For the last eight weeks - and come to think of it, for the last several years - I have been watching the Apprentice and getting increasingly irritated with the prevailing view amongst the potential apprentices that it is "OK to be a git/b*****d/asshole...it's only business". Why?! Why is it seemingly acceptable to step on the throat of those around you as long as it is in the name of business success (and by "business success", read "making a quick profit")?
Well, paradoxically it seems as though we like them. Despite being self absorbed, arrogant, manipulative and having a grandiose sense of entitlement, we seem programmed to find such people fascinating - but only for a short time. Even though we know that they are self-centred, excessively dominant and potentially hostile, we are drawn to them like moths to a flame.
Psychological research in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Jan 2010) backs this up with some interesting findings. It seems as though those individuals with narcissistic traits (ego, vanity, conceit and selfishness - i.e. your archetypal apprentice wannabe) make excellent first impressions. Their sense of entitlement is admired and their charm, confidence, verbal fluency and ruthlessness win people over.
However, such traits will eventually be uncovered for what they are - style over substance. The power to influence, inspire and motivate others to follow your lead is a far more powerful trait and one that leads to lasting success. Consider the new slant to The Apprentice this year in which Lord Sugar is seeking a partner to start up a new business venture. Being nasty, selfish and manipulative may be the norm in larger corporations but they will certainly not help smaller businesses to grow. In fact, building close, caring relationships with your colleagues and customer base can be the deciding factor between long-term success and failure.
Lord Sugar would do well to consider whether he is in it for the 'quick buck' - in which case his narcissistic cronies will probably be ideal; or whether he wants to employ a leader who can win the hearts and minds of customers and staff alike. Time will tell, I guess.
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".
On paper, we would always say that politics comes ahead of presentation. But is this always the case?
In 1960, 66 million Americans watched the first ever televised presidential election debates in which Kennedy and Nixon locked horns. Such debates are now the cornerstone of heavily published campaign trails and can make or break a presidential candidate.
In the lead up to the next general election, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg will go head-to-head in a series of televised debates, the first of their kind in Britain. However, television can be a fickle friend: on the one hand, it allows politicians to figuratively 'kiss the baby's head' in every living room; yet on the other hand it can damn a candidate to a life-time of cringe-worthy re-runs on YouTube. So what are the lessons to be learnt from the history of televised debates, and particularly the psychology of appearance?
Let's take the Kennedy-Nixon debates. Kennedy's camp had been successful in preparing their man for the cameras. He was tanned and looked vibrant. Nixon, on the other hand, looked dour, frail and sweaty.
Following the debate, a commercial research firm surveyed listeners and viewers asking which candidate had won. Interestingly, they found that television viewers gave Kennedy the edge, while radio listeners preferred Nixon, despite the fact that, in substance, both candidates were closely matched. For TV viewers, it's probable that the power of appearance meant that style won over substance.
And the psychology? Basically, we are pretty awful at making objective decisions that exclude irrelevant data - such as attractiveness, height, dress sense, or whether someone has a nice tan and set of pearly-whites. To illustrate this point, consider these findings from psychological research.
It is well proven that initial impressions are powerful. When we see someone or something, we typically take around two seconds to form an unconscious judgement. Following this judgement, we then try to confirm this initial impression. Whilst such intuition can at times be accurate, it is also be significantly influenced by our own biases and prejudices.
As an example, height does not correlate with intelligence, judgement skills or ability to lead and motivate others. Anyone who, in the cold light of day, would argue that it does is likely to be treated with contempt. However, psychologists again have demonstrated that there is a correlation between height and seniority (read: success) within organisations. If height has nothing to do with the characteristics needed to be successful, then biases related to appearance must be a significant influencer.
Likewise, in court rooms, psychologists have persuasively shown that 'attractive' defendants are perceived as more credible, are acquitted more often and receive lighter sentences than less attractive counterparts.
