Announcement about Ads

2012 May 18 By

“Thank you for noticing this new notice” by Martäng

Dear Loyal Visitors and Friends of WorkplacePsychology.Net,

While I have tried to resist placing advertisements on WorkplacePsychology.Net, the truth is that it has become costly to maintain this site. In fact, in order to offer a site that is simple, clutter-free, and presents information that informs and interests visitors, I pay for features and services out of my own pocket. There have been zero advertisements on this blog, until today.

The traffic that WorkplacePsychology.Net receives has been a blessing and I am truly grateful for all visitors and loyal readers. This blog is not that old (about 2.5 years), but in terms of Internet longevity, I suppose it is. In the past two years, I have had many requests to post advertisements on this site and have always resisted, because like many of you, when I visit a website or blog, I don’t want to see huge ads or blinking lights distracting me. More importantly, I was concerned that the ads were not a good fit for the purpose and mission of WorkplacePsychology.Net.

In late 2011, I applied for WordAds, which is a partnership between WordPress.com (where this blog is hosted) and Federated Media. The WordAds program is the only approved advertising method I am permitted to use. It’s actually a selective program, and only an exclusive group of sites are even approved. Or so I’m told.

I believe the small amounts that will be earned via this WordAds program will help to partially cover the cost of hosting this blog. It is also my sincere hope that the advertisements displayed will be few and tastefully done.

Please know that I have not forgotten the reason why I started WorkplacePsychology.Net, and I am as committed as ever to provide my loyal readers and visitors great content. If the ads become too numerous and/or distracting, I will pause or discontinue the program.

I appreciate your continued readership and thanks for your understanding,

Steve

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Book Review-The Advantage

2012 April 11 By

I was excited when I received Patrick Lencioni’s “The Advantage” on my doorstep. I eagerly opened the box, removed the book, and began reading. Truth be told, I initially struggled because I am accustomed to theories and research-based books and had to fight off that mentality because Lencioni’s “The Advantage” isn’t based on research, and wasn’t meant to be. As he explains, “Because I’m not a quantitative researcher, the conclusions I draw here are not based on reams of statistics or finely crunched data, but rather on my observations as a consultant over the past twenty years” (Lencioni, 2012, p. xvii). I appreciated his upfront honesty.

Lencioni said that most organizations have plenty of talent, intelligence, and expertise to be successful. What’s more, he contends that almost every organization has access to the best ideas and practices about technology, strategy, and many other topics because information is everywhere and easy to locate. However, what many organizations lack is organizational health.

Organizational health is about integrity—whole, consistent, and complete. An organization is healthy “when its management, operations, strategy, and culture fit together and make sense” (Lencioni, 2012, p. 5).

Healthy organizations have the following qualities:

◾ Minimal Politics
◾ Minimal Confusion
◾ High Morale
◾ High Productivity
◾ Low Turnover

What “The Advantage” is, is a call to action and a blueprint about how to go from an unhealthy to healthy organization. It’s simple and practical, and it won me over. The real-world examples and true client stories were particularly compelling because they reinforced the concepts and brought them to life.

Lencioni offered his “Organizational Health Model” which consisted of four disciplines: (1) Build a Cohesive Leadership Team; (2) Create Clarity; (3) Over-Communicate Clarity; and (4) Reinforce Clarity.

In addition to the emphasis on creating and maintaining a cohesive team, Lencioni contends that there are six critical questions that a leadership team must rally around and clearly answer. They include:

◾ Why do we exist?
◾ How do we behave?
◾ What do we do?
◾ How will we succeed?
◾ What is most important, right now?
◾ Who must do what?

“Most organizations are unhealthy precisely because they aren’t doing the basic things, which require discipline, persistence, and follow-through more than sophistication or intelligence” (Lencioni, 2012, p. 148).

By eliminating politics and confusion from an organization’s culture and environment, a healthy organization will almost always find a way to thrive and succeed because, without politics and confusion, it will tap into and use every ounce of “knowledge, experience, and intellectual capital that is available to [it]” (Lencioni, 2012, p. 11).

Whether you are the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, the pastor of a medium-size church, or the president of a small volunteer group, Lencioni’s “The Advantage” is your road map to both the ins and outs of what healthy organizations do and the costly mistakes that unhealthy organizations make.

Reference

Lencioni, P. (2012). The advantage: Why organizational health trumps everything else in business. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Disclosure: Although I received Lencioni’s “The Advantage” as a complimentary gift, my review and recommendation were given as if I had purchased it.

