping, or providing a services that utilizes our strengths. But, when our hardwork goes unnoticed and not appreciated it creates negative emotions. These negative emotions can sabotage the hard work you and your team are striving to accomplish. 

read more...

How Moods Impact Results

Emotions are highly intense, fleeting, and sometimes disruptive to work; moods tend to be less intense, longer-lasting feelings that typically don’t interfere with the job at hand. And an emotional episode usually leaves a corresponding lingering mood: a low-key, continual flow of feeling throughout the group. Although emotions and moods may seem trivial from a business point of view, they have real consequences for getting work done.
A leader’s mild anxiety can act as a signal that something needs more attention and careful thought. In fact, a sober mood can help immensely when considering a risky situation – and too much optimism can lead to ignoring dangers. A sudden flood of anger can rivet a leader’s attention on an urgent problem – such as the revelation that a senior executive has engaged in sexual harassment – redirecting the leader’s energies from the normal round of concerns toward finding a solution, such as improving the organization’s efforts to eliminate harassment.
While mild anxiety (such as over a looming deadline) can focus attention and energy, prolonged distress can sabotage a leader’s relationships and also hamper work performance by diminishing the brain’s ability to process information and respond effectively. A good laugh or an upbeat mood, on the other hand, more often enhances the neural abilities crucial for doing good work.
Both good and bad moods tend to perpetuate themselves, in part because they skew perceptions and memories: When people feel upbeat, they see the positive light in a situation and recall the good things about it, and when they feel bad, they focus on the downside.
Beyond this perceptual skew, the stew of stress hormones secreted when a person is upset takes hours to become reabsorbed in the body and fade away. That’s why a sour relationship with a boss can leave a person a captive of that distress, with a mind preoccupied and a body unable to calm itself: He got me so upset during that meeting I couldn’t go to sleep for hours last night. As a result, we naturally prefer being with people who are emotionally positive, in part because they make us feel good.
Learn more about Dr. Goleman's research findings on emotionally intelligent leadership in my upcoming digital audiobook Leadership: The Power of Emotional Intelligence – Selected Writings.
___________________________________________________________________
Daniel Goleman’s upcoming book FOCUS: The Hidden Driver of Excellence and CDCultivating Focus: Techniques for Excellence are now available for pre-order (publication date is October 8).
Leadership: A Master Class is Goleman’s first-ever comprehensive video series that examines the best practices of top-performing executives.

