I'll start with a stereotype: when it comes to Valentine's day, in my experience, it is the women who spend time searching for the perfect gift and a thoughtful card, and it is the men who mumble under their breath about the 'commercialisation' of Valentine's, whilst paying through the nose for a last minute bunch of red roses.
But I recently came across an interesting piece of research on gift giving which might shed some more light on this. In 2008, Dunne at el looked at gift giving in relationships and differences between genders.
Interestingly, they found that women who gave men poor gifts were perceived less positively than those who gave better gifts. No real surprises there then! However, when the experiment was reversed, women were relatively unaffected by whether the quality of the gift was good or bad. Their perception of the man giving the gift didn't change.
So, is the stereotype true? Could it be that women buy nice gifts as they know/have experienced the consequences of poor ones? Have men come to realise that for most women the quality just doesn't matter? Before the male readers strike Valentine's gifts off the 'to do' list, read on...
These results were only short term and they didn't measure the longer term impact on ongoing relationships. What we know in general is that although good gifts don't necessarily make a relationship better, poor gifts can have a negative impact. Poor gifts can highlight how different we are to our partner and can, therefore, damage relationships ("he/she just doesn't understand me ...")
So, when you're picking your Valentine's gift this year, take a second to think about if you're in it for the short term or the long haul - and choose wisely!
This week is anti bullying week and while the media has focused on the plight of children who are bullied at school, the unfortunate fact is that bullying behaviour doesn't stop after GCSEs.
Unison estimate up to five million workers are bullied at work each year and developments in technology have meant that 'cyber bullying' is on the increase. A survey of over 1000 employees found that one in five had been bullied by e-mail, and one in twenty by text message.
From a psychological view point this isn't surprising. Research shows that people are more likely to lie, be rude and aggressive when they are on the phone versus being face to face - there is more distance and greater anonymity. In cyber space the distance and anonymity is increased further; bullies can't see or hear the distress of their victims, nor gauge the impact of their actions.
In addition, the technology involved in cyber bullying means that the impact on the victim can be much greater than more traditional forms of bullying:
The speed and ease with which we can communicate with a large number of people means that the bully's message can be delivered to devastating effect. For example, in one company a revealing photograph of a worker was circulated to all its staff via e-mail; this just simply wouldn't have been possible in most organisations 25 years ago.
The blurry lines between home and work created by social networking sites, phones and blackberries mean that people can easily be reached when not physically at work.
However, technology also presents an opportunity to the victims of bullying for increased control; e-mails, texts and web posts can all be saved and documented, as evidence in cases of bullying. On social networking sites such as Facebook, there are options to report abuse, delete inappropriate comments and block individual's access.
We need to ensure that these technological advancements are working for victims of bullying, rather than against them. For business, this means understanding cyber bullying, having a clear plan for addressing it and being willing to take action. This won't necessarily be easy; with the blurred boundaries of home and work, this will involve some difficult conversations about where organisational involvement should start and end. But if we don't take action bullying will continue to plague peoples' lives.
I will confess to watching last week's 'Derren Brown' programme, where he predicted the winning lottery numbers, with some intrigue. As a psychologist, friends and family ask (with a wink and a smile) whether I know how he does these things and, indeed, whether I might be able to do the same? (Unfortunately, the answer to both questions is no!)
However, I was interested in the technique he claims to use to predict the lottery numbers. The 'Wisdom of the Crowds' is a phenomenon first cited by Francis Galton in 1906. Galton reported that, in a competition to guess the weight of an ox, the average of the crowds' estimates was more accurate than both the individual guesses and those guesses made by cattle experts.
I'm not convinced by this as an explanation for predicting a set of random numbers (rigging the balls seems more plausible!) However, the point that groups of people make better decisions than individuals is certainly worth exploring.
That said, most of us aren't in the business of predicting ox weights, so what does this mean for business, decision making and leadership?