Filed Under: Attitudes & Emotions, Coaching, Coaching Psychology, Executive Coaching, Happy & Unhappy, Health & Wellness, Incivility, Leadership, Meaningful Work, Occupational Health Psychology, Organizational Psychology, Stress, Teams, Training & Development Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Overreliance on Computer May Leave You Ill-Suited for High-Trust Jobs

2012 March 21 By

“Stereotypes – Computer Nerd” by Edward Miller

Many of us have seen, heard, or read about the computer geek who is so consumed about interacting with his computer that he forgets how to interact with other people in a real-world situation. Well, there’s actually research to confirm this! But what is really surprising is not just anecdotal but goes far beyond it. It is estimated that 20% of all digital natives* satisfy the clinical criteria for pathological Internet use (Mullen, 2011).

*Digital natives: collectively include the youngest of the 50 million members of Generation X (i.e., Americans born between 1964 and 1980), the members of Generation Y (or “millennials,” born between 1981 and 2000), and those born since 2001.

Citing research studies supporting the notion that developing minds are highly susceptible to external influences and that “certain digital activity (e.g., electronic gaming) can suppress and temporarily turn off the frontal lobe in young brains, the region responsible for cognitive and sensory integration and decision making” (p. 2014), Mullen maintains that “long-term excessive electronic exposure can have severe consequences to the development of nonverbal communication skills, empathy, and interpersonal relations” (p. 2014).

The short of it is this: The neural pathways required to sharpen and polish the interpersonal skills, empathic capacities, and effective personal intuitions are frequently “left unstimulated and underdeveloped in digital natives” (Mullen, 2011, p. 2015).

Much of our human communication in a face-to-face (FtF) setting is nonverbal. Think about the facial expressions, hand gestures, and other nonverbal cues we send out and receive from others while we’re talking. It is not surprising, then, to learn that those who spend a prolonged period of time interacting with other human beings through computer-mediated communication (CMC) miss out on the more subtle nuances of human interactions.

So what, you might ask? Consider this, digital natives who depend too much on computer-mediated communication (CMC) will tend to miss nonverbal cues indicating deception and insincerity. The ramifications, for the digital natives who are employees and for their employers, are that “many who have been raised in the Internet Age may be ill suited for high-trust professions involving the establishment of FtF relationships.”

As Mullen states: Those who have an overreliance on computer-mediated communication (CMC) will tend to miss out on much of the “real” message, have difficulty sorting out the “felt” from the “false” facial expressions. In essence, they have “no opportunity to pick up on nonverbal cues indicating deception, discomfort, doubt, or insincerity on the part of their interlocutor” (Mullen, 2011, p. 2023).

Neuroscientists and researchers argue that empathy (our ability to understand someone else’s point of view) is crucial to our moral reasoning, ethical sensitivity, social influence, and development of healthy interpersonal relationships. Our sense of empathy is developed through our accumulated face-to-face (FtF) interactions from the time we’re born through young adulthood. However, those who depend too much on computer-mediated communication (CMC) will tend to miss out on much of the “real” message and have difficulty sorting out the “felt” from the “false” facial expressions. In essence, when computer use is excessive and FtF interaction decreases, these individuals have “no opportunity to pick up on nonverbal cues indicating deception, discomfort, doubt, or insincerity on the part of their interlocutor” (Mullen, 2011, p. 2023).

“Today’s young digital natives may be ill-suited for jobs in high-trust fields such as diplomacy and sales, because prolonged exposure to computers is reconfiguring their neural networks and possibly diminishing their empathy and social skills, says John K. Mullen of Gonzaga University. With 55% of person-to-person communication being nonverbal (tone of voice, inflection), overreliance on computer-based interactions may hamper an individual’s ability to judge intent and influence others, Mullen suggests” (HBR Daily Stat).

Reference

Mullen, J. K. (2011). The impact of computer use on employee performance in high-trust professions: Re-examining selection criteria in the Internet age. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(8), 2009-2043. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00790.x

Filed Under: Attitudes & Emotions, Coaching, Coaching Psychology, Leadership, Meaningful Work, Occupational Health Psychology, Organizational Psychology, Teams, Training & Development Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

A Positive Mindset and Happy Attitude Help You Succeed at Work

2012 March 8 By

“happiness is” by Melissa Deakin

In his book, “The Happiness Advantage” (2010) Shawn Achor asserts that happy employees can actually help improve an organization’s bottom line. Achor says we often think that if we work hard and become successful, then we’ll be happy. But, he argues (convincingly I might add) that the formula is backward. Instead of success first and happiness second, it should be happiness first, and then success.

In a related Harvard Business Review article, Achor (2012) cites a meta-analysis of 225 research studies that found happy employees have about 31% higher productivity, 37% higher sales, and three times higher creativity! As he says in his book, “happiness leads to success in nearly every domain, including work, health, friendship, sociability, creativity, and energy” (Achor, 2010, p. 21).

