People, Fishes and Conflict

As a scuba diver I am witness to a host of differences among fish, yet they seem to live in relative peace. I see three-foot long barracuda with jagged teeth hanging not too far from scads of two-inch blue or brown chromis and slightly larger purple Creole wrasse. I see spotted drum of black and white stripes and polka dots living in proximity to parrotfish of rainbow colors.

There’s more I could share about the fishes of all differences of color, size, shape, gender configurations, etc., but the point is that fishes have all kinds of differences to which they don’t seem to pay any attention unless they are hungry. Then one fish is likely to eat another fish—but it’s a matter of life and death, of physical survival. Oh, I suppose I’ve seen skirmishes over territory, but these are minor and short-lived with no damage to either. They live in a world that is relatively conflict-free.

People, on the other hand, have exponentially fewer inherent differences of color, shape, size, etc., yet manage to use them to create conflict with extraordinary regularity. If there are no inherent differences we are more than capable of using differences of preference, opinion, and belief to create conflict—as if they were matters of life and death—when the only things that are at stake are our dear little egos.

As an organization development consultant, psychologist, former human resources director, and just plain human being I have spent over 30 years witnessing, working with, and informally but diligently studying conflictual situations of all kinds.

In addition, I have suffered the pain of the almost seven decades of conflicts and power struggles that have been created and dealt with in my own life. Accordingly, I’d like to think that I have gained some modicum of wisdom that might help others moderate, or at least modulate, the phthisic and enervating conflicts that are part of their lives at work and at home.

I plan to share such wisdom as it is through a blog series of which this is the beginning, through my twitter account @michaelfbroom, through a five part webinar series, and a book that just might result from all of this!

The plan is to offer a few paragraphs each week in this blog, which will also announce the webinars when they are ready. In other words, stay tuned!

Michael F. Broom, Ph.D. - 410.730.1601

Experience As Educator, Coach And Consultant
Michael F. Broom, Ph.D. is an Organizational Psychologist who as worked for over 30 years as an executive coach, organizational facilitator, and trainer. Throughout those 25 years he has also been very involved in the education of those interested in organizational and social change.

Good Boundaries Make Good Leaders

August 2nd, 2011

By: Dr. Keith Merron - Avista Consulting Group

In Robert Frost’s famous poem, The Mending Wall, he ends the piece with the statement “Good fences make good neighbors.” The Poem discusses the mixed consequences of fences. On the one hand, a fence allows for each family to have their own space for personal freedom. On the other hand it separates. Good boundaries are like that as well, and aren’t simply just one thing. A boundary is crucial for visionary leadership, and something that is undoubtedly crucial when asking the question: ‘what is leadership?’ Leaders that haven’t set their expectations, goals, and values, create ambiguous work places, of which the consequence is often confusion and unnecessary conflict. Boundaries create a sense of what is okay and not okay. They clarify, and they focus. On the other hand, when held too inflexibly, they create tension, along with a sense that there is little or no room for play. Rules, for example, are boundaries. When applied stringently they can be off-putting and people can feel they are treated like children without personal freedom. Rules, when applied sensibly, can be calming—for good boundaries create trust.

I believe one of the signatures of a conscious leader is to know when to apply boundaries and when to relax them in the service of something bigger. When values become rules, leaders act like “Big Brother”. When values are principles, they teach us and guide us. If they are too rigid, we lose something—our capacity to apply discretion. When they are too lax, they have no meaning. When decisions become rigid, we run the risk of being unable to change in the face of changing circumstances. When they are too loose, we are confused.

I believe that one of the key things a leader needs to hold is one of being decisive and yet open. This means that the leaders says: “I’m betting my money that this is the way to go, so let’s go.” At the same time, the leader knows that it may not be the right decision. A good leader remains open to learning, and discovering new information that calls for an alternative decision. This is a good boundary for a decision—held firmly but not too tightly.

Dr. Keith Merron is the founder and Managing Partner of Avista Consulting Group, an organizational consulting and leadership development firm dedicated to helping organizations with bold visions achieve sustainable high performance and industry leadership.

Mr. Merron received his Doctorate from Harvard University in 1985, where his studies spanned the fields of human and organization development. He has conducted research on the relationships between human development, managerial effectiveness and high performance, and has published numerous professional journal articles.
kmerron@avistaconsultinggroup.com

Announcement: BAodn Networking Event

NETWORKING EVENT

SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS - PRECONFERENCE NETWORKING EVENT

1) NEW SPEAKERS MICHAEL BROOM PhD & DAVID SIBBET OF GROVE CONSULTING!

2) DISCOUNTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR MEMBERS OF ASTD, IVFP, OR SBODN - CONTACT YOUR ORGANIZATION FOR MORE INFORMATION!

3) ALL STUDENTS ELIGIBLE FOR STUDENT RATE AT BITW 2011: All students can now register at the student rate! Students that are not members of BAodn can request the discount code at bitw@baodn.org and bring their student ID to the event.

