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.
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!
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.