The best part is that we can all adopt a more positive way of thinking and a happier attitude. The human brain is amazing because it possesses something scientists call neuroplasticity, a big word meaning that our brains are malleable—capable of changing and adapting throughout our lifetime.

One great tip Achor offers in his book is a technique called “The Tetris Effect,” a way to train the mind to concentrate on the positives instead of the negatives in our daily life. He recommends this:

Write down THREE good things in your job and life that happened today (do this each day). This forces your mind to look back on your day for positives, potentials, and possibilities. These three things can be simple, small things—things that made you smile or laugh, things that brought a sense of accomplishment or hope, etc. It doesn’t have to be anything deep or profound, only specific.

While this exercise might seem silly, Achor (2010) cited a research study that found people who “wrote down three good things each day for a week were happier and less depressed at the one-month, three-month, and six-month follow-ups” (p. 101). That’s incredible!

The lesson is this: The better we become at scanning our world for good things to jot down, the more good things we’ll see, by habit. To help you stick to this exercise, pick the same time each day to do this.

References

Achor, S. (2012). Positive intelligence: Three ways individuals can cultivate their own sense of well-being and set themselves up to succeed. Harvard Business Review, 90(1/2), 100-102.

Achor, S. (2010). The happiness advantage: The seven principles of positive psychology that fuel success and performance at work. New York: Crown Publishing Group.

Filed Under: Attitudes & Emotions, Coaching, Coaching Psychology, Executive Coaching, Happy & Unhappy, Health & Wellness, Leadership, Meaningful Work, Occupational Health Psychology, Organizational Psychology, Stress, Teams, Training & Development Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

The 5 Whys (and Some Limitations)

2012 February 7 By

“Why” by Willbryantplz

I came across this video on the Harvard Business Review website called “The 5 Whys.” Sometimes, a video helps explains an idea better/clearer than just written words alone. However, in oversimplifying a concept, we may sometimes leave out a critical analysis of its weaknesses as well as devising strategies to address them.

The 5 Whys or asking why a problem exists five times is borrowed from the Toyota production system (mentioned in the book “The Toyota Way”). The idea is to get to the root cause, by going deeper with each “Why?”, of what caused something to fail (whether it’s a server crash or product that doesn’t work) and then fix that root cause.

“Behind every seemingly technical problem is actually a human problem waiting to be found.” -Eric Ries, entrepreneur-in-residence at Harvard Business School

Had the video used a more interactive graphics that simulates/moves as the speaker is talking, I think that would be even better. That said, here’s the link to that video (sorry, there was no link on HBR to the flash video for WordPress).

5 Whys: Ask 5 Times (here’s an example from Eric’s April 2010 post):

  1. A new release broke a key feature for customers. Why? Because a particular server failed.
  2. Why did the server fail? Because an obscure subsystem was used in the wrong way.
  3. Why was it used in the wrong way? The engineer who used it didn’t know how to use it properly.
  4. Why didn’t he know? Because he was never trained.
  5. Why wasn’t he trained? Because his manager doesn’t believe in training new engineers, because they are “too busy.”

Nothing is a perfect system and the 5 Whys is no exception. In fact, the more I think about asking “why” the more I think back to my time in undergrad studying philosophy. If we’re not careful, we can easily fall into the trap of asking an endless series of hypothetical/conceptual whys with no pragmatic solutions (this was the reason why I switched from philosophy to psychology).

Anderson (2009) had this to say:

“Under a 5 Whys approach, it is possible to get to root causes in a relatively short period of time. However. . .ease of use and speed also need to be balanced with the risk of failure from recurrence of the problem should the 5 Whys fail to find the true root cause.”

Here is Anderson’s critique of the 5 Whys (in his own words):

  • Using 5 Whys doesn’t always lead to root cause identification when the cause is unknown.
  • An assumption underlying 5 Whys is that each presenting symptom has only one sufficient cause. This is not always the case and a 5 Whys analysis may not reveal jointly sufficient causes that explain a symptom.
  • The success of 5 Whys is to some degree contingent upon the skill with which the method is applied; if even one Why has a bad or meaningless answer, the whole procedure can be thrown off.
  • The (5 Whys) method isn’t necessarily repeatable; three different people applying 5 Whys to the same problem may come up with three totally different answers.

Anderson points out that it’s extremely important to understand the difference between root causes and causal factors. “Causal factors are those factors that contribute to the occurrence of a problem, but are not necessarily the initiating cause of a problem—the root cause. Therefore, causal factors and chains need to be analyzed further to determine their root causes.”