-------------------------------

Join us at our BitW 2011 PreConference Networking Evening....come network with companies like Cisco, Chevron, and other leading companies and industry professionals!

We are delighted to host this event to encourage our members and speakers to connect prior to the BitW conference. Network with leading companies and industry professionals!

SPEAKERS

Michael F. Broom, Ph.D.

Michael F. Broom, Ph.D., is an organizational psychologist with over thirty (30) years of experience studying and consulting with organizations toward productivity improvement and employee satisfaction. This has included working with for profit, not for profit, government agencies, and educational institutions. He was senior faculty of the Johns Hopkins University‘s Fellows in the Management of Change. And, he has served as adjunct faculty in the American and Georgetown universities program. He has served on the board of directors of the NTL Institute in Applied Behavioral Science and is currently on the board of the national Organization Development Network.

He is the founder of the Center for Human Systems which sponsors with Edith Whitfield Seashore the Triple Impact Programs to provide those involved with managing change a depth of practical skills that is immediately applicable. The Center has run this intensive and extensive programs in Columbia, Maryland, Philadelphia, San Francisco, New York City, and Anchorage, Alaska.

He is author of The Infinite Organization published by Davies-Black Publishing and co-author with Dr. Donald Klein of Power, the Infinite Game published by Sea Otter Press, 1999.

Please check-out his web site is at www.ChumanS.com

David Sibbet, Grove Consulting International

David has been an organizational consultant and information designer since 1978, building on his eight years of experience working in public affairs leadership development at the Coro Foundation. He is the author of many of The Grove’s leading-edge group-process tools and models for facilitation, team leadership and organizational transformation. A master facilitator of large-scale group processes, strategic visioning and creative, future-oriented symposia, David frequently lends his coaching and design expertise to Grove project teams. He holds a master’s degree from Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University and a B.A. in literature from Occidental College in Los Angeles.

  

Il Fornaio Restaurant

There will be delicious appetizers and many wine varietals to choose from during the event.

For more information please visit: www.baodn.org or to register visit BITW 2011 Registration.

We look forward to seeing everyone there!

    BitW 2011 Conference Directors

Should employers be required to report on the well-being of their employees?

Michael is a lifelong introvert who also works as an I/O Psychologist. He recently re-located from Dublin, Ireland to the Bay Area and is building a professional practice specializing in leadership development, and also personal and organizational well-being.

There is a serious current debate and also public inquiries in the UK and in France over the means and benefits of measuring national general well-being. The traditional measure of national economic performance, GNP or GDP, is a rough and ready measure universally accepted as the basis of within-country and between-country comparisons and has worked well-enough for over 80 years. Its limitations are well-known. It was once famously said that GDP measures everything except that which makes life worthwhile. Even though the US is three times richer than it was in the fifties, it is well known that Americans experience five time the level of depression nationally. We spend ever more on health and yet are not healthier than thirty years ago (www.stateoftheusa.org).

The economic benefits of promoting high well-being among employees are also well-known and well-proven (ranging from reduced health-care costs and absenteeism to improved talent retention and innovation). So why don’t smart employers start measuring the overall well-being of their employees? The way doctors like to measure our temperatures (using a crude, simple but effective tool). We have the tools, and the frameworks to measure and monitor well-being (a combination of engagement and psychological health) at the individual, team and organizational level, so why dont we? 

Leadership development and career planning was once considered radical and innovative, and early adopters benefited sooner. The benefits of measuring, promoting and monitoring overall well-being of organizations and their members is just as important as focusing on leadership. The decision to take well-being seriously is a leadership issue. Early adopters will benefit sooner. To say this this is not the right time is like those who said the Internet will never catch on. Let’s wait and see who moves first. Ultimately employers might be required to report annually on the General Well-Being of their employees. A general well being measure is good for the employees, good for the organization and good for the country.

Let's Ponder: Two Perspectives on Leadership

Leadership is not simply about personal attributes but also about the capacity to navigate the "space" between ourselves and others. This capacity also comes from self-understanding, attributes and personal development. But it is not solely dependent on personal attributes and skills. As I will review in detail, there are two perspectives of leadership in the literature (Uhl Bien, 2006). One perspective views leadership as individual and dependent on traits and characteristics of certain individuals (Uhl Bien, 2006, Yukl, 2006). The other perspective views leadership as a socially created process that can be embodied by an individual at any time (Uhl Bien, 2006). 

The Entity Perspective

The first perspective is coined by Uhl Bien (2006) as the entity perspective. Most of the current literature on leadership looks at leadership from this point of view  (Yukl, 2006). This perspective takes a functional and constructivist view and focuses on leadership as an individual’s regulation, control, personal development and skill development (Carroll & Levy, 2010; Karp & Helgo, 2009, Uhl Bien, 2006). Additionally, most discourse on leadership identity views leadership as a fixed goal. Rather than a fluid process. And sees leadership as the ability for a person to influence people in a group toward a certain activity.