Sunday, August 25, 2013

In U.S., Employment Most Linked to Being Depression-Free

August 23, 2013



One in 10 Americans say they currently have or are being treated for depression

by Alyssa Brown and Kyley McGeeney
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- For Americans, being unemployed, being out of the workforce, or working part time -- but wanting full-time work -- are the strongest predictor of having depression. Unemployed adults and those not working as much as they would like are about twice as likely as Americans who are employed full time to be depressed.
Depression Rates, by Employment Status
Americans who are not in the workforce are the most likely to be depressed, at 16.6%. It is possible that there is something about employment contributes to lower depression rates, or it could be that those who have depression are less able to seek out and retain employment.
These findings are from surveys with more than 100,000 Americans, conducted as part of the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index from Jan. 1-July 25, 2013. Gallup asks Americans if they have even been diagnosed with depression and, if so, whether they currently have it. Overall, 10% of U.S. adults say they have been diagnosed with and currently have depression, which is consistent with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's estimated depression rate.
Gallup uncovered the employment-depression connection by conducting an analysis of the correlates of depression. The analysis looked at Americans who currently have depression, while simultaneously controlling for 12 variables: age, gender, income, education, race and ethnicity, marital status, having children, region, employment status, obesity, having health insurance, and being a caregiver. This means that Gallup could examine each factor independently to find out which is most strongly linked to depression.
Beyond employment, the factors most related to having depression are being aged 22 to 64 years, earning less than $36,000 per year, being white, and being female. Conversely, those who are very young, older, black, Hispanic, male, or who earn at least $90,000 per year are less likely to have depression after taking all other factors into account.
The Factors Most Related to Having Depression
The analysis also shows that being obese, a caregiver, living in the West, and not having kids are moderate predictors of depression among Americans.
On the other hand, lacking a college degree; being separated, divorced, or widowed; and being uninsured are not strongly or moderately related to having depression once other factors are taken into account.
Depression Peaks in Middle Age
Young adults aged 18 to 21 years, at 5.4%, are among the least likely be depressed. The depression rate generally rises as Americans age, peaking in the 57-60-year and 61-64-year age groups, at 14.4% and 14.2%, respectively. Thereafter, depression falls off, lessening dramatically by age 76 to 8.6%.
Depression Rate, by Age
Depression Decreases as Income Rises
Americans who earn less than $36,000 annually are nearly three times more likely to be depressed than those who earn more than $90,000 per year.
Separately, women are twice as likely as men to say they have depression and whites are slightly more likely than blacks and Hispanics to say they are depressed.
Depression Rates, by Key Subgroups
Implications
While one in 10 Americans currently have depression, this analysis shows that certain segments of the population are more likely to suffer from the illness than others. Americans who are unemployed, underemployed, and not in the workforce are more likely to report having depression than those who are employed full time or who are content with being employed part time. Thus, the stubborn unemployment and underemployment rates may have more than just a negative impact on the nation's economic recovery, they also may present a significant threat to Americans' mental health and wellbeing.
Additionally, depression among the employed has significant costs to individuals, businesses, and the overall economy. Gallup has found that depression costs U.S. employers $23 billion per year in lost productivity due to absenteeism.
Health providers, community groups, and public health officials can target depression interventions at the groups most likely to be depressed. At the same time, however, leaders can also raise awareness about depression and reduce the stigma of seeking treatment for the illness among groups who are less likely to have depression -- possibly because these groups are less willing to acknowledge having depression and to seek professional help for it.
Under the Affordable Care Act, all adults with an insurance policy beginning on or after Sept. 23, 2010, are entitled to a depression screening at no cost. Ensuring all Americans -- particularly the jobless and low-income Americans who are more likely to have depression -- are aware of this provision may be key to identifying and treating the many who suffer from this illness.
About the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index
The Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index tracks wellbeing in the U.S. and provides best-in-class solutions for a healthier world. To learn more, please visit well-beingindex.com.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews conducted as part of the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index survey Jan. 1-July 25, 2013, with a random sample of 101,195 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.
For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cell phone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by region. Landline and cell phone numbers are selected using random digit dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.
Samples are weighted to correct for unequal selection probability, nonresponse, and double coverage of landline and cell users in the two sampling frames. They are also weighted to match the national demographics of gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, population density, and phone status (cellphone only/landline only/both, and being cellphone mostly). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2012 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older U.S. population. Phone status targets are based on the July-December 2011 National Health Interview Survey. Population density targets are based on the 2010 census. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit www.gallup.com.

Sunday, August 18, 2013

Do you have a coach?