“A robust problem-solving method must be adept at not only identifying a problem’s causal factors, but equally adept at uncovering the root causes that underpin the causal factors.” -Stuart Anderson, president of Kaizen Solutions Inc.

References

Anderson, S. (December, 2009). Quality Digest – Root Cause Analysis: Addressing Some Limitations of the 5 Whys. Retrieved from http://www.qualitydigest.com/inside/fda-compliance-news/root-cause-analysis-addressing-some-limitations-5-whys.html

HBR – The 5 Whys
http://blogs.hbr.org/video/2012/02/the-5-whys.html

HBR – The Five Whys for Start-Ups
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/04/the_five_whys_for_startups.html

Filed Under: Coaching, Executive Coaching, Leadership, Organizational Psychology, Teams, Training & Development Tagged With: , , , , ,

Distracted Doctoring is a Workplace Safety Issue

2012 January 17 By

“Surgery” by Army Medicine

I came across a fascinating article (Richtel, 2011) posted on the New York Times. The article talked about doctors, nurses, and other hospital staff who are distracted by texting, surfing the web, doing online shopping, and/or using social networks (e.g., Facebook).

The NY Times article said that the unintended consequence of depending on computers and smartphones to access patient data, drug information, and patient care resources is that doctors and nurses are now fixated on these devices and not their patients, even during critical care (such as during an operation).

Examples include a neurosurgeon who, instead of focusing on the surgery, was making a personal phone call or a nurse who was checking airfares during surgery. Forget distracted driving, let’s talk about distracted doctoring!

Results from an October 2010 online survey posted on a perfusion* listserv and forum revealed that use of a cell phone during the performance of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) was reported by 55.6% of perfusionists, and sending text messages while performing CPB was acknowledged by 49.2% (Smith, Darling, & Searles, 2011).

*In basic terms, cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) refers to using a heart-lung machine to take over the function of the heart and lungs during surgery and maintain blood and oxygen flow throughout the body.

Ironically, while many perfusionists believed that cell phone use raises significant safety issues when operating the heart-lung machine, the majority of them have used a cell phone while performing this activity.

According to the Institute of Medicine,

  • Between 44,000 to 98,000 Americans die as a result of medical errors every year.
  • Medication-related mistakes for people who are hospitalized cost about $2 billion annually.
  • Medical mistakes/errors kill more Americans per year than breast cancer, AIDS, or motor vehicle accidents.

The NY Times article summed this up well:

“Doctors and medical professionals have always faced interruptions from beepers and phones, and multitasking is simply a fact of life for many medical jobs. What has changed, doctors say, especially younger ones, is that they face increasing pressure to interact with their devices.”

Just as in distracted driving, one might ask the rhetorical question:

“What is so important that it just can’t wait until after you’re finished?” Or “What’s so important that you can’t hold off until after performing the operation?”

References

Institute of Medicine. The Chasm in Quality: Select Indicators from Recent Reports Retrieved from http://mem.iom.edu/?id=14991

Richtel, M. (December, 2011). As Doctors Use More Devices, Potential for Distraction Grows. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/health/as-doctors-use-more-devices-potential-for-distraction-grows.html

Smith, T., Darling, E., & Searles, B. (2011). 2010 Survey on cell phone use while performing cardiopulmonary bypass. Perfusion, 26(5), 375-380. doi:10.1177/0267659111409969

Filed Under: Health & Wellness, Occupational Health Psychology, Teams, Training & Development, Workplace Safety Tagged With: , , , ,

charity: water – Water Changes Everything

2011 December 30 By

Water Changes Everything

I want to wish all visitors and loyal readers of WorkplacePsychology.Net a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Instead of doing a wrap-up of posts for 2011, I want to talk about water. Yes, water. As many loyal visitors to this blog already know, I am very passionate about charity and philanthropy (remember it’s not how much you give, but that you give). In April 2010, I wrote about the World Food Programme (WFP), and in August 2011 I talked about its social media initiative called WeFeedback.

Several days ago I stumbled upon a new charity program that I’m adding to my growing list of charities that I support. They include World Food Programme, Fisher Center for Alzheimer’s Research Foundation, and now, charity: water. I always try to do research on charities before donating because there are many that are ineffective and poorly run organizations. You might find these two articles helpful: “Charity Navigator’s Top 10 Best Practices of Savvy Donors” and Kiplinger’s 6 Things You Need to Know About Giving to Charity. By the way, I have no relationship with any of these charities, other than as a donor.

charity: water is a non-profit organization that brings clean and safe drinking water to people in developing nations. They raise awareness about the 1 billion people living without life’s most basic need, water. What I especially like is that because operating costs are covered separately by private donors, 100% of public donations (even the credit card fees from your donation) go directly to fund clean water projects in developing countries. Incredible!