The Relational Leadership Perspective

The second perspective is the relational leadership perspective (RTL) (Uhl Bien, 2006). RTL’s framework looks at leadership as a social process that constructs social order and behaviors. Relational leadership “asks how the processes of leadership and management in organizations emerge—e.g., how realities of leadership are interpreted within the network of relations; how organizations are designed, directed, controlled and developed on the bases of collectively generated knowledge about organizational realities; and how decisions and actions are embedded in collective sense-making and attribution processes from which structures of social interdependence emerge and in turn reframe the collectively generated organizational realities” (p. 652).

Leaders successfully contribute to the social order and are expected and perceived as contributing by others (Uhl Bien, 2006). From this perspective, any relational process that adds to the development of new goals, social order, attitudes and goals is considered to be a relational leadership model. Relational leadership principles are as follows:

1. Leadership is not bound to the hierarchy in an organization
2. Relational leadership involves social dynamics that develop action and social order
3. Relational leadership addresses collectively the process of social systems change in which leadership roles and relationships are constructed.

Comparing The Perspectives

The entity perspective addresses the qualities of individuals within a relationship while the relational perspective sees leadership as a social construction process. While both perspectives look at leadership as a social process their definition of process differs (Uhl Bien, 2006). The relational orientation focuses on organizations and individuals as continually being constructed through process but does not see individuals as the makers of process. On the other hand, the entity orientation focuses on individual’s perceptions and thoughts in relational exchanges (Hosking, 2000). This latter view sees individual action as the driver of organizational life (Hosking, et. Al, 1995).  Both perspectives have something to add to the literature of leadership. I tend to agree with Uhl Bien’s (2006) viewpoint, that its not about which lens is correct but rather about understanding each perspective and the usefulness of each lens in different contexts.

Carroll, B., & Levy, L. (2010). Leadership Development as Identity Construction. Management Communication Quarterly, 24(2), 211. SAGE Publications.

Hosking, D. M. (2000). Ecology in mind, mindful practices. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(2), 147−158.

Hosking, D. M., Dachler, H. P.,& Gergen, K. J. (Eds.). (1995). Management and organization: Relational alternatives to individualism. Brookfield, USA: Avebury.

Karp, T., & Helgø, T. I. T. (2009). Leadership as identity construction: the act of leading people in organisations: A perspective from the complexity sciences. Journal of Management Development, 28(10), 880–896.

Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654–676.

Yukl, G. (2006), Leadership in Organizations, 6th ed., Pearson Education, Mahwah, NJ.
________________________________________________

Alyea Sandovar is Blog Editor for BaODn. She has a M.A. in Clinical Psychology with a specialty in Early Development. She is currently finishing her Master's in Human Organizational Systems at Fielding Graduate University and beginning work on her PhD in Human Organizational Systems.

Resilience, well-being, happiness? Should employers be responsible for how their employees feel?

The The answer to this question is yes. There is a growing body of evidence from the Gallup Organization, and from academic research studies in the US, UK and elsewhere that shows measurable benefits from high rather than low well-being among employees. The main benefits, in order of increasing employer progressiveness, are

• Reduced healthcare costs for employees (anxiety and stress-related illnesses now exceed traditional illnesses)
• Slowing down the steady increase in employees healthcare costs as they get older
• Reduced illness-related absence from work
• Reduced “presentism” (i.e. at work but not firing on all cylinders)
• Increased productivity, creativity, innovation, collaboration
• Improved customer relationships
• Less problematic management of change
• Attracting and, possibly more importantly, retaining top talent
• Creating a workplace and culture where humans can flourish with optimum performance without burning out.

The evidence is clear and unequivocal and can be measured in financial terms.

Sometimes people find it easier to see the relevance of resilience to organizational and individual performance. A definition of resilience that I developed and use for my own work is the ability to stay effective in difficult and challenging times and at the same time feel positive about the future. Given the pressures, uncertainties and demands of life in general, the economic climate, and the speed and fierceness of competition, resilience building seems, and is, a potentially advantageous thing to undertake. We are here talking about routine, day to day resilience and not the extremes that are so often depicted but which are heroic and exceptional. The good news is that for almost everyone resilience can be increased using scientifically researched and validated tools and processes such as finding and using natural strengths, finding meaning and purpose through goals, increasing positive emotion, blocking negative thought processes, etc.

But well-being seems to be another matter all together. Surely, we hear enlightened employers saying, that is a private matter for the individual. Surely, a commitment to employee engagement is enough. Surely we are not responsible for the happiness of our employees. Well, the evidence is growing strongly and unequivocally that employee engagement (even where it is genuine) may not be enough.