Research: What CEOs Really Want from Coaching

Why is getting coaching from outside the company important?
Blind spots are less obvious when things are going well. It is very easy for executives to become almost strictly inward looking, especially when they have been very successful. But these blind spots can become devastating when performance moves in the other direction. A good, neutral third party assessment is a clear reality check for executives.
Additionally, every single person inside the company has an agenda of some sort. This makes the coaching environment a rare and safe place to think through various topics against the framework of what is in the CEO's best interest. The coach is only concerned with the CEO's wild success as the leader of the company.
CEOs that Would Be Receptive to Coaching Graphic
In your survey, CEOs say the area they most want to develop is in conflict resolution. Why?
Conflict management is critical in the CEO role — just about anything that gets to the CEO's desk has an element of pleasing someone and making someone else unhappy. When the CEO avoids conflict, it can shut down the whole organization: decisions are not made and problems fester, creating a domino effect of unproductive behaviors down the ladder. A CEO who can manage and channel conflict in a constructive way can get to the root of issues, apply rigor to the team's thinking, and, ultimately drive the best outcomes. So cultivating this skill can be a powerful tool to help the entire organization.
The survey also reveals that nearly two-thirds of CEOs do not receive coaching or leadership advice from outside consultants. What's behind that?
There is still some residual stigma that coaching is somehow "remedial," as opposed to something that enhances high performance, similar to how an elite athlete uses a coach. But there really is not a single top athlete who does not have a coach. CEOs should not be insecure about this issue, and instead see coaching as a tool for improving their already high performance.
CEOs that Get Coaching Graphic
Part of this stigma comes from board members themselves, many of whom grew up in an era when coaching was truly remedial and not something in which a CEO would ever voluntarily engage. So even CEOs who believe in coaching and want to engage have to ensure that they bring these board members in particular along with them on the journey.
So there's tension between boards and executive teams when it comes to coaching. How does it manifest itself?
Again, when things are going well, there can be a tendency on the part of some CEOs to be less open to feedback and a corresponding "If it ain't broke..." attitude from the board. If things are going well, boards often feel as if they don't need to have this difficult conversation with the CEO. Both of these attitudes/approaches are a problem and certainly do happen.
It's probably not surprising, then, that 79% of CEOs said it was their idea to receive coaching. But should it only be their responsibility, or should it involve others?
Fundamentally, it is a responsibility of both the executive and the board of directors, while a trusted Chief Human Resources Officer can also play an important role. If some of a CEO's behaviors are truly dysfunctional, these need to be identified and worked on. If the CEO is introspective, he or she will recognize their weaknesses without prodding from the board. However, there are also times when the board says to the CEO: "It might be good to do some personal development on X." This is a key part of CEO performance evaluation: What things need to be improved?
Many times coaching starts through a partnership with the board of directors on the CEO evaluation, and out of that usually come a few specific actionable development themes that can prompt an advisory relationship with the CEO. It typically does come from both sides, and so boards must be sufficiently up to date to see high performance coaching for what it is, versus being purely remedial. The board can help set the conditions for success.
The CHRO can also be instrumental in setting the stage for CEO coaching, as they are often the ones who originate the idea with the CEO.
Is there any evidence that the things CEOs want to be coached in aren't areas they need help in, and vice versa?
I think that we should look at the "gaps" between what is being worked on and what weaknesses are highlighted. For example, 23 percent of CEOs are working on their team-building skills, but only 13 percent of directors believe this is an area that needs improvement.