Why water? Here are some eye-opening information from the charity: water website:

  • Clean water alone can reduce water-related deaths by 21%.
  • In Africa alone, people collectively spend 40 billion hours every year walking for water.
  • Kids in developing countries spend 3+ hours each day collecting water instead of going to school.
  • Women are twice as likely to walk for water than men. The hours spent walking and the resulting diseases from contaminated sources keep them from getting an education, earning a much-needed extra income and taking care of their families.
  • Without latrines or water for washing, many girls drop out of school when they hit puberty.

Of course, charity programs are most effective (in my opinion) when they are able to empower those affected to take charge and take care of their own needs. charity: water does this by working with their local partners to survey, analyze and test solutions in the field that can have real impact on the communities they serve. These partners carefully choose each water solution based on the area’s water availability, culture, economy and geography. When possible, these partners try to involve the community in the construction process. They implement sanitation solutions, provide hygiene training and form committees to handle project maintenance. charity: water projects are not “complete” until there is local ownership. charity: water wants “to make sure that the community is engaged and empowered to care for their own water project for years to come.”

For those interested, mycharity: water is an online fundraising platform of charity: water where anyone can start a campaign to raise money for clean water projects. You fundraise or donate on mycharity: water. 100% of your money is sent to the field. Finally, when projects are complete, charity: water proves it by collecting data about your mycharity: water campaign (including GPS coordinates and photos) and then sends that data back to you. Wow!

These are remarkable and compelling reasons why charity: water gets my support.

Growing up in Dallas, Texas and seeing so much wealth, materialism, self-indulgence, and self-entitlement, I decided that rather than giving more “stuff” to my niece and nephew (who already have too many things) for the holidays, I would to donate to charity: water on their behalf.

I did just that and printed out a nice, simple card (above) and gave it to them. I explained that it’s because I love them so much that’s why I’m not giving them more “stuff.” They told me they liked it but that lasted for a good 20 seconds, and they both returned to playing with their new tech gadgets and video games.

Scott Harrison, the founder of charity: water, put this idea into practice when he threw a party for his 31st birthday. Rather than bringing gifts, he asked his friends to bring him $20 instead, and he used 100% of that money to fund water projects for a refugee camp in Northern Uganda.

Even though my nephew and niece do not understand or appreciate the significance of my donation to charity: water, my hope is that one day they’ll realize just how lucky they are to have plenty of clean water to drink, let alone all the material excesses they possess and the extravagant lifestyle to which they have become so accustomed to living.

In the U.S., every Christmas we hear radio stations play (ad nauseam) Mariah Carey’s “All I Want For Christmas.” Now don’t get me wrong, it’s a great song about love and about not wanting a lot for Christmas because “all I want for Christmas is you.” The song makes me feel all warm and really puts me in the holiday mood.

But how can I (or we) feel warm and sing along to the lyrics when there are people in the world who don’t have enough food to eat or clean water to drink? During this holiday season, won’t you please consider a small gift to provide food (via World Food Programme) or clean water (via charity: water)? To donate to charity: water please visit their website.

As 2011 ends and 2012 begins, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude for your loyal readership and wish each of you health and happiness in the new year.

Steve Nguyen
WorkplacePsychology.Net

Filed Under: Health & Wellness Tagged With: ,

Virtual Workplaces and Telework

2011 December 21 By

“Railay Beach Office” by EvanLovely

I saw an article on Time magazine’s website today called, “The Beginning of the End of the 9-to-5 Workday?” (Schawbel, 2011). The article maintained that companies need to embrace workplace-flexibility programs. The author of the article stated that “between new technology and global workplace dynamics, companies are implementing flexible work arrangements for everyone.” The article also quoted a flexibility-strategy leader who said: “This notion of an eight-hour day is rapidly disappearing, simply because we work so virtually and globally.”

While this all sounds great, several important caveats were left out of the article. In this post, I’ll delve into the many terms that cover virtual work. I’ll also discuss trends (there’s an interesting change for 2010). Finally, I’ll talk about some important things to consider for both the employees who telework or who might consider telework, as well as for the organizations that currently have telework or might be considering it in the near future.

TERMINOLOGIES

According to WorldatWork (2009), there are several different, but related terms to describe virtual work. These include:

Telecommute: To either periodically or regularly perform work for one’s employer from home or another remote location.

Telework: To perform all of one’s work either from home or another remote location, either for an employer or through self-employment.

