The Leader's Voice

Is Leadership A Profession?

Rather than write about it, I was part of a live blog radio program that discussed the topic. Loads of other good topics at this site as well. Check it out at Robert Thompson's Thought Grenades.

How WEIRD Are You?

Many of you have probably read about how different cultural norms produce different theories concerning behavior, psychology, and the underpinnings of human relationships. Or your travels may have exposed you to different norms concerning perception, ways of problem-solving, or modes of thought. For instance, take this familiar test - which of the two horizontal lines is longer?

You know the answer, but can you really see the answer, even when you know it? A very interesting new paper suggests Westerners have difficulty with this and may be weirder, compared with the many other large populations, than we thought. Heinrich, Heine, and Norenzayan in the June, 2010 issue of Brain and Behavioral Sciences suggest the following (emphasis mine):

"Behavioral scientists routinely publish broad claims about human psychology and behavior in the world's top journals based on samples drawn entirely from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies...The findings suggest that members of WEIRD societies, including young children, are among the leas representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans."

I recommend a reading of the entire article which you can find here.

The authors claims are very interesting and their examples compelling. But as the world grows ever more industrialized and Western methods become far more pervasive, could it be that human mental processes are adapting worldwide to a more "modern" (forgive the gross generalization) modality? Love to hear your thoughts.

And to add one more tidbit from the WEIRD article, the authors conclude that since so much of psychology depends upon Western undergraduate student populations that:

"Our database is not just an extraordinarily restricted sample of humanity; it is frequently a distinct outlier vis-à-vis other global samples. It may represent the worst population on which to base our understanding of Homo sapiens."

Effective Criticism

Clifford Nass is a Professor of Communication at Stanford University. He was recently interviewed by Ira Flatow on NPR's Science Friday broadcast. 

Nass has been exploring communication in a unique and very interesting manner. He creates experiments to understand communication fundamentals by watching how people talk to their computers. From mobile phones, to GPS systems, to laptops, he is fascinated by what we can learn about how we interact with each other by watching how we interact with technology, especially certain kinds of devices.

His most recent book, The Man Who Lied To His Computer, relates a number of his findings, but if you listen to podcasts, download the Science Friday's September 3, 2010 episode featuring Flatow's interview with Nass. Or if you want to listen to it right now, click this link.

The part of his findings that most intrigued me was his comments on how to give effective criticism. You have probably heard or thought that when giving tough feedback to someone you should start with a positive. Nass would agree. He also recommends that you limit your negative comments to a very select, relevant few, and that you end with positive comments. To understand why, listen to the podcast or read his book.

One of the most powerful thoughts concerned criticism that morphs into blanket blaming. (You've been there. Your boss is a jerk which leads to rants about how all bosses are jerks.) In politics, an individual who uses negative ads to win can boost his or her chances, but negative ads poison the general population's opinion of all politicians and even the politic system. You help yourself in the short run but damage everyone in the long run (including yourself) with negative ads.

Trust and Lie Detection

Do you consider yourself a person who trusts others more than others? Or are you a low-trusting person, who needs to see evidence of trust before and even then remain a little skeptical? Regardless of which type you feel you are - which one, the high or low truster, do you believe spots liars more easily?

Some recent research demonstrates a perhaps surprising answer. According to Nancy Carter and Mark Weber of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, "Although people seem to believe that low trusters are better lie detectors and less gullible than high trusters, our results suggest that the reverse is true."

Find the article here. It may still be free for download.

Delayed Gratification Redux

I was one of the early admirers of the results of the famous delayed gratification studies. It pays to read the original research and not just parrot the hype surrounding research headlines. I strongly urge all of you who are interested in this subject material to review the following post by Mike the Mad Biologist. He refers to a PDF article that is worth the reading for those of you who like to dive deeper into the data, but his conclusions may likely satisfy most.

 

The Power of Time

RSA Animate is a terrific site - one worth checking out. Animates talks and provides an interesting method of remaining engaged in a talk (although in some cases the original talk is pretty interesting all on its own).

Below is a sample of a talk given by Philip Zimbardo on the power of time perspective on individuals and cultures.

Deep Conversation

For at least thirty years or so I have always added to one of Socrates' dictums that, "the OVER-examined life isn't worth living either." Must have been during my therapy years. It appears Daniel Dennentt wrote something similar back in 1984. Seems I keep good company. But perhaps, like the Goldilocks lesson, somewhere between the unexamined and the over-examined there lies a region that helps promote well-being.

A short article in the February issue of Psychological Science posts an interesting study by Matthias Mehl. His work concerns the connection between deeper conversations versus more shallow or social conversations and well-being. He speculated that those individuals who had longer conversations about more meaningful subjects experienced greater well-being than those who were more isolated (duh) and those who gabbed an equal amount, but about more shallow topics. His correlational analysis showed those with a greater sense of well-being talked more about more meaningful things. He concluded:

"On the one hand, well-being may be causally antecedent to having substantive interactions; happy people may be 'social attractors' who facilitate deep social encounters. On the other hand, deep conversations may actually make people happier. Just as self-disclosure can instill a sense of intimacy in a relationship, deep conversations may instill a sense of meaning in the interaction partners. Therefore, our results raise the interesting possibility that happiness can be increased by facilitating substantive conversations."

Makes me wonder about our Facebook quest to post life's everyday moments, when a lunchtime conversation about the economy, life's purpose, the quality of our work, etc. might be more fulfilling. Sorta like the difference between a healthy meal and a lot of tasty junk food. And it could mean that using Facebook to alleviate isolation may be less helpful than calling a friend for a walk, talk, or meal.

Pleasure

The avalanche of books concerning "happiness" that slid upon us the past few years perhaps obscured the subject's intimate cousin "pleasure." Paul Bloom, a Yale psychologist, has recently written a book on the topic. I like it because, like my work in communication, it plumbs interior depths rather than observing surface features and concluding we understand a subject. 

For those who attend to this subject matter, I recommend you listen to the New York Times Book Reviews interview with Bloom in its entirety. Below I have excerpted about five minutes of this interview and added a couple of short clips from the original British version of Antiques Roadshow to illustrate one of Bloom's ideas.

Basic Emotions

For years my late partner, Boyd Clarke, and I would ask participants in our leadership workshops to complete a simple matrix. A replica appears below. The question is simple. If having a high performing work team is important, what must leaders give up to achieve this and what do they get in return. The same question applies for constituents.

As you might predict, participants suggested the number one thing leaders had to give up was control. And the number one thing constituents had to give up was safety (or constituents had to show more initiative).

In a new study just released in the journal Psychological Assessment, Keith Sanford suggests there are two basic feelings at play in nearly all couples disagreements. Control and neglect. At the root of conflict one of the parties feels the other is being over-controlling or neglectful. These primary emotions are in constant play.

In a way this confirms my thesis concerning the emotional channel in leadership communication. My research shows leaders need to declare their emotional states (in appropriate ways) and that they need to demonstrate appropriate empathy - especially when in conflict. I may be leaping a bit to tie couples research to leadership research, but I doubt its much of a leap. I doubt anyone would argue that control and neglect are core emotions that run in workplace situations as well as at home.

Sanford suggests that concerns of perceived neglect may be "best resolved when a person receives an apology and then makes a decision to forgive."  In cases of perceived threat, a person may be "more interested in receiving demonstrations of deference, expressions of appreciation and reductions in hostility."

Same advice Boyd used to give. And both showcase emotional declaration and empathy demonstration.

Public Speaking

For a great, rambling piece on extreme speaking apprehension, check out this article by Jesse Bering.