CEO Coaching Graphic
Comparatively, there's a reluctance to be coached on so-called "soft skills" like motivation, compassion, and persuasion. How important are these, and should CEOs and execs take a closer look at being coached on them?
"Soft skills" have an important place in the CEO toolkit. Skills such as motivation and being able to coach and develop people allow a CEO to build a "complementary leadership structure" at the top of the organization. This kind of organizational design allows the top team members to work more effectively together and on their own, but relies on a CEO who can motivate, inspire, and coach those below him.
Is there a way to be transparent about a CEO being coached without causing shareholder and market panic?
Coaching is a private and personal activity. The fact that your CEO is being coached is not something that would normally be disclosed to shareholders. However, you can certainly imagine situations where something bad happened in the company (unfortunate press coverage, loss of top managers, etc.), and the CEO admits that he/she is responsible and his leadership style was instrumental in the problem, and that he/she is going to work on this weakness. Done in an open and honest manner, this type of disclosure can have a very positive impact on reputation, motivation, and performance in an organization.
Many of the highest performing CEOs disclosed that Peter Drucker advised them. They may have used a different term in that era because of the stigma, but we are now moving clearly into an era where there is less stigma associated with having a coach.
Is there an internal risk for company employees if their CEO or a senior executive is open about getting coaching?
This will be influenced most importantly by the culture of the organization and the delivery of the message. The employees that you want to keep will probably be grateful to hear that a problem is being addressed. However, it is certainly possible that the admission of a need for coaching might be interpreted as a personal weakness of the CEO. This happens all the time in political settings. Matching the message to the employees is essential.
It is also important to not simply see coaching through the lens that there is a "problem." Many times you are not focused on a problem when coaching someone. Rather, you are advising them on the issues they face — such as the expansion of the leadership team or transforming from a private company CEO to public company CEO — and helping them be even more effective.
Ultimately, is there a relationship between coaching and getting to the top?
This is fairly common in tech firms such as Dell, Google, etc., where coaches/advisors have been brought in to help young CEOs. But Jack Welch is another prominent example of a top business leader who worked with an advisor — Ram Charan — for many years.
In general, where there is a relationship between coaching and getting to the top is when an executive believes in continuous learning and development. The saying "It's what you learn after you know it all" resonates here. These kinds of chief executives seek out a number of different coaches/advisors who help frame topics for them and play a point of challenge and reflection. CEOs who do this are also triangulating information, and their set of coaches/advisors help frame, challenge, and assimilate all of the information/data.
How should CEOs choose the right outside coaches or advisors?
You need coaches who are very smart, intuitive about business and interpersonal dynamics, neutral in their assessment (i.e., not captured by their client), and can tailor the training to the individual needs (not a canned approach).
A good coach does not make someone feel badly about themselves, but will engage in training so that the CEO gets up the next morning and is excited about trying something new or doing something in a different way.
What did you find most surprising in the report, and what is the actionable takeaway for CEOs and boards?
We were very surprised to learn the low percentage of CEOs who have coaches. The key takeaway for CEOs and boards is that seeking out a coach or advisor is not a sign of a fundamental problem or weakness, but instead a key attribute of being a superior leader. For boards and other stakeholders, they should understand that it could help make the difference between a good organization and a visionary one.