Employee Telecommuter: A regular employee (full or part time) who works at home or another remote location at least one day per month during normal business hours.

Contract Telecommuter: An individual who works on a contract basis for an employer or is self-employed, and who works at home or at a remote location at least one day per month during normal business hours.

Employed Telecommuters: Individuals (either employees or contractors) working at home or remotely at least one day per month during normal business hours; the sum of “employee telecommuters” and “contract telecommuters.”

STATISTICS AND TRENDS

According to WorldatWork’s Telework Trendlines (2009):

  1. More Americans, and a higher percentage of Americans, telecommuted in 2008.
  2. Occasional telecommuting is on the rise.
  3. The most common locations for remote work are home, car and a customer’s place of business.
  4. Today’s telecommuters are most often 40-year-old male college graduates.

The number of Americans who telecommute or work remotely at least once per month increased between 2006 and 2008. In 2006, approximately 8 percent of Americans telecommuted at least one day per month; in 2008, that number increased to just over 11 percent. In the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles, as many as one in 10 workers are part-time telecommuters. In the Greater Washington Area, more than 450,000 employees telecommuted at least one day a week in 2007, 42.5 percent more than in 2004, according to a survey by Commuter Connections, a regional network of transportation organizations coordinated by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. The percentage of employees who telework surged to 19 percent from 13 percent during that time period (Kotkin, 2008). In the five years from 2003 to 2008, the total number of teleworkers rose 43% to 33.7 million Americans, most just part-time (WorldatWork, 2009).

WHY IS TELECOMMUTING INCREASING?

This trend toward more telecommuting is due to a combination of factors, including:

  • The increase in number of high-speed and wireless Internet access making it less costly and more productive to work remotely
  • Improvements in virtual workspace technologies (Vickers, 2007)
  • Rising fuel and commuting costs
  • The trend by employers to embrace work-life balance concepts (WorldatWork, 2009)
  • Government policies influencing the trend. In 2000, the U.S. Congress ordered federal agencies to allow employees to work from home “to the maximum extent possible without diminished employee performance” (Vickers, 2007 citing Bridgeford).

TELECOMMUTING DECLINED IN 2010

It is quite interesting to note that, according to WorldatWork (2011), telework in 2010 declined.

“For the first time since WorldatWork began studying the telework phenomenon in 2003, the number of teleworkers has dropped. The total number of people who worked from home or remotely for an entire day at least once a month in 2010 was 26.2 million, down from 33.7 million in 2008.”

The Telework 2011 Special Report (WorldatWork, 2011) stated that the decline is likely due a combination of factors: fewer Americans in the workforce over all due to high unemployment, higher anxiety surrounding job security, and lack of awareness of telework options.

THINGS TO CONSIDER

Six crucial aspects of the next level of development for teleworking are:

(1) Overcoming the teleworking stigma of no face-to-face time. A Futurestep poll of 1,320 global executives in 71 countries found that 61% of senior managers think telecommuters are not as likely as conventional office workers to be promoted, despite the fact that over three-quarters also think teleworkers are equally productive as (42%) or more productive than (36%) their office-dwelling colleagues (Vickers, 2007 citing Bridgeford). Managers might recognize that teleworkers are productive, but they are still accustomed toward face-to-face interactions. Therefore adapting to the world of telework requires both managerial and organizational adjustments.

(2) Employment screening and training of teleworkers (Vickers, 2007).

(3) Equipping management with the teleworking mindset and management skill sets to properly and effectively lead virtual teams and teleworkers (Vickers, 2007; Cagle, 2008).

(4) Teleworker’s own initiative, responsibilities, and accountability (Cagle, 2008). Interestingly though, Cagle discovered that, “a number of studies, including one performed by Sun in 2007 showed that one of the older stereotypes of teleworkers as people who would tend to do a little work then skip to some other activity, watch TV or surf the web actually proved to be something of a myth – for the most part most teleworkers actually tend to put in longer days working than they would in the office.”

(5) Safeguarding business, customer, and personal information and ensuring a high level of protection from theft or loss – from computer viruses to stolen laptops (Cagle, 2008).

(6) The last factor to consider is legal regulation. For example, where does a teleworker work? The answer will have implications for states with income taxes (Cagle, 2008).

Suggestion: With regards to organizational climate and culture, it behooves organizations to create both a climate (perception/feeling/affect) as well as culture (what’s written down/effective/values) to clearly outline support for and understanding of face-to-face and teleworkers (Landy & Conte, 2007).

Note: Information for this post was adapted from an assignment I completed for a class.

References

Cagel, K. (2008). Is Telework the New Face of the Agile Workforce? O’Reilly. Retrieved from http://news.oreilly.com/2008/08/is-telework-the-face-of-the-ag.html.

