Click here to read the original blog in full on the Management Today website - Psychology at Work Blog, a blog page about the psychology of business,management and leadership written by Pearn Kandola.
At this time of year the ringing of the tills in shopping centres is almost as loud as the chiming of Christmas bells and the tinkling of Santa's sleigh. Despite the recession we are predicted to spend £48.9 billion over the festive period this year. However, despite the old adage 'money can't buy you love', some research I came across this week shows that money may just be able to buy you happiness.
Although most studies of happiness find that having more money doesn't necessarily make you happier, how you spend your money does appear to have an influence. This research[1] found that spending money on other people has a more positive impact on our happiness than if we spend the money on ourselves. This was found to be the case across the country, which throws into questions the stereotypes about tight-fisted Yorkshire folk. Even though when I go Christmas shopping I tend to buy one present for myself for every gift I buy, I shouldn't find this too surprising. Altruism; the good feeling we get when we do something for someone else, can and does make us feel more positive emotions.
So, for those of you who haven't finished your Christmas shopping yet, don't think of it as a chore; a hellish experience full of thronging crowds and stressful decisions. Think of it as an opportunity to make yourself (and others if you get the right gift!) feel happy - albeit after you've finished making stressful decisions - within the thronging crowds! And, in the spirit of the recession, if that doesn't work, you can always just make do with a kind deed for someone this Christmas. I suspect random acts of kindness work in exactly the same way, only cheaper, with fewer crowds and guaranteed to keep you feeling good until New Year.
[1] Spending Money on Others Promotes Happiness, Elizabeth W. Dunn 1 ,* , Lara B. Aknin 1 and Michael I. Norton 2
Although not the sort of topic I usually write a blog on (I don’t usually like to advertise my slightly suspect choice of weekend viewing) the furore over this week’s episode of the ‘X Factor’ struck a real chord with me - from a psychological perspective.
According to news reports, fans have been ‘up in arms’ over judge, Cheryl Cole’s, decision making. For those of you who don’t watch the programme, one of the contestants, Cher Lloyd, had a very poor final audition, and yet still ended up going through to the live finals. On the other hand, Gamu Nhengu, whose performance had been consistently excellent, was rejected.
Normally this kind of reality TV injustice wouldn’t bother me. This instance, however, strikes at the heart of the issues that we, and all organisations, face in selection. Making the best decision should be simple. In reality, our ability to make rational and objective decisions is often compromised by our unconscious bias.
The ‘similar-to-me’ effect is well documented in the research. Basically, we tend to like and respond most favourably to people whom we perceive to be similar to us. This may be a physical similarity, a personality characteristic or just from being in the same ‘group’ e.g. being fans of the same football team, having studied at the same university etc. Basically, it’s your brain’s short-cut logic telling you: ‘well I’m a good singer/accountant/manager… and they are like me. So they must also be a good singer/ accountant/manager’.
I’m not saying for a second that Cheryl deliberately chose Cher because they look alike. The point is that these effects - and our reactions - are unconscious. I do, however, think that it would have influenced her decision.
Cheryl Cole of course is not alone. We’re all subject to the ‘similar-to-me’ effect and many other unconscious biases. It is part of the human condition. Although these are short cuts that speed up our decision making process, they aren’t helpful in making considered, meritocratic decisions. This applies to any organisation when making people decisions, whether hiring, promoting, making redundant or even appraising at the end of the year.
So whilst I hope many of you won’t be losing much sleep over Cheryl’s X Factor decision, I’d encourage you all to think carefully when you’re making decisions about people at work. Recognising potential bias and focusing only on the things that matter for a decision is vital for the best outcome – not only for talent show judges, but for all of us in our everyday, working lives.
En disant aux Roms de France de retourner « chez eux », la France a certainement durci sa politique d'accueil vis-à-vis des Roms dénoués de leur pays.
Le point le plus sensible dans le débat entre Bruxelles et Paris est bien sur le fait de cibler une population ethnique pour la renvoyer de France alors que les frontières des pays de l'Union sont censées être ouvertes pour les différents états membres. Et ne pas le faire pour les autres sans papiers de France apparait comme du racisme (en témoigne le nombre d'articles parus dans la presse française, posant la question : « La France ; est-elle raciste ?»).
Pour Nicolas Sarkozy, il est clair qu'avec son niveau de popularité plus bas que jamais et la menace de Strauss-Kahn, cette démarche fait partie de sa tentative d'accumuler plus de voix avant l'élection de 2012 parmi l'électorat des plus à droites et des malcontents d'une gauche plus 'laissez faire'. Dans un état de crise cette tactique est bien conseillée.
Pourquoi ? Une crise économique créée de l'anxiété parmi les gens. Un sentiment d'insécurité s'installe provoquant chez les gens le besoin de protéger leurs intérêts personnels. Et ce, au détriment de la défense des gens qui sont censés être à l'extérieur d'un cercle de connexions relativement intime.
Pour l'homme cela se traduit par ses propres intérêts, sa famille, ses proches... finalement son « tribe » - les gens avec qui nous partageons des liens ou des caractéristiques.
Comme Tajfel nous l'a expliqué il y a très longtemps (e.g. 1971), il est très facile de créer des démarcations d'un tribe. C'est apparemment un besoin humain assez fondamental.
Peut être alors, y a-t-il un lien, entre la décision de l'UMP de lancer des politiques qui s'appuient sur la peur et le manque de confiance ou tout au moins sur le désintérêt (voir le commentaire de CNN la semaine dernière sur le peu de gens descendu dans la rue pour protester contre l'abus potentiel d'un droit de l'homme) de la populace pour les peuples considérés comme étant à l'extérieur de leur groupe et une période où le français(e) moyen(ne) se retrouve confronté à la baisse du pouvoir d'achat, à l'augmentation du chômage et au besoin de soutenir de sa famille.
Dans une telle conjoncture, quelle distance sépare l'égalité de la fraternité ?
Earlier this week, Labour leadership candidate Diane Abbott is quoted as saying public sector cuts have the "potential to set back race relations and black and ethnic minority communities by a generation." Specifically, she warned that a "last in, first out" approach to redundancies would hit black and female workers particularly hard, presumably given the nature of positive action in recent years. Aside from the "doom and gloom" feel to her statement, I broadly agree; accurate, objective and transparent assessment regardless of time in post is essential to ensuring fair and unbiased selection decisions.
The sad irony is that cutbacks are just as likely
to affect HR budgets as they will headcount and money available for objective assessment will be first to go.
So, where does this leave us?
Employee's perceptions of fairness at the current time will be particularly important. As companies look to reduce headcount, the process by which decisions are made over an individual's future with the organisation will have a significant impact on the subsequent performance of such individuals.
It is critical that organisations employ objective, valid, fair, inclusive and most importantly transparent selection procedures when looking at who is to stay and who, unfortunately, is to go.
Whether the approach is based on appraisal data, competency-based interviewing, assessment centres, or the like, organisations are morally obliged to ensure the process is objective, robust, based on justifiable criteria, inclusive of all groups, and above all cost effective.
Clearly, it is this last point that will resonate with most organisations feeling the pinch of recent governmental cuts. The knee-jerk reaction will be to cut all selection processes and go with a "last in, first out" approach. Unfortunately, by using such an approach, there is a significant risk of injecting bias associated with ill-defined criteria, inconsistent assessment processes and subjective interpretation of performance.
By extension, the apparent cost-saving of "streamlined" assessment is far outweighed by the longer term costs of unfair selection.
As my mum used to say, "do it right, or don't do it at all".
Feed
Earlier this week, Labour leadership candidate Diane Abbott is quoted as saying public sector cuts have the "