Consider these two top performers, both scoring high on employee engagement and commitment. Georgia loves her job, works long hours, rises to the challenge and delivers. She thrives on pressure, challenges and also supports her team, is collaborative and has good working relationships. She is energized and optimistic; she sees her life as tough but rewarding, and her work life and home life feel integrated. Above all she feels loyal to the company. Now meet George. Like Georgia, he Loves the job, works long hours, rises to the challenge and delivers. But unlike Georgia, he only copes with the pressure. He pressurizes his team, his working relationships are often tense; he has plenty of energy but often wonders how much longer he can keep going. For George, life is tough, feels like a treadmill, and home life is becoming strained. Above all, he is becoming attracted to other employers (the dreaded competition) where he thinks things will be better.

The difference between George and Georgia is Well-Being. Georgia’s is high and George’s is low. Employee engagement initiatives that have been common in the last ten to fifteen years are driven largely by the employers’ needs. Full engagement embraces this concept but extends it to embrace the psychological well-being of all employees. The challenge for today’s leaders is not to reduce pressure (after all we cannot slow down the rate of change that we are all experiencing) but to find ways to help people feel good about what they are doing, enjoying their work and their lives as a whole. Wellness programs are effective in addressing physical health and fitness and there are undoubted benefits in both physical and psychological functioning, but there is more to life than fitness such as our need for a strong sense of purpose and meaning, strong social networks, and critical levels of positive vis a vis negative emotions (the Positivity Ratio).

 

Resilience makes us stronger and better equipped to handle the pressures and set-backs, of our lives and our work. But what is the difference between Well-being and happiness? The answer is surprisingly easy if we think of happiness as a feeling and well-being as a judgment that, taken in its entirety, our life now, in the past and as anticipated is broadly as we would like it to be. We cannot be happy all the time and it is naïve to try to be. There are times when we are rightly sad, angry or aggrieved but we shouldn’t be too much of the time as it damages our health and ability to function. The higher our overall well-being the more resilient we are, the more open to change, more collaborative, engaged.

The smart employers will be early adopters of the need to assess, manage, and embed well-being into the culture and practices of the organization. If you think this is radical or contentious just think of the things in our recent past that were once regarded as radical innovations that many employers initially resisted. They include paid annual leave, onsite restrooms, sickness benefits, employment contracts, employee relations, career management, TQM, CRM, management development, diversity, environmental responsibility to name a few.

In a world of hurtling change when we human beings are feeling overwhelmed with the speed and complexity of life, early adopters of well-being at work will not only create workplaces where people flourish and perform sustainably at their best under constant pressure, they will also gain competitive advantage and achieve full optimization of limited resources.

In my next blog I will discuss the critical difference between work-life balance and the integrated life and will present a six-part framework for assessing personal well-being. In my final blog I will discuss what employers can do, and the role of leadership values and behavior in creating organizations that keep pressure positive and not destructive.

Let's Ponder: Three Things Introverts Should Learn...

They are:
    1.    Impression-management
    2.    Assertive influencing, and
    3.    Network optimization

These three things are inter-related and combine to significantly increase the organizational impact of people with introverted tendencies. Introversion was an evolutionary variation in the genes of early hominid groups to counter-balance the collaborative action orientation associated with extroversion, which of course had already yielded enormous survival advantage. Introversion evolved to discourage extremes in collaborative action and group thinking that could result in maladaptive behavior threatening our survival millions of years ago. The same is true today. Introverts when they play to their strengths bring reflection, evaluation and independent thinking to help organisations thrive.

The problem for many introverts is that organizations are social and introverts are not always at their best in social settings. In many years of assessing, observing and coaching introverts I have realized that many of them end up in specialist, niche roles that suit their temperament but these roles are rarely positions of power and influence. It is easier for extraverts to be seen and recognized as leaders. But Introverts could do more to help themselves.

1. Impression management.
Impressions do matter. Extroverts understand this. Introverts often think impressions are unimportant. Looking as if you are paying attention to the topic under discussion, staying in the discussion, avoiding long silences, giving your opinions frequently, saying when you do agree are all important indicators of being supportive to the group and not just paying attention to your own agenda. Introverts are more likely to stay silent longer, become absorbed in their thoughts, and may leave their comments to the last minute, often too late to have impact.

Introverts often underestimate how important it is to look interested, involved, and supportive to a group of peers or even direct reports. Body language can give the impression to others, unless they know you well, that you don’t care or are feeling detached. Learning to show empathy to others as human beings especially in groups and to people you do not know well, even the use of dreaded small talk are all important ways that humans show interest in each other. Introverts need to learn to do this routinely and spontaneously because these things really matter to other people. They also matter to introverts but they are often not skilled at showing it routinely.

Experiencing empathy from others is critical to in-group feeling, indicating a sense of belonging, as someone who cares and who is ready to participate. Introverts can learn these behaviors without changing their core personality. Introverts need to understand the importance of, and be skilled at, impression-management if they want to get to senior management and board positions.

2. Assertive influencing.
This is another thing that introverts find hard especially when in large groups, smaller groups that they do do not know so well, or on subjects outside their interests or direct responsibility. Introverts often speak too quietly, too briefly, with poor timing and not assertively enough.This applies in group discussions and in job interviews, and also in the dreaded group exercise in assessment or development centers. Again it is a matter of learning acting skills and not changing one's personality.

