It's official. We are out of recession. Okay, it may be marginal. It may well be possible that the sustained growth of the past quarters will recede again in coming months. But for now, it's official. We are out of the recession. Six words that should get us all feeling upbeat and optimistic about the future.
So why, despite this news, is there such a strong and enduring sense of pessimism? In the last week, since the news of sustained economic growth was announced, I've heard nothing but downbeat forecasts for the future. Speaking to senior and fairly influential leaders in business reveals a consistent view that the recession is set for another few years. Apparently this is a 'double-dip' recession and we're about to slide down the double-dip bit. And all positive indicators of recovery have been falsely propped up by cash injection anyway, so the recovery will soon evaporate with the VAT changes and higher interest rates. Everyone seems to have a view on the future, but it's all rather negative.
So here's a challenge. A simple challenge. Be optimistic. Be positive. Not mindlessly or vaguely hopeful, but focused and determinedly optimistic.
Psychologists have long distinguished between two distinct ways of looking at life. There's optimism and there's pessimism. Pessimists tend to believe that negative events will last a long time. They see negative events as threatening and damaging, and believe that a bad experience could undermine everything in life. Facing the same situations, optimists see setbacks as temporary. They see a loss as an opportunity to learn. They are more resilient and determined. And they see a challenge as just that. A challenge. Something that can be overcome with effort and resolve. As Sir Alex Ferguson commented on Andy Murray's recent defeat at the Australian Open, "I am always stronger after I have lost a game".
And consider the side-effects of outlook. Pessimists, for instance, tend to give up more quickly and more easily than their optimistic counterparts. They feel depressed more frequently and will talk of stronger feelings of 'helplessness' in which nothing they try seems to work in their favour.
This isn't meant to be patronising advice to a no-doubt informed and fairly hard-nosed readership. But I'm starting to feel that we need a wake-up call. It's very easy, through fear of the unknown, to become caught in a wave of pessimism. Let's face it, in a perverse way it's sometimes comforting to look on the bleak side. At least it doesn't raise expectations.
But, in reality, pessimism perpetuates pessimism, whether that's with your mates, your colleagues or, more importantly, the people who look to you for guidance and leadership. So perhaps now is the time to step back and make a conscious choice. Optimists also tend to live longer, apparently, so if you do want to be around to see the next great recession, try to look on the bright side.
Resolutions can work. But you need to focus on the process of change, not just the outcome.
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.
The media hype has been intense as thousands of Britons have tuned in to see Murray's outstanding performance at Wimbledon this year. Interest has focused on the excellent form Murray has shown in the competition so far - clearly the physical aspects are in place and Murray has proven his fitness in going five sets to beat Wawrinka.
But what do we know about the psychological aspects playing a role in his success? Murray has exceptional levels of drive and focus but spectators may feel confused by the apparent fluctuations in performance - one minute things are going so well, the next, a game has been lost. For most people it is hard to maintain concentration for longer than 30 minutes at a time and yet these matches can go on for hours. Murray's expressive behaviour can give us some insight into how he is dealing with this. He is often heard shouting, 'focus', which indicates two things. Firstly, he is reinstating his concentration. Secondly, he is fighting the psychological barrier which is arguably more important than the physical one. When a point is lost, negative thoughts quickly creep in and threaten to overwhelm high performance. 'Focus' appears to be Murray's trigger word to stop the negative thoughts and reframe them - taking a positive perspective which is critical to high performance.
His confidence and self-belief will certainly be high following his win against Ferrero. He will be boosted by his victories against Federer at their last four meetings. As psychologists we know that this self-belief will certainly improve his performance and chances of winning.
Further insight comes from our knowledge of the characteristics of outstanding performers. In striving for the higher levels, people tend to take more risks, however, once they're in a good position they often take far fewer risks and this can lead to their downfall. The implications for Murray are that he must play the harder and riskier shots to step ahead, but must not become complacent or lose the appetite for those risky but crowd-pleasing returns. The crowd themselves play their own part in increasing his psychological resilience and game performance. The crowd's support has what is known as the 'Pygmalion effect', which means their belief that Murray will win will improve his performance. Conversely, at the same time it is likely to have a negative impact on his opponent.
Perhaps most importantly will be Murray's ability to adapt his game. Outstanding performers know when to change approach and how to do it. We have seen Murray flex his approach to Wawrinka as he increased the shots to his opponent that would exasperate Wawrinka's injured quad. He must also vary his own habits to keep his opponent guessing and break down their weaknesses.
Over the next three weeks we will reflect on the experiences of the leaders who choose to step back down the career ladder to taste life on the front line in Channel 4's series Undercover Boss. We will examine their style, values of leadership and look at the learning points for their own - and others' - organisations.