We know that a lack of diversity in voiced opinion (or 'Groupthink' as its known in psychological circles) can have disastrous consequences - one of the most famous being Kennedy's Bay of Pigs invasion, where no-one in the Whitehouse disagreed with the plan, despite significant concerns.
This raises the questions; Are leaders alert to these risks? Do they do anything to prevent them? I'm not so sure they do. In fact, I think some leaders actively encourage a lack of diverse input and critical evaluation of ideas. Indeed, if you genuinely think you are the most intelligent person in a meeting, why would you listen to anyone else?
One reason to listen is because the history books tell us this is a hugely risky strategy. Although supreme confidence may be valued, it also has an ugly side - namely arrogance. As well as being one of the most common de-railers of senior careers, there are a raft of high profile leaders, cited as arrogant, who have come unstuck in quite public ways; Dick Fulf, Geoff Skilling, Fred Goodman to name but a few.
We've seen the damage arrogance can do - both to business, and to the man (or woman) on the street; so perhaps now is the time to change the perception that steely confidence is a core strength of a leader while consultation and deliberation a weakness.
This isn't just a matter of tweaking how we promote leaders into their positions. It's more fundamental than that. The high value placed on confidence is engrained within the fibre of many organisations; in its language, competency frameworks, and reward systems. The natural outcome of this is arrogance at the top!
Coupled with the fact that over-confidence/arrogance is notoriously difficult to coach or develop in senior populations, perhaps now is the time to stop and think about how we manage talent. So, if anyone mentions that they are the smartest guy in the room - you'll know to run in the opposite direction!
For me, the most surprising news story of the week has to be that successful leadership is not just the combination of skills, knowledge and abilities that we thought it to be but also, according to one piece of research, a matter of looks!
Under the strap line 'appearance is just as important as attitude', the story reports that for male managers, 'a pronounced brow and forehead were found to be trusted, while for women, thin eyebrows, wider eyes and fuller lips made up the face of a future inspirational leader.'
For a minute there, I thought we were harking back to the 17th Century, where scientists like Cesar Lombroso proclaimed that one's physical appearance could determine criminality. If you were bald, had a large jaw/chin, a nose that was hawk like, flattened or upturned and the classic 'shifty' eyes, you were pretty much bang to rights! The England rugby team will be pleased to know that this theory has now run its course.
Back to the modern day, and let's be clear - for most roles there is no evidence at all that what you look like has any impact on your actual ability to do the job, whether it be leadership or bin collecting!
What is interesting, however, is that your physical appearance can influence people's perceptions and attitudes towards you. Research has shown that, in court cases, attractive individuals tend to get lower fines and bail limits set. It also suggests voters base their choice of candidate, at least in part, on how competent the candidates look. Behind the sensationalist headline what this research seems to be saying is that certain physical attributes are perceived more positively than others in leaders; your followers will believe you are more trustworthy/inspirational if you have a pronounced forehead/thin eye brows.
So, does this mean that the attractive, competent-looking leaders have had an easier ride to the top just because of their appearance? Could that mean that those not blessed in the looks department are actually better leaders, because they've had to demonstrate a higher level of competence to get where they are? Who knows - but it's an interesting idea! Handsome Barack Obama's meteoric rise to the White House certainly does nothing to discredit the theory!
Having said that, I don't think the business leaders with small foreheads and bushy eyebrows need to fear for their roles just yet.
Apart from the fact that there's no actual link between competency and appearance, at least in terms of IQ, most research into leaders who fail finds that rather than their appearance; it is their people skills and flexibility that cause them the most professional difficulty. Problems with interpersonal relationships, failure to build and lead a team, and inability to change or adapt during a transition are all key predictors of derailment at this level. The pressure of the current economic climate makes all these factors even greater risks for any leader or manager of people.
So, the best bit of advice I can give is for leaders and managers to pay close attention to their teams and working relationships, and give the tweezers a miss!
Feed
This week is anti bullying week and while the media has focused on the plight of children who are bullied at school, the unfortunate fact is that bullying behaviour doesn't stop after GCSEs.