The best advice is speak up, speak longer, more frequently, with more passion and energy. Learn to talk over others, raise the pitch of your voice, and not give way when interrupted. This can feel uncomfortable but can easily be learned. Remember, many famous actors are introvert and not all successful politicians are extroverts.

Introverts often feel uncomfortable when taken by surprise or have to think on their feet. It has been said that extroverts only know what they think when they hear themselves saying it. This can be both an asset and a liability. Introverts need to prepare to be at their best. The best option is to think through possibilities, marshal your thoughts in advance of a meeting, anticipate possible challenges and counter –argument but remember timing and passion are still critical.

3. Network optimization.
Introverts are often not good networkers. They usually have a small number of people whom they trust, confide in and respect. My wife who is a clear extravert has amazing and varied networks going back over many years. When she needs information, advice, help, referrals, or even a favor she knows exactly who to contact and does so with enthusiasm and every expectation of a positive response. As an introvert I tend to rely on my own resources. I rarely involve others. As a result things can take me longer, or may be less good simply because I did not ask or approach other people.

Introverts should make network maps of all the people in the organization and outside that they would readily contact. Make separate maps for 1. information, 2. advice, 3. help, and 4. Confiding. Then set about strengthening these relationships and adding new names to the network. This is not a one-sided exploitative network. You have to work to build and maintain the relationship, making it beneficial to others, not just yourself. Many extroverts do this naturally. Introverts need to make a conscious and sustained effort.

In addition, having large goodwill networks, based on mutual respect and trust, significantly raises the introvert’s visibility, perceived qualities, and enhances their ability to influence others outside their normal sphere of operations. I wish I had done this earlier in my career. So easy to do if you are extroverted.

Personally, some advice to organizations:
Please, please avoid all-day ten-hour meetings. They are not productive and are unhealthy for everyone. Secondly, after an all-day off-site don’t force everyone to attend a long tiring dinner. Not everyone wants it, and it is likely to be a nightmare for introverts like me. Why not have a few drinks together, and the dinner is optional. So easy and it would be appreciated by so many
.

Let's Ponder: Introverts are not failed extraverts!

Here's an easy question: Introverted or Extroverted?

The most important thing we know is that introversion-extroversion is a continuum. It is not a category as Jung thought. Introversion is one end of a dimension along which all of us vary from situation to situation and from time to time. Some of us tend to stay clustered around one end or the other, the rest of us (maybe 40%) fluctuate around the middle. (I will use the term introverted or extroverted for those people who are consistently at one

or other end of the continuum, possibly around 60% of us.)

Hans Eysenck (1916-1997) the world famous psychologist whose research and theory of personality negatively stereotyped introversion.

The underlying mechanism that explains why we vary along this dimension seems to be cortical arousal. This was first postulated by Han Eysenck in the 1950s who rejected Jung’s notion of energy flow, though interestingly it is still a useful metaphor. The research shows that introverts are more quickly aroused to levels that are experienced as uncomfortable than are extroverts who often seek out excitement and social activity to keep their characteristically high levels of arousal at a comfortable/pleasing level.

Introverts avoid or withdraw from situations that cause them to have unpleasant levels of arousal such as too many people, loud background noise, surprises. In one famous study introverts salivated sooner than extroverts when given the same taste stimulus. Brain scan studies show different patterns of activity in different parts of the brains of introverts and extroverts. We now know that genetically determined differences in the brains of introverts and extroverts are amplified and/or moderated by different social experiences as the childhood of introverts and extroverts are often quite different.

On balance the research shows that extroverts report greater personal happiness than introverts, especially when this is associated with emotional stability. They also more frequently report being in a good mood and feeling optimistic though the relationship is complex and dependent on many other variables. Nonetheless the finding is consistent across studies. Introverts are often less cheerful and less optimistic than extroverts who also tend to have higher self-esteem than introverts. It can be hard work being an introvert.

Introverts and extroverts do equally well in exams though extroverts often do better in tasks that involve social interaction such as orals or viva exams, and assessments based on class participation. Introverts tend to do better when periods of solitary study are required. Regardless of personal levels of Introversion-Extroversion, Conscientiousness is the single most important quality determining exam success, and also career success. We know that emotional intelligence is a better predictor of longer-term career success than IQ.

High extroversion is associated with helpfulness and pro-social behavior, and participation which makes extroverts popular team members, though not always the most valuable. Extroversion is also helpful to transformational leaders who seek to motivate through empathy and persuasiveness. (It also helps to be Open and Agreeable in terms of the Big Five Personality Factors). By contrast, transactional leaders tend to rely on controlling and corrective action. Researchers such as Furnham and Hogan have tended to focus on extroversion as essential to leadership, though this is based on a very narrow view of leadership.