Kotkin, J. (2008). Skipping the Drive: Energy Costs May Fuel the Growing Telecommuting Trend. The Washington Independent. Retrieved from http://washingtonindependent.com/100/skipping-the-drive.

Landy, F. J. & Conte, J. M. (2007). Work in the 21st Century: An Introduction to Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Schawbel, D. (December, 2011). The Beginning of the End of the 9-to-5 Workday? Time Moneyland. Retrieved from http://moneyland.time.com/2011/12/21/the-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-9-to-5-workday/

Vickers, M. (2007). Adapting to Teleworker Trends. American Management Association’s Moving Ahead Newsletter, 2(10). Retrieved from http://www.amanet.org/training/articles/Adapting-to-Teleworker-Trends.aspx

WorldatWork (2009). Telework Trendlines 2009. Retrieved from http://www.workingfromanywhere.org/news/Trendlines_2009.pdf

WorldatWork (2011). Telework 2011: A WorldatWork Special Report. Retrieved from http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimLink?id=53034

Filed Under: Happy & Unhappy, Health & Wellness, Meaningful Work, Occupational Health Psychology, Organizational Psychology, Stress, Teams, Training & Development Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Using Reappraisal to Handle an Angry Face

2011 November 25 By


“Thinking” by Hans Kristian Aas

An interesting study by a team of researchers (Jens Blechert, Gal Sheppes, Carolina Di Tella, Hants Williams, and James J. Gross at Stanford University) has found that when you tell yourself (i.e. reappraise) that someone is mean to you is simply having a bad day, you may be able to fend off bad feelings.

Reappraisal isn’t anything new. It goes by the name of reframing and is used by cognitive-behavioral psychologists to help clients reframe a distressing problem using a more positive perspective, making it a more a manageable one.

Professor Gross discussed this idea of reappraisal in the book “Developing Your Conflict Competence” by Craig Runde and Tim Flanagan. In it, he talked to one of the authors about using cognitive reappraisal by challenging the way you initially interpret things you see. “Cognitive reappraisal involves using alternative interpretations of the meanings about situations” (Runde & Flanagan, 2010, p. 50).

Runde and Flanagan (2010) said: “Reappraisal (also known as reframing) involves a cognitive process through which the facts underlying a conflict are reexamined for nonthreatening, alternative explanations” (p. 49). Incredibly, brain imaging seems to support this and indicate that, with practice in reappraising/reframing your thinking, your negative feelings will be reduced while more positive feelings will surface (Ochsner, Bunge, Gross, & Gabrieli, 2002).

Ask yourself the following:

  • “Is it the only way of seeing the situation?”
  • “Are there rational, nonthreatening ways of understanding the matter?”

In the study by Blechert and colleagues, participants were shown a series of angry faces and the reactions of the participants were assessed. When participants were told that the angry faces had a bad day, but that it had nothing to do with the participants personally, the participants were able to fend off bad feelings the next time they saw that same angry face. However, when the participants were told to only feel the emotions brought on by seeing an angry face, they remained upset by that face when it was shown to them again.

Bottom line: Blechert says, “If you’re trained with reappraisal, and you know your boss is frequently in a bad mood, you can prepare yourself to go into a meeting” and not be negatively affected by your boss’ bad mood.

References

Association for Psychological Science. (November, 2011). Press Release. The Brain Acts Fast To Reappraise Angry Faces. http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/the-brain-acts-fast-to-reappraise-angry-faces.html

Ochsner, K. N., Bunge, S. A., Gross, J. J., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2002). Rethinking feelings: An fMRI study of the cognitive regulation of emotion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(8), 1215-1229. doi:10.1162/089892902760807212

Runde & Flanagan, (2010). Developing your conflict competence: A hands-on guide for leaders, managers, facilitators, and teams. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Weisul, K. (November 2011). How to handle an angry boss. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-57329138/how-to-handle-an-angry-boss/

Filed Under: Attitudes & Emotions, Coaching, Coaching Psychology, Executive Coaching, Happy & Unhappy, Health & Wellness, Incivility, Meaningful Work, Occupational Health Psychology, Stress, Teams, Training & Development Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Employees Misbehave When They Are Bored

2011 October 22 By

Bruursemaa, Kesslerb, and Spector (2011) conducted a study in which they found that employees who were bored are more likely to also misbehave. Previously, counterproductive work behavior (CWB) were viewed as made up of five types: abuse against others, production deviance, sabotage, withdrawal, and theft.