Poor Andy. At the pinnacle of his career as Marketing Director of Park Resorts - a caravan holiday business set to make great profits off the back of the recession - he finds himself on his knees looking for vomit behind toilets, deep-frying sausages in frankly war-torn kitchens and making an impromptu debut on stage entertaining bored kids and generally having to ad lib his way (badly) through the routines. He was clearly away on the day when the TV crew asked for a volunteer.
Nonetheless, our leader takes to the task bravely and cheerfully, and has plenty of questions for the staff he is supposedly shadowing as a trainee. He discovers, much to his apparent shock, that money matters to people who are living close to the poverty line and that by giving people more freedom they generally tend to use their initiative more freely. He also discovers that some staff work damn hard and long hours without much support, while others feel distinctly less motivated and less inclined to please 'them upstairs'. Great lessons in the bleedin' obvious, as John Cleese might once have muttered.
In all, Andy spends time in a number of different jobs around the caravan parks, learning how to scrub, cook, serve, entertain and apologise to disgruntled customers. He has a genuinely likeable and upbeat attitude throughout the whole experience, and boldly struggles to maintain his positive approach to the week's chores, only occasionally wilting under the pressure that many of his staff are likely to feel on a daily basis. He engages readily with the staff and seems to be able to engage almost everyone in open discussion about their likes and dislikes of the job and the resort.
Towards the end of the experience Andy insists that he has learnt a huge amount from the experience. But that's where the problem for me seems to lie. Andy says that he's learnt a lot, but demonstrates very little that convinces us that he has actually learnt anything at all. What we see are lightweight discussions and superficial actions at the close of the programme. We see a promotion for a supervisor who hasn't actually applied for the promotion and may feasibly not want the promotion. Indeed, the one good idea that emerges during the programme is turned into an opportunity to give staff a quick holiday of their own, rather than replicating their methods company wide. We also see a ticking off for disgruntled staff and, with no shortage of irony, the move of the most outwardly negative employee back onto reception - the front line of customer service. And we witness Sean the chef being sent back to school to earn the certificates that he should actually have had in the first place.
So what did Andy really learn? I got the feeling that Andy learnt that it feels good to muck in and get his hands dirty; that he has some decent employees on the resorts who feel undervalued; and that his employees do still value money above most other incentives. His people skills are strong enough to engage and develop relationships in a short space of time, and he is certainly capable of delivering and doing his share of the hard work.
The missing element for me was Thought Leadership - I'm talking about the area within our own Radar model here. We saw little by way of ideas, limited decisions even when given some clear opportunities to change things for the better, and nothing of a vision or strategy evident in his conversations - even during the albeit brief Board meeting. Instead, his actions seemed to be short-term and lacking in imagination.
I suspect that Andy will remember his days back on the floor for some time to come. I'm less confident about his ability to make the most of the experience and really use what he saw and heard to the business' advantage.
Following Shell's CEO, Jeroen van der Veer, comment to the FT saying that: "You have to realise: if I had been paid 50% more, I would not have done it better. If I had been paid 50% less, then I would not have done it worse", let's explore the issue of remuneration and bonuses. Psychologists have long concerned themselves with human motivation and whilst there is no theory that can explain it in its totality, they are useful in understanding what is going on here. What van der Veer was referring to is the "motivation ceiling". The theory of money as a motivator goes like this: more money = more motivation. But where is the ceiling? At what point can someone no longer work hard to warrant the remuneration they receive? Whilst we could, in theory, increase remuneration without a limit, an individual's performance will not increase in a linear fashion. Clearly levels of remuneration are not just linked to how hard people work. Other factors to consider are the level of responsibility, the complexity of the role as well as the value that an individual contributes.
Further, continuously increasing salary can create what we call the Hedonic Treadmill: an increase in salary motivates us for a short period of time, but then we grow accustomed to it and want more. Combine this with our need for equity, whereby we compare ourselves to others in similar roles and become dissatisfied when they earn more, we get into a situation of spiraling remuneration and eye watering bonuses. But does some one already earning £1.3M really need that additional £200K to bring them to £1.5M? Of course not.
Whilst to some extent, we are all motivated by money, there are other factors that should be considered here. Work can give us meaning, recognition and a sense of purpose. All have a motivational impact. Maslow spoke of the hierarchy of needs in the 40's, with self actualisation being at the top and our physiological and security needs being at the bottom. Although a simplified theory, it does suggest that financial rewards do not contribute towards the higher levels of human motivation. In thinking about remuneration, therefore, we should be thinking about more than just how much we give somebody. More money does not equate to better performance.
Feed