There is no difference in the overall career success of introverts and extroverts though both personal preferences and social stereotyping influence career paths and options. Introverts often add great value by going against social norms and resisting peer pressure, by daring to be different, being creative, pioneering, and iconoclastic. Just look at the founders of Google or the CEO of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg. It is easy to over-generalize here. One has only to think of Larry Ellison at Oracle.

BUT the real problem facing introverts is that extroversion is seen as socially more desirable in Western culture. (Interestingly this is not the case in many non-Western cultures). Over decades of personality research introversion has had a bad press. Hans Eysenck was particularly guilty of this. He saw introversion as a lack of the more desirable extroversion rather than a set of attributes that should be valued in their own right.

Eysenck, in his own words, characterized emotionally stable introverts as slow, controlled, careful, apathetic, and dull. By contrast he described emotionally stable extroverts as enthusiastic, positive, cheerful and satisfied. In his eyes it was clearly preferable to be extroverted. His influential research on personality dating back to the 1950s and his very successful series of books popularizing Scientific Psychology, contributed to the negative social stereotyping of introversion that is still common today.

Introverts are usually seen and described as shy, aloof, guarded, reserved, private, serious, cautious etc. They are not seen as team-players (though some function remarkably well in teams). They are not seen as natural leaders and are often overlooked in favor of less able candidates who have more “presence”. By contrast, extroverts are seen as sociable, outgoing, lively, enthusiastic, entertaining, fun-loving, talkative, energetic - all the qualities most employers are easily impressed with and are readily visible in job interviews, promotion panels, and even the causal observations of colleagues that lead to informal assessments of potential, fit, etc.

In reality, most jobs do not require extroversion in order to be successful, but being extroverted helps candidates sell themselves in interviews, dominate groups exercises and influence the outcomes of discussions. Introverts can add value by challenging group-think, slowing down over-hasty decision-making, pausing before committing unthinkingly, expressing unpopular views, seeing things differently, challenging assumptions, not fearing rejection in order to get a minority view heard, being stubborn, skeptical and even pessimistic in the face of gong-ho enthusiasm.

Often introverts are their own worst enemies. They often fail to project themselves positively in interviews; they often are poor at impression management and managing their career proactively; they drop out of, or don't enter into, debates that are uncontrolled and lively; they often use too little energy in a group to help them win an argument; they usually do too little networking inside and outside of the organization; they often fail to build a widespread reserve of goodwill relationships; they don't always adjust their social behavior to meet the needs of the group; and by thinking and reading rather than going to talk to people they can deliver less than they are capable of; sometimes they just wont play the game that would help them and others to succeed.

I know all of this from my personal experience as an introvert. The good news is that many of these unhelpful behaviors can be overturned by learned techniques. The challenge is to harness the benefits of being introverted in a socialized world without suffering the disadvantages and pitfalls. The practical steps that can be taken will be the theme of my next blog.

About Michael Pearn

Michael is a lifelong introvert who also works as an I/O Psychologist. He recently re-located from Dublin, Ireland to the Bay Area and is building a professional practice specializing in leadership development, and also personal and organizational well-being.

5 Ways Social Media Can Enhance Your Change Initiative

Time sink? Shiny new tool? Change accelerator?

Social media can be all three. Those who dismiss it just as a shiny new tool that sucks time do so at their peril. Why? First, of all, organizations are becoming more communal, thanks to social media. Facebook, Twitter, and Chatter are changing how we communicate and interact with each other, inside and outside of the workplace.

Many employees, especially the digital natives, expect to communicate electronically with their co-workers. Just watch them text, post, or send instant messages. And if their employer doesn’t provide a sanctioned tool, they’ll use their smart phones, either company-issued or personal.

These electronic expectations have an impact on those of us implementing change initiatives inside organizations. We need to view social media as our friend, not foe, when considering what communication channels to use.

Here are five ways social media can help you with your change initiative.

1. Improved clarity. Being clear about what you’re doing and where you’re going is the essence of any business strategy, especially change. You’ve got to be able to articulate it to yourself before you can start to explain it to others. If you can define what you’re doing in 140 characters—the length of a basic Twitter message— you’re on your way to achieving clarity—assuming others understand what you’re saying. (Just as with any communication, it helps to test to make sure your message is being received.)

2. More transparency. When you’re clear, you’re able to have a more open and honest relationship—that is be more transparent— with employees and other constituents because they know what’s going on. And when you’re communicating directly either face-to-face or through tools such as Twitter, Instant Messaging, or texting, you’re interacting directly without filters. You’ll be able to build street cred with employee audiences that often trust their peers for information over authority figures.

3. Greater inclusiveness. With social media, it’s easy to involve more people in more time zones compared to other communication methods. You can build a platform of participation and invite more people into the conversation, which has multiple advantages. More people can ask questions as well as weigh in with their opinions. You’ll also hear a richer diversity of voices, which can influence you. After all effective communication is a reciprocal action.