In essence, we make quick and fairly basic decisions, typically subconsciously, in order to make sense of an incredibly complex world. However, our biases can play an equally significant role in clouding our judgement.
So what? Well of course Brown, Cameron and Clegg will be working hard to manage their appearance in the coming weeks - they have a team of advisors doing just that. The real issue lies with you, the voter. This is a simple but important reminder to be alert and wary of the power of appearance. Watch out for the tricks, the polish and the purple ties. And then listen to the real issues.
I, for one, will be trying to ignore that Brown looks like a sour-puss, Cameron looks like a toff and Clegg looks like...well...actually, what does he look like? No problem there then.
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has this week unveiled its new regime for governing what MPs can and cannot reasonably reclaim as expenses. Whilst in general the recommendations sound justified and sensible, it has left me a little confused over the decision to allow MPs to employ one family member as a way of achieving “value for money”.
This is not because I believe that there should be a blanket ban of employing spouses, more that the subject of the decision (and the subsequent debate) is irrelevant.
To ensure “value of money”, the onus is on the MP to recruit the right person for the job, regardless of who they are. Objective, fair and transparent selection has the greatest predictive validity and best return on investment. It is about ‘best fit’, not convenience or familial relationship.
Broadly, MPs should be considering the following:
Firstly, defining clear and justifiable criteria that have direct relevance to the requirements of the role.
Secondly, implementing an objective, transparent and robust assessment process to evaluate candidates’ skills and motivations against the criteria required.
In doing so, the chosen individual is far more likely to be committed and productive.
Whilst it is quite possible that the MP’s family member might very well be the best person for the job, stating that MPs can employ ‘Cousin Nick’ because he will deliver “value for money” is a fallacy. Personally, I’d rather they spend the money on duck-houses; it’s cheaper in the long run.
The relationship between money and well-being is unusual. The common wisdom is that the more we have the happier we become. However, consider this analogy. Over the Christmas period, it is tradition to stuff our faces with turkey and chocolates until we feel satisfied and happy (and probably sick). Come January though, I for one will be glad to see the back of it and will avoid probably avoid eating the stuff for several months...alright, maybe not the chocolates, but you get my point. As humans, we tend to consume something to the point where our needs are met and then we take a break.
Not so, it seems, with money. To quote Adam Smith, the founder of modern economics, "the desire for food is limited in every man by the narrow capacity of his stomach. But the desire of [money] seems to have no limit or certain boundary."
Economists and psychologists have been wrestling with the relationship between money and happiness for decades. Humans devote much of their time and energy to earning it, seemingly motivated by the belief that money will have a substantial impact on their overall life satisfaction. However, given the current economic crisis is leading most organisations to freeze pay increases and withdraw bonus packages, this is undoubtedly going to lead to feelings of frustration and anxiety.
Research shows that people tend to drastically overestimate the impact that income has on well-being. For example, recent research in the Journal of Positive Psychology, found that people are notoriously bad at predicting the levels of happiness associated with differing levels of income. It is true that individuals who live on or below the poverty line tend to display lower levels of well-being - i.e. it hurts to be cold, hungry and tired. However, once people have achieved a threshold level of income to buy their way out of hardship, then our prediction that money and happiness grow together breaks down. Studies actually show that increases in income have increasingly less of an impact on actual levels of happiness.
So, why do we hold on to the erroneous belief that more money means more happiness? Why do we continue to stuff our pockets when we would not continue to stuff our faces?
The answer to these questions will be a continuing topic of debate amongst economists, psychologists, philosophers and...well, everyone for many years to come. However, what I do know is that people tend to attribute too much emphasis to this one variable, and overlook the plethora of other variables that positively impact global life satisfaction (love, friendship, esteem, variety, achievement, challenge, recognition...the list goes on). Perhaps the festive period is a chance for all of us to take stock and consider what really matters (in between mouthfuls of turkey).
Feed
Time for a rant...
Earlier this week, Labour leadership candidate Diane Abbott is quoted as saying public sector cuts have the "