In this study, the researchers added a sixth type, horseplay. Bruursemaa, Kesslerb, and Spector (2011) studied responses from 211 participants recruited via email in North America. They discovered that being prone to boredom (boredom proneness) and job boredom was strongly associated with certain types of counterproductive work behavior (CWB).

This is actually not surprising to me. In my previous job consulting with educators about classroom management, special education issues, and students with behavioral problems, one of the first things I do when I observe students in the classroom is to watch what they do when they are bored. It never fails because once boredom kicks in, whether it’s because the task is too easy, too hard, uninteresting, etc., the student will almost certainly find a way to misbehave.

Reference

Bruursemaa, K., Kesslerb, S. R., & Spector, P. E. (2011). Bored employees misbehaving: The relationship between boredom and counterproductive work behavior. Work & Stress, 25(2), 93-107. doi:10.1080/02678373.2011.596670

Filed Under: Attitudes & Emotions, Coaching, Coaching Psychology, Executive Coaching, Happy & Unhappy, Meaningful Work, Organizational Psychology, Teams, Training & Development Tagged With: , , , , , ,

In Memoriam of John N. Jonsson, Baylor University’s Emeritus Professor of Religion

2011 October 13 By

I was looking through the Fall 2011 issue of Baylor Magazine, a magazine sent to all students and alumni of Baylor University and saw the obituary for Dr. John N. Jonsson (1925-2011), a professor I had for a class in world religions back in 1992. He was and always will be, at least in my mind, the Jack Palance-esque professor. He was tall and had a strong physique. He also had a death-grip of a handshake. In between teaching us about the different religions of the world, Dr. Jonsson would do one arm push-ups in class. I think he was already in his late 60′s at the time! But it wasn’t his physical strength or classroom theatrics that caught my attention, rather, it was his words.

I still remember what he told us:

“You cannot help people if you’re standing over them and kicking them.”

It’s simple really. If you put yourself above others, you will never understand their plight and, thus, will never be effective in working with them to assist them in resolving their problems. His teachings transcended religion. Instead, it was about respecting others and seeking justice and fairness.

The short tribute to Dr. Jonsson in Baylor Magazine paints a picture of a man who not only talked the talk, but walked it. The son of Scandinavian parents, he was born in Natal, South Africa. Dr. Jonsson was a South African pastor and scholar who was actively involved in protesting apartheid. In 1985, he was the only Baptist minister to sign the Kairos Document (it called on all churches to demand that the government gave equal rights to all South Africans). In 1989, he was one of a few white citizens of South Africa invited to attend the first Conference for a Democratic Future in South Africa, which led to the release of Nelson Mandela from prison.

Dr. Jonsson died May 26, 2011 at his home in South Africa. He was 86. Although I only had him for one class and it was 19 years ago, I was touched by his teaching, his kindness and sense of humor, and most of all, his passion for justice. I will miss him.

Links

Baylor Magazine (Fall 2011). Alumni News & Updates. John N. Jonsson (p. 62). Also retrieved from http://www.baylor.edu/alumni/magazine/1001/news.php?action=story&story=101593

Baylor Mourns Death of Emeritus Professor of Religion John Jonsson. Retrieved from http://www.baylor.edu/pr/news.php?action=story&story=94875

Further Reflections on John N. Jonsson (1925-2011). Retrieved from http://pilgrimpathways.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/further-reflections-on-john-n-jonsson-1925-2011/

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Is Internet Job Search Effective?

2011 October 11 By

A new study indicated that using the Internet to look for a job (Internet job search or IJS) can help reduce unemployment time. Contrary to a 2004 study, which found that using the Internet was an ineffective tool or that those seeking work were not as qualified, Kuhn and Mansour’s (2011) study revealed that using the Internet to look for work cuts the time spent unemployed by an average of 25%.

The researchers explained that the reason for this shift is due to major changes with the Internet since the 1990s. From 1998 to 2000, 24% of young people used the Internet to search for work. However, during 2008 to 2009, that number exploded to 74%.

One reason for the startling difference is that, whereas those who turned to the Internet a decade ago oftentimes did not have personal contacts, today people who have and use their personal contacts online see their chances of finding work dramatically improve.

Another reason is due to improvements in the job sites/boards themselves, which are better designed and much more tailored to individual users and their specific needs.

Finally, and most obviously, the Internet has grown at such an exponential rate (its overall penetration and connectivity) that an Internet job search today yields a better result than a decade ago.

Reference

Kuhn, P., & Mansour, H. (2011). Is Internet Job Search Still Ineffective? Retrieved from http://ftp.iza.org/dp5955.pdf.

Filed Under: Happy & Unhappy, Meaningful Work, Stress Tagged With: ,
« Older Posts