GRETCHEN GAVETT

Gretchen Gavett is an associate editor at the Harvard Business Review. Follow her on Twitter @gretchenmarg.

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Having a hard time evoking change within your organization?


Seven Tips for Shifting a Mindset in Your Organization

We're all fascinated by new ideas and how they can grab hold of us, influencing how we think and affecting how we take action. How does Atul Gawande (the checklist doctor) get inside my head, when others don't? Why does Gwyneth Paltrow make me adjust my behaviors, when others can't?
In business, especially, we're inundated with new ideas—so many we can hardly process or evaluate them.
If you have tried introducing a new idea into your organization or community—especially if it's an abstract idea like sustainability, diversity, or innovativeness—you know it's tough. People may ignore your idea, pooh-pooh it, or just steal it. You put your energy, your reputation, and maybe your future, on the line.
Still, when you have an idea you think is valuable and could change things for the better, some inexplicable force may compel you to "go public" with it. You want to change a prevailing mindset and you're willing to stick your neck out, at least a little, to do it.
The question is how, especially when you're not Gawande or Paltrow, to change an organization from the inside when you don't necessarily have a ton of formal authority on your side.
Take a look at what the "idea entrepreneur" does. This is the new type of cultural player—idea-driven people like Gawande and Paltrow, Michael Pollan (food), Cesar Millan (dogs), Blake Mycoskie (business = philanthropy), and many others—who reach large audiences and gain widespread influence.
These are independent operators. They're wealthy and famous. They publish books and appear on TV. But do their methods of idea-spreading apply to the office-dweller, the organizational citizen, the manager or executive? The answer is yes, with some modifications.
To illustrate, let me introduce Samantha Joseph, who works for Iron Mountain Incorporated, a leader in records storage and information management services. Sam is young, ambitious, and idea-driven: she believes that for-profit companies can drive significant business value when they take a strategic approach to social and environmental sustainability. After earning her MBA from MIT in 2009, Sam could not find a position in sustainability, so she joined Iron Mountain as a manager in strategy, knowing the company had no sustainability function and hoping to build it.
Sam saw opportunity. She plunged into the strategy job, but also began to work on bringing the idea of sustainability to Iron Mountain—an exciting if daunting task, considering the number of employees, locations, facilities, trucks, and other real assets involved.
Here are some of the things that big-time idea entrepreneurs do that Sam adapted for her quest:
  • Accumulate evidence. To gain influence for an idea, you need an awful lot of supporting material—data, references, cases, stories, and analysis—which can take decades to gather. Sam didn't have that long, but she did accumulate enough material to make her the "resident expert." It took her a year to develop her case—largely on her own time—before she started talking about sustainability in public. But she was talking privately with lots of people all the while: gathering opinions, refining the ideas and practices, making connections and gaining supporters.
  • Develop practices. An idea is an abstraction that won't produce change until you provide people with specific, practical ways to put it into everyday use. Cesar Millan's ideas get their teeth from his training methods of "calm assertiveness." Sam worked with colleagues from across Iron Mountain to develop a volunteer program, a solar energy pilot, and a strategic charitable partnership—which got people doing sustainability without having to pledge allegiance to a theory first.
  • Create a sacred expression. Practices without theory are nothing more than tips and techniques. You need to find your best form and use it to create a "sacred" expression—a talk, a video, a written piece, a visual—the most complete, authoritative, and compelling articulation of your idea that you can manage. Sam put together a short video that made the case, showed how Iron Mountain was involved with the community, and got people energized and emotionally engaged.
  • Encourage "respiration" around your idea. Sam did not expect to do a TED talk or appear on Colbert, but she needed to engage with the audiences who would be most affected by, and most able to implement, the sustainability idea. The only way to get an idea breathing on its own is to show up, in person. Sam put together a road-show and visited many of Iron Mountain's corporate departments and facilities, conversing and responding to questions. After she left, people kept talking. The idea started to come to life.
  • Include your personal narrative. Idea entrepreneurs always present their idea in the context of their own life story. Dr. Berry Brazelton, expert on babies, relates anecdotes about himself as a kid. Sam talked about how her fascination with sustainability arose from an early family relationship. She presented the business case first, but the personal story gave the idea personality.
  • Align with a metric. Influence cannot be definitively measured in financial terms, but people need some way to calculate its the value. People associate Malcolm Gladwell's idea of mastery through the "10,000 hours of practice" metric. As the sustainability practices took hold at Iron Mountain, Sam measured and reported on key performance indicators—particularly cost savings—along with non-financial measures, such as volunteer participation rates, that demonstrated its success.
  • Expect backlash. When you propose a new idea, expect an intense response—from useful debate to useless sniping. Sam didn't experience direct backlash, but she did come up against some challenges. She spent almost a year talking and debating, pushing and being pushed, before respiration began to take hold. She realized (as all idea entrepreneurs do) that an intense response—positive and negative—is a sign that people are taking the idea seriously. No challenges, no point.
Each path to influence, and each change of mindset, looks different. Within two years, Iron Mountain had reduced its carbon footprint, helped archive the blueprints of some of the world's most historic sites, and donated 65,000 volunteer hours to community efforts, among other initiatives. And today, corporate responsibility activities are started and driven by employees all over the country.
Sam most directly knows the idea has gained influence when someone says to her: I'm so proud of what we're doing. One-on-one validation is a powerful metric.
More blog posts by John Butman
John Butman

JOHN BUTMAN

John Butman is the author of Breaking Out: How to Build Influence in a World of Competing Ideas (Harvard Business Review Press, 2013) and founder of the content development firm Idea Platforms, Inc. He is available for speaking and consulting. Follow John on Twitter at @JohnButman.