4. Increased speed. The immediacy of social media gives the message—and the change initiative— a sense of urgency. It’s happening NOW (or within the past few hours). The message and the initiative don’t feel dated like a newsletter, report, or other static communication. If you combine the timeliness with a clear message and a strong call to action, you improve your chances of breaking through the information clutter, getting people’s attention, and motivating them to act. This is key for any change initiative that requires a change in behavior.

5. Real-time data. Built into the technology of most social media tools is a strong search engine. So you’ve got the ability to collect rich data about what people are saying—in real time. By analyzing that, you can fine-tune your change approach, including refining your messages, adapting your interventions, and testing new tactics.

When you embrace social media as an effective change agent, you can reap the benefits of greater clarity, stronger unity, and improved agility. In turn, these three people factors help accelerate strategy execution in your organization, according to the authors of Strategic Speed: Mobilize People, Accelerate Execution

Plus, you’re engaging with employees, which helps them keep focused on all of your key priorities, not just your current change initiative. Just make sure you’re staying focused too. After all, neuroscientist Brian Knutson is wondering whether the survival of the fittest now means the survival of the most focused. With the Internet and all of its interesting interruptions, we have so many temptations for our time.

So what’s your favorite time sink app? Oops. I should be asking: What’s your experience with social media and organizational change? Also, please join me in Orlando May 1 -4 at the global ACMP (Association of Change Management Professionals) conference. The keynoters are John Kotter, Admiral Thad Allen, and Daryl Conner. I’m speaking on “Tweet This: Leveraging social media for organizational change.”

About Liz

Liz Guthridge of Connect Consulting Group works with leaders to influence employees to get on board with change. She helps leaders gain clarity around change so they can share their vision, explain their goals, and clearly articulate their “ask” of their team members, peers, and other employees who often don’t work for them.

Liz has years of experience turning change initiatives from exercises in frustration to success stories, including counseling leaders on how to build their credibility. Liz also is an early adopter of social media, successfully using it in her own business as well as advising her clients and their workforces on how to maximize its effectiveness. As a change consultant to salesforce.com, she’s been using Chatter since the company launched it in early 2010.

You can email Liz at liz.guthridge@connectconsultinggroup.com, text her at 510.918.5322, or follow her at www.twitter.com/lizguthridge. She also blogs at www.connectconsultinggroup.com/category/blog

Letter From: Paul Larsen Membership Director-Let's Connect

Tuesday in June dawned with a cool mist draping over the boundaries of the ancient city of Hanoi, Vietnam. With a moderate temperature of 55 degrees Fahrenheit and a patchy blue sky, it looked to be another fair and quiet day in this serene capital of this southeastern Asian country. A sleepy town that takes awhile to wake up, you can stroll the city in the morning and not see anyone else or hear a car or scooter for hours on end.

AND THEN…I WOKE UP…!

In reality, the chaos and stifling heat and humidity that is summertime in modern-day Hanoi is a symbolism of life as a whole. Vibrant is too boring of a word to describe the street scene that is this metropolis of almost 7 million. Life is not hidden, it is lived right out in the open and on the jammed streets, alleyways and sidewalks for all to experience. Sights, sounds, colors, smells…there is something here to entice the curiosity of all of our senses.

I was in Vietnam to teach English at a SOS Children’s Village, a well-run orphanage outside of Hanoi. I was part of a small project team volunteering my time with a great organization called Global Volunteers, which provides community-based “volunteer vacations” around the world. Our task was to create and teach a full two-week summer school English workshop for about 50 Vietnamese children ranging in age from 8 to 14. And by-the-way, I do not know any Vietnamese.

Now, as an OD practitioner with solid some corporate experience as part of my legacy, I have often found myself in some uncomfortable, sensitive and unpredictable works situations. But as we have been trained to do, we follow our models, our agendas, our outlines and most importantly, our gut…and we eventually succeed with our purpose. But this past June, with 100 sets of “young” eyes watching my every move with extreme curiosity and eagerness…all of my models, agendas and outlines “flew out” the dusty window of the classroom and my gut found itself very much alone. And that is where the magic began.

In OD, we are blessed to be able to work with a wide-variety of experienced and incredibly talented colleagues. We are also lucky to work in a field that is ever-changing and deals with getting people and organizations to connect with their purpose, values, vision, principles, and ______(fill in the blank with a word of your choice). That day…in that Vietnamese classroom with those students, I learned the true value of connecting. I didn’t have a model, book or diagram. I didn’t have a laptop or smartphone or lcd projector. All I had was my years of experience as a person….one that has been blessed with many rich experiences…reaching out to connect with these young students of a distinctly different culture and life history. And isn’t that what we do everyday in od? Use our experience to assess and facilitate change…no matter how big or small?

In that hot and muggy classroom…a connection was made at a level that required no technology. We connected at a level that required no model or flow chart. We connected at a level that required no tweet, status update or online profile. We connected as humans who wanted to learn from and understand each other. And in doing so we made our global community a little smaller.

In today’s 24x7 world, we have every technological means available to us to connect with each other. But it seems that the more ways we have to connect, the less real connecting we are doing as people. We are so busy tapping into our BlackBerrys or “friending” someone on our iPhones, that we are losing the opportunity (and some would say) the true skill of connecting. It is this art of creating “simple connections” that was my biggest lesson from this experience. Here I was thousands of miles away from my “nest” in a completely different country with different values and norms, yet I was making an impact with these students and they were certainly making an impact on me. The roles of teacher and student were blurred at times, since I was allowing my true “od-self” to adsorb, evolve and learn as we progressed through the weeks. I came away from the project a more fulfilled person who can appreciate the need we have to connect as people and who will want to bring these lessons into my evolving practice as an od professional.

After my short tenure in Vietnam, it is no wonder organizations and their community members need our services, since we can help in fulfilling a very basic need for all…the need to connect. Connection leads to change. Change leads to progress. Progress is required for individuals and organizations to not become obsolete. You don’t need to go as far as I did to experience this art of creating simple connections….try it the next time you are home or in a client environment. It requires no technology or sign-in, all it requires is the thirst and willingness to explore…and as od practitioners, that is something I know we all are passionate to do. And we certainly have the capability.

I look forward to “connecting” with all of our BAodn members and the expanding OD community as your new Membership Director this year. Onwards and upwards...

Let's Ponder: Are introverts at a Disadvantage in Organizational Life?

Are these famous people introverted or extraverted? (answers at end of blog)  For the reclusive nerds among you, they are Mia Farrow, Michael Jordan, Steven Spielberg, and Warren Buffet). Images from Wikipedia.
 
Are Introverts at a disadvantage in organizational life?
For me the answer is: Often but not always. My art teacher shares how as a art student he opened the door to a class with a naked model. He quickly stammered an apology then exited to the studio next door and ended up specializing in still-lifes! Or consider the senior manager whose direct report is unfairly criticized in public by the boss, and does not think in time to mount a defense and the moment is lost. These are experiences that most introverts would recognize and identify with.

In this blog I will develop an understanding of what introversion really is and in later blogs will offer practical suggestions for introverts seeking to increase their impact, and also some helpful tips for managers and OD practitioners.
 
Why do introverts have a bad press?
The answer is because introverts are easily stereo-typed negatively. “He’s such an introvert! He is so shy and aloof, he has nothing to say for himself." Compare this with: "She is such an extrovert, she is such fun always talking and laughing.” How often have you heard, or used such descriptions of other people? Even academic researchers have fallen into this trap. They stress the negatives in being introverted and the see only the positive of extroversion.

From the moment we are born we live and work in a social context whether it is family, school, university or work. It can be hard being an introvert in a socialized world. Introverts suffer from a bad press but this is unfair, inaccurate and not in our collective best interests especially in an organizational context.
 
So what is introversion?
Introversion-extroversion was first used by Carl Jung in 1922 to describe the flow of psychological energy that characterizes a person (the flow is either primarily focused outside of the person or focused within the person). Today, Introversion-Extroversion is one of the Big Five Personality Dimensions.

The The Big Five was a break-through in personality research in the late Eighties and it is widely accepted in the scientific community that these five dimensions are essential to describe accurately a person’s personality in a way that can be measured and verified. The great advantage of the Big Five Personality Dimensions is that it gives us a common base for extensive research studies to be objectively compared and synthesized across different times and contexts.

The top 5 things we know about Introversion
1. All of us vary in our disposition to behave in an introverted way or an extroverted way. Some of us are extreme maladaptive introverts (or extroverts), others are mildly one or the other. Our introversion is more to do with how we handle excitement and stimulation rather than with sociability per se.

2. Some of us are skilled closet introverts, lively at work and zombies at home. On their favorite topics introverts can out-talk most extroverts. The trouble is extroverts can out-talk introverts on almost everything else!

3. The disposition to be introverted is largely genetic (in fact we now know that 50% of the variation in personality in any population is genetic). How that disposition manifests itself in any person is the result of interacting early-life experiences from the womb onwards, combined with life events, circumstances and personal choices, i.e. the other 50%.

4. There are identifiable differences in the brain structures of people who are clearly introverted (40%) and those who are extroverted (60%). More on this later.

5. In evolutionary terms, the disposition towards action-orientation and sociability clearly contributed to the survival of early hominid groups. The later evolution of a minority within those groups having a reflective thought-orientation clearly contributed further to the survival of the groups who ultimately became us.

Extroverts! You owe us!
In my next blog, I will summarize the scientific research on introversion-extroversion covering everything from happiness and humor to excitability, learning and career success. Then we will be ready to examine the implications for us as OD practitioners. And the implications for being seen as miserable, pessimistic, party-poopers when we truly are interesting, creative, thoughtful people.

Careful what you say in response, I am an introvert and proud of it.

Answers: All four are introverts of course. You see life is better with us than without us.