There's a subtle but important difference between trying to reduce stress, and trying to promote well-being.
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.
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!
Interviewed on Radio 4’s Today Programme to promote his upcoming book, “A Colossal Failure of Common Sense”, Larry MacDonald, the ex VP of trading at Lehman Brothers, revealed some of the boardroom secrets of the financial institutions that have resulted in the current economic meltdown. But, the behaviours he describes, and their consequences are actually much more common. The only difference with Lehman’s is the extent of the impact.
Describing the CEO at the time as unprepared to listen to criticism and as creating an “either get your head down and get on with your job or lose both” culture it’s not hard to see why warnings made as early as 2005 were ignored, and later on not even expressed any more. A bit of research into Richard Fuld, Lehman’s CEO, revealed an individual who is described as reclusive and who in his pre banking career was dismissed from the US Air Force for a fist fight over a misunderstanding. At work he is described as so single minded and focussed that he has few interests outside of work. As Business Psychologists we see these behaviours so often in senior leaders: those people that become detached from others around them and make decisions in isolation, not sharing their thinking, and those that are so engrossed and passionate in their work that anything approaching bad news can lead to such disappointment and frustration that tempers flare and only good news is well received. But these people get to the top. Why? There is likely to be an element of managing their impact as they move through the ranks, but primarily I think it’s because the negative aspects are ignored because they deliver results. Many businesses reward task leadership over people and thought leadership, an approach which actually encourages such behaviours. The changes that are needed therefore, are a shift in what is rewarded as well as early leadership development interventions because by the time people have made it it’s too late.
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!
Real Madrid recently agreed to pay £80 million for one man - Cristiano Ronaldo. Not only is this a huge amount of money in real terms, it's a huge amount when compared to other football transfers. It eclipsed the previous world record, which was set only days earlier, by more than 40%.
So why did Real Madrid spend so much? Firstly, they had been performing relatively poorly and were seeking to improve their performance. In doing so, they bought into the 'hero fallacy'. This is a tendency we all share to place a disproportionate emphasis on individuals when explaining success. Essentially, we explain the outcomes of amazing events by paying attention to the most obvious causes - the leader or outstanding performer. The fallacy is that the real causes are often too subtle and less visible to us, so we overemphasise the part played by the most visible - the heroes.
The second reason Real Madrid spent so much is they failed to take into account 'regression to the mean'. This is the principle that the more extreme a performance (either very good, or very bad) the more likely it is to move back toward the average. Why? Ronaldo's outstanding performances were based on three factors - his ability, his form, and luck. Whilst his ability is a constant, his form and luck will vary over time. The £80 million price tag reflects Ronaldo's performances when he was in good form and having the rub of the green. As his form and luck inevitably changes so his performances will decline, even though he still retains tremendous ability.
So what does this tell us about managing a business in a downturn? Like Real Madrid, many businesses will be desperately keen to improve their performance. With this there comes the risk of overreliance on following or recruiting 'heroes' - the highly visible individuals who will single-handedly turn things around. Instead, organisations should remember that success is rarely predicated on one person alone and that everyone, even the best, will waver at times. In many ways the answers can be found in the world of football - the best teams tend to have two features - good players throughout the team and good teamwork. The conclusion, therefore, is to focus on getting and retaining good people across the business, and to ensure good communication, with everyone working towards the same objective.
And what lies in store for Ronaldo? No doubt he'll score some spectacular goals, but without 10 colleagues backing him up, few of them will be winning